Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive898

Apparent reference abuse in Indian music/actor articles
has been an active creator and editor of articles related to Indian actors and actresses (many of whom also have a singing career) and their associated films. However, their contributions have been markedly suboptimal. Specifically, seemingly cognizant of the need to provide references, all of these articles do just that—but the references provided rarely, if ever, make even passing mention of the topic of the article. They do not support the claims that they cite. Rather, this is pure reference abuse, making the appearance of cited sources to avoid quick-deletion processes like BLP-PROD or CSD. Several have been deleted recently, and another has only just appeared at AFD due to a defective prior listing. It is worth noting that the deletion nominator of all these articles, is clearly not a native speaker of English; his complaints about "invalid URLs" may have allowed others to overlook or disregard the actual nature of the problem.

This situation is ongoing. JithDominicJose04's most recent creation was two days ago. Unni maya ( Singer ) suffers from precisely the same reference manipulation problem as the deleted articles listed above. In this case, it is possible that the topic of the article was intended to be "Devi Unnimaya", who is at least mentioned in the first linked source. However, sources that appear to actually support establishing notability (like the one for her purported involvement in Rani Padmini, do not mention "Unni" or "Maya" or anything that could remotely be interpreted as referring to this article's topic). Most of these articles don't have even that level of support in the "references".

JithDominicJose04 has never posted to an article Talk page, a User Talk page, nor have they participated in any of the extremely numerous deletion discussions for their articles (see their Talk, which is surely not comprehensive), except to strip deletion templates. Competence is required, especially in articles like these, where WP:BLP is potentially at play. It is also worth noting that there's a probably sock account,. raised the issue with both accounts in late June, but naturally, no communication was forthcoming. The Jithdominic account has been inactive since July but remains unblocked.

I hate having to be here, but this is taking up a lot of time at AFD and, frankly, I would consider every single contribution this account has made as suspect. Fraudulent sourcing and reference manipulation can be challenging to detect and are in significant conflict with the project's goals. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Just noting that there may be copyvio and promotional editing concerns too. For example the article KKonnect 24x7, (correctly) deleted as A7, was a cut-n-paste of the second para here. Cannot take a deeper dive at the moment so pinging who live for such stuff. Abecedare (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Spiff got me involved with that, with the promise of money. I have yet to see a dime. Why don't you ping ? or ? Drmies (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked at the four AfDs. These are indeed serious concerns. I had a quick look at Unni maya ( Singer ), where two or three of the "references" do mention (yes) the person, though spelled entirely differently. At the very least there is some serious incompetence here, and this editor should not be creating articles until they a. have better command over the language and b. use reliable sources properly. I have not looked for copyvios--I assume someone here can plug this stuff into a URL and come up with some answer. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I know there have been at least some copyvio issues. In addition to the one Abecedare mentions above, they got pinged by CorenSearchBot for Bol Baby Bol ( Surya Tv) and Dj Vispi back in June and July. And their image uploads are problematic. A whole bunch of uploaded images are up for deletion at Commons as is another slate of them uploaded by the other account. Commons missed this one so far; there's some chutzpah in claiming a watermarked image as own-work. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that every image they've ever uploaded is a copyright issue falsely tagged. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Add WP:COI concerns to the mix. See Draft:Jith Dominic Jose (created by one of the accounts, citing a website run by article subject) about producer of film Smrithi (edited by both reported accounts), with music by Unni maya ( Singer ) etc. And KKonnect 24x7 is also, er, connected (off-wiki evidence). User:Sanilps62's edits  also need review. Abecedare (talk)
 * You mean the Sanilps62 who created Jith_Dominic_Jose? Hmm, yes, the plot thickens. Can we get CU to come by, and block a whole bunch of them at the same time? I think it's blocking time--promotion, copyright violations, incompetence, socking. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary and update Sanilps62 is clearly related to the Jith accounts, but given the autobiographical stub Sanil ps that he created, this may be a case of meat-puppetry rather than socking. JithDominicJose04 and Jithdominic are obvious socks and the latter has been blocked by Spaceman. And there are more accounts involved eg, so CU search would definitely help. In any case, here is the list of articles created by the users that still remain:
 * I think has typed what I wanted to a few threads above. I've been meaning to look into this a while back when I first saw these odd articles and the associated A1/A7s but it slipped my mind after a few image deletions at Commons. I hadn't seen the copyvio bit earlier. If sockpuppetry is suspected (and I did) Commons is a better place to figure it out as there are at least a couple more more throwaway accounts with image uploads over there. I suspect this problem might have started at ml.wiki and Josu4u followed the ed from over there to here. &mdash;Spaceman Spiff  02:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Unni maya ( Singer ) (at AFD)
 * 2) Arun Shekhar (at AFD)
 * 3) Rajaganapathy (now a redirect)
 * 4) Vaishnav Girish (now a redirect)
 * 5) Pranav Pradeep (at AFD)
 * 6) Unto the Dusk (at AFD)
 * 7) Aakashvani (film) (at AFD)
 * 8) Saniya Iyappan (at AFD)
 * 9) Anju Kurian (at AFD)
 * 10) Ajith Mathew (at AFD)
 * 11) Anu Krishna (at AFD)
 * 12) Draft:Anu Krishna
 * 13) Hari Baskaran Rathnam (now a redirect)
 * 14) Hari Bhaskaran Rathinam (at AFD)
 * 15) Draft:Theertha Vinod
 * 16) Daniel Annie Pope (at AFD)
 * 17) M Chandramohan (at AFD)
 * 18) Sidharth Prabhu (at AFD)
 * 19) Sunu Lakshmi
 * 20) Draft:Sunu Lakshmi
 * 21) Hemachandran (actor) (at AFD)
 * 22) Draft:Jith Dominic Jose
 * 23) Theertha Vinod (at AFD)
 * 24) Palakkattu Madhavan (at AFD)
 * File:Jayan Cherthala Actor.jpg
 * 1) Smrithi (at AFD)
 * 2) Meen (2015 film) (at AFD)

Unless someone is willing to just IAR-delete the bunch, help needed to review the articles individually and decide if prod, AFD, speedy-deletion, redirection, merge, or clean-up are appropriate. Any objections to indeffing User:JithDominicJose04 and User:Kreativekkonnect for socking and mass COI/disruptive editing? PS Can't review this area w/o running into promotional/paid /COI editing at every turn. Example, see promoting Reelmonk; or article history of Viviya Santh. Abecedare (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * SPI filed at Sockpuppet investigations/JithDominicJose04. I've blocked a couple of accounts as obvious socks. There's obviously way too much COI and paid editing here, I don't see the value of replicating this discussion at COIN which is already overloaded. &mdash;Spaceman Spiff  16:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for realizing the truth. I reviewed the articles mentioned above and all the articles except Arun Shekhar used references as abuse (also: almost all references used are from gossip websites/paid article creating websites) and i feel there's no importance of all that articles in Wikipedia, if these Articles are not deleted from Wikipedia all visitors will surely feel that anyone can create Articles about themselves, and there's no-one in Wikipedia to remove these kinds of abuse. Hope Wikipedia admins will remove the articles except Arun Shekhar and keep the trust in Wikipedia to a higher level.Josu4u (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On a spot-check I believe you are right about the sources. I have nominated Smrithi for deletion and will start looking over the others. Help would be welcome! Abecedare (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Update OK, I have reviewed all the above listed articles and all mainspace creations are at AFD (or redirected), except for Sunu Lakshmi who may be notable enough (although article needs clean-up). Interested editors are invited to participate at the AFDs. Note that more potential members of this PR group have been identified at the SPI; their sock/meat-puppetry remains to be confirmed and their edits need to be reviewed. Finally, does anyone know what CSD criteria can be used to delete the duplicate/autobiographical draft articles in AFC space? Abecedare (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , you may want to check the link with Sockpuppet investigations/Sanju Vishnudas. &mdash;Spaceman Spiff  19:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Articles I found to be used reference abuse by the user are :
 * Hello everyone, I know its not the right place to report this. Now i found another user who creates articles similar to this discussion, This is the user page.
 * 1) Sulakshana Khatri
 * 2) Chaar Choughi
 * 3) Mere Angne Mein
 * 4) Faraaz Khan
 * 5) Satrangi Sasural
 * 6) Loveleen Kaur Sasan

Some of the articles use references as YouTube, some others use some gossip websites. Hope someone check check these and will report these articles to the concerned Wikipedia team.

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. 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)

If the Wikipedian cannot comply with the Terms of Use due to some special circumstance, it is the Wikipedian's responsibility to refrain from editing until such time as it is possible to remedy that circumstance, or until the relevant rule has been modified or amended. Deliberate violation of the clearly delineated Terms of Use should result in blocking the user's editorial privileges.166.173.248.141 (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * @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)


 * 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, 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * And if they are banned, then does that solve the problem? And by the problem, I mean, of bad apples doing paid editing without disclosing who is paying them the money.  CorporateM is getting paid by TopicOfArticle, in most cases.  That the money CorporateM is getting, comes via their employer the HypotheticalSmallPrFirm, is an additional factoid, sure.  Do we also wish to know, as further additional factoids, what specific banking institution, is cutting the cheques here, since the money is quite literally in reality coming from the bank of the TopicOfTheArticle, and thence to the bank of HypotheticalSmallPrFirm, and thence to the bank of the editor known hereabouts as CorporateM?  It is perfectly legal for wikipedia ToU to demand disclosure of the routing numbers, of all the connected bank accounts, although obviously it would not be ethical.  The three banks ... or more or fewer as the case may be ... are just financial service organizations, and their legal names and physical addresses and routing numbers and other such factoids have no impact whatsoever, upon the nature of the COI editing under discussion here.  The editing is COI, because TopicOfTheArticle is shelling out money, period.
 * The reason to demand the disclosure of HypotheticalSmallPrFirm, one may presume, is on the suspicion -- without evidence -- that maybe just maybe CorporateM is sekritly organizing a meatpuppet army, and if we force disclosure of the HypotheticalSmallPrFirm, we can then easily find all of CorporateM's co-workers, since they also are forced to disclose! Brilliant!  Insert sarcastic comment about how well that scheme will work in practice, to actually wiki-apprehend bad apples running meatpuppet-farms.  That said, you most definitely are correct that if we are to force disclosure of the employer, the specific name of the employer is very much needed -- just saying something vague like "the PR firm hired by TopicOfTheArticle" is not enough to count as full disclosure, because in some cases there are more than one PR firm working with a given company, and more pertinently, over time there are almost certainly going to be multiple sequential PR firms working therewith.  The question is, do we as wikipedians *need* to know the specific name (and from there the specific legal physical address via governmental filings that all corporations must file) of the HypotheticalSmallPrFirm which is the employer or CorporateM, or is it enough to know that the people paying the bills are TopicOfTheArticle, and the means with which those USD-or-Euro-equivalents are transmitted from the pockets of TopicOfTheArticle, to the pockets of CorporateM, are irrelevant?  I suggest the latter, but the ToU as currently written requires the former. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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:
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I disclose a great deal more than Corprate does and I do not accept money for editing. It is not a high bar we are requesting they meet. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * What do you mean by "need for precision conflicted with existing medical documentation"? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

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. " 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Wily D  14:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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&cent; 14:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (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.


 * 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)
 * Uh.... Smallbones, quite obviously the recent change to the ToU is causing CorporateM to be forced into a choice. That's not a "choice" in the language used on this particular enWiki website, unless you count Hobson's choice.  But in fact, the most likely outcome is that CorporateM will be forced -- not by choice but by the newly-revised ToU -- into creating a Delaware-based holding corporation, which does not disclose investors, and which is legally the property of the one-person PR firm which actually employs CorporateM.  Thenceforth, the human known here as CorporateM can say, with a straight face, that they are "an employee of PrivacyProtectionShimCorp, working for client NameOfThisArticle" ... all without ever revealing their real-life identity.  If you think this is hypothetical, please be aware that I've seen this happen all the time in political situations:  major megadonor wants to contribute to the campaign, but FEC requires all donations above $200 to include name of megadonor and name of megadonor's employer, so instead of donating directly to campaign in question, megadonor has their lawyers fill out the paperwork for a shell-corp, and then the donation is made in the name of said shell-corp.  Similarly, many (and I mean MANY MANY) presidential campaigns use "nonprofit foundations" with no donor-disclosure requirements, as a loophole for skirting FEC regulations.  Wikipedia's new ToU is encouraging socking, either in the traditional sense of using multiple usernames without disclosing the linkage between them, or more likely in my estimation, in the shell-corp-as-a-privacy-protection-sockpuppet sense.  As was noted by Dennis Brown, the new WMF regulation is (much like the FEC regulation) simply going to punish the good apples like CorporateM, whilst the bad apples -- who already have sockfarms and already regularly violate the ToU and the five pillars with impunity -- could care less about the latest wiki-rule.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Comment It would seem that full disclosure is required. However, it is not stated that this needs to be in public. Is it possible that {u|CorporateM}} could make such disclosure to WMF privately. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure is required MastCell sums it up perfectly for me. -- Shudde talk 00:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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


 * 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.  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)


 * 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. 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

WMF's position
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)


 * 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)


 * 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." Sarah (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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&cent; 18:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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&cent; 18:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. &#8209; iridescent 19:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * "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)


 * @ 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)

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)


 * , 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)


 * 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)


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


 * , 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , the only firm I'm aware of that has done PR for Align Technology is Gold PR, but that's not a one-woman company. Sarah (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * look at this page or this or this or this or a number of other pages and you'll see Ethos Commnications Inc. of Duluth, Georgia. BMK (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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. —Мандичка YO 😜 12:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh for goodness sake, your argument is silly. Read the TOU, please. BMK (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The TOU are laughable. Say I'm a paid editor. I will disclose I work for Acme Public Relations and we were hired by John Smith and Jane Doe. There you go. It's bullshit but I've now complied with the TOU!  —Мандичка YO 😜 07:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Closure
CorporateM appears to have recused himself from. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 - most probably because he is bound by contractual terms that prevent him from doing so, which would mean he needs time to amend those with his clients, and may not be at liberty to discuss it with the ANI peanut gallery until it is done. MLauba (Talk) 17:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If so, it perfectly illustrates the problem with paid editing: conflicting loyalties. In any case, what is to prevent him from saying exactly what you just said? BMK (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but that does not mean we have to play the game of immoveable object v. irresistable force - CorporateM now understands the issue and will fix the issue for this article by walking away. Problem solved, IMO. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The policy is stupid. If the edit would otherwise be allowed under the rules, who cares if it's being done for someone else? Apparently entirely too many people with nothing better to do. Jtrainor (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Endorse (as uninvolved users were requested)- there's no way to resolve the issue otherwise, and the rest will work itself out. The reason we're not a suitable source for citation for papers is because things are constantly changing here.  We just don't like for it to take time; we want what we want and we want it NOW!! (or yesterday).  Therefore, any issues there are now will work themselves out over time.  We seem to think that what we write is set in stone, always accurate, and should be relied upon as legitimate advice, when in reality we don't make that claim and never have. MSJapan (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No Endorse - I am uninvolved in this particular mess, so I'll give my views, which I have expressed elsewhere. The Terms of Use are the ultimate law here. Paid editing is an abomination and I don't buy the argument that we have to endure it or the paid editors will go underground. If they do, the WMF should apply enforcement. Is this an encyclopedia, or a Public Relations website? Jus da fax   10:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is paid editing an abomination? The idea here is to build an encyclopedia, and that encyclopedia should abide by WP:5P, including neutrality. If paid editing helps towards that goal (including the neutrality aspect) then it is a benefit, not a hindrance. Money is changing hands, but our encyclopedia gets extra stuff for free. What is an abomination, of course, is POV pushing, marketing, and attempts by companies and individuals to falsely paint themselves in a better light than is backed up by reliable sources. As long as the COI editor discloses fully who he or she is working for, and what the nature of the COI is, on every page edited in a COI manner, so that other editors can monitor it, then I have no problem with it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, and if I had my way paid editing would be absolutely banned, but it isn't so we have to deal with this in the usual way: a Wikipedia fudge that recognises the world as it is, rather than as we'd wish it to be. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes and No. I'm certainly fine with endorsing the topic ban from Invisalign, but I don't think that being instituted actually provides closure regarding the topic of the original thread, which was "Does CM have to disclose what the ToU say he has to disclose with regard to the work he has done/is doing?" Now, he's said that going forward, he will provide all relevant disclosures, so that part of it can be put to bed, but I am still a little concerned about the lack of disclosures thus far. Not believing the ToU applied to you is not an excuse to not have followed them, nor is it an excuse for not going back to bring your work up to the ToU's disclosure standards. I would vastly prefer that CM go back and disclose all required disclosure details to any paid edits he has made since the ToU were instituted and/or they began to apply to him. On the other hand, I understand that he may have mistakenly given privacy guarantees to his clients, and that to provide these disclosures now may harm his business. I dislike the idea of real-world harming someone who was trying to play by our rules, even if they messed it up. So it seems to me we have a couple of options here, with regard to the partially-undisclosed work CM has done in the past: we can ignore it, extending him one-time amnesty for this failure with the understanding he will disclose in his work going forward; we can require him to go back and provide all relevant disclosures, which may have the effect of making him choose between onwiki sanctions (for not cooperating with a requirement to do so) and real-world ones (for breaking contracts with his clients); or we can require that CM provide retroactive disclosures where he is contractually able to do so, and that he attempt to negotiate permission to do so in cases where he currently can't, and then we can extend him the good faith of forgiving any past disclosures he remains unable to make after doing those two things. If, after that, people wish to attempt to use onwiki processes to deal with articles he can't fully disclose on, that's up to the community (but I suspect it would ultimately be unsuccessful, as CM's work is generally pretty good otherwise). The last option seems like the best balance to me: CM owes the community at least his best attempt to provide ToU-compliant disclosure on all his paid work, but mistakes happen and I would rather have someone commit to not making the same mistake in the future than eliminate them and their future, non-mistaken work from the project. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It wrong to suppose that CorportaeM has been "Not believing the ToU applied" to him. CorporateM explained in April "I explicitly and knowingly do not comply with the requirement to disclose any marketing agencies involved, when there is one.". See User talk:CorporateM/Archive 20. Thincat (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I...what...ok, wow. That puts a different spin on things; I have been operating on the assumption that - and CM's initial statement in this thread certainly implied that - he believed he wasn't required to disclose what he wasn't disclosing. I'm much less willing to extend amnesty to someone who consciously chose to not follow what they knew to be the rules. If he was writing contracts guaranteeing confidentiality while knowing he was misleading his clients about Wikipedia's Terms of Use, it's not the community's responsibility to bend over backwards to keep him from the consequences of his own choices. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , can you comment here, please? Sarah (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I believe somewhere in this string I explained that I knew I was violating the technical letter of the Terms of Use, but the feedback I got from Wikipedians and a WMF staffer when the ToU were created was that common sense was triumphant; that since my disclosure did not fall under "deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation" that the ToU were intended to prevent, that this was fine. Astroturfing firms have sometimes used privacy arguments to justify their tactics and I have always argued that there is a way to protect privacy/confidentiality, while also avoiding the deception the ToU are referring to. It seems sentiment has changed.
 * It is very frustrating to participate in a discussion in which I have strong views, but discussion is not going my way and I have no intention in endlessly arguing in my defense. I'm moving on. CorporateM (Talk) 21:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't understand why Corporate M is so worried about his identity being disclosed. Unless I'm hallucinating, he's attended WMF sponsored events under his real name, and I'm pretty sure he's openly written about and been on podcasts (such as Wikipedia Weekly) under his real name.  I can't imagine what harm would come from requiring him to disclose? Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Kevin, the issue is that CM doesn't want to say who is paying him to edit., thank you for the response. The problem is that you're working on articles (e.g. Yelp) after saying there is a COI but without specifying the nature of it. You've said elsewhere that this might mean you're being paid, or are doing what you've called pro bono work, or have some other association, so it leaves people none the wiser. The question here is whether you're willing to say who is paying you to work on the articles you accept payment for. Sarah (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, yeah, I misread the initial worry as his name versus his client's name. Disclosure of client's names certainly seem to be necessary,  especially since presumably politicians will be involved in paid editing sooner or later (to the extent that they aren't already,) it really does seem that disclosure of the actual client is required. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The case in question is an example where I disclosed having a financial connection with the article-subject's PR agency, but didn't identify the agency by name. Another example was when I was hired by a family member of the BLP and I said I was hired by "a concerned relative", but didn't identify them by name. In another case, I am working with the article-subject's daughter who is handling her affairs and I don't feel her daughter's involvement is something Wikipedians need to know. In all cases a COI is disclosed, just not the names of individuals. CorporateM (Talk) 22:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing: what you feel and don't feel isn't the operative point here. By editing Wikipedia, and accepting payment for doing so, you are saying that you will abide by the Terms of Use, which you acknowledge require you to disclose the things you're choosing not to reveal. If someone wants to pay you to edit Wikipedia, they need to be ok with having their identity revealed accordingly, and I would assume they know this, because an ethical paid editor would be informing their clients what is required of them. The disclosure is not optional; it's not a judgment call you get to make. Either you abide by the ToU or you don't use the website, and the more you go on about how your feelings and preferences overrule the ToU, the less it sounds like you're interested in playing by the (quite lenient, given that they don't prohibit you profiting off the project or bar you from editing articles) rules. You can't just say "Ok guys, I'm done with this discussion, I'm tired of talking", because the point you're leaving on is "I don't have to abide by the ToU if I don't think it's necessary, and I don't happen to think it's necessary a lot of the time. But I'll totally do it sometimes, probably,", and if that's the only ground you're willing to give - that you'll probably abide by the ToU in the future, if you think it's relevant and you haven't promised your client otherwise - it's not enough for me, for one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, he disclosed the ultimate client, but did not/would not disclose the name of the agency though whom the work was contracted. His stance seems to have been that since the ultimate source of the money was disclosed, the name of the middleman was not relevant and would not in fact be demanded, even if technically required. He apparently had some grounds to think that, and it is IMO not an outlandish position. But in this thread it was not accepted. DES (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't about one case or about exposing individuals. CM's practice is to say that he has a COI, without specifying the nature of it. He then proceeds to rewrite the article, and asks other editors to copy the drafts over, so that whole articles are being written on behalf of the subjects. This is especially tricky when dealing with medical issues. Respecting the spirit of the bright line, and naming who is paying for the edits, would help a lot. At Yelp, for example: is someone paying, and if so, is it Yelp or is it a PR company? We need this information for each article. (Pinging, who has been editing there.) Sarah (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether the rule was well thought through or well written, it remains quite clear, all three must be disclosed. While most normal people would understand the conflict if you said I'm working for X while editing X's product article means you may well be biased to its good. And the normal people also would understand if you said I'm working for X's (un-named) PR company doing the same thing to mean the same thing. But alas, the standards for disclosure are aimed to essentially make it virtually impossible for you to remain anonymous under your circumstances, so perhaps your effort would be better served not editing where you're conflicted and not fully disclosed or work to change the policy before continuing. For whatever reason, the powers that be want full disclosure beyond what a normal person would probably need to assume/impute the bias/conflict, so you either play by those rules or use someone else's website. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just noticed the ping. Yes, CorporateM has to abide by the TOU, and I don't recall specifically how good his disclosure there has been. His behavior on the talk page there has irritated me because he has been off-the-charts aggressive in advancing the company's interests on the talk page, bringing RfC after RfC and generally behaving in a manner extremely wearisome to those of us who don't have a COI but are simply interested (in my case mildly) by the subject matter. CM actually invited me to that page and I assume he regrets having done so as my patience with him there has reached its limits. But to get back to this topic, he has to disclose his employer, including the name of the PR company employing him, and not wikilawyer about it. Either he is transparent or he doesn't edit the article. Coretheapple (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And your comment, Core, perfectly illustrates why paid editing must be ended and rooted out with determination. A paid editor, bank accounts augmented by special interest cash, has all the time and energy in the world to game Wikipedia with every tactic permissible to achieve their clients' goals, while protected by "Assume good faith" rules that are rendered absurd by fiduciary renumeration. Or to put it more bluntly, paid editors are, by definition, bribed to wear volunteer editors down. Corporate M simply needs to, as you say, come clean. Since to do so threatens his livelihood, he will not. My patience is not only exhausted by such self-evident COI editing, it is also strained to the limit by the failure of editors here to demand that the hard work of volunteer editors is protected from mercenaries pushing public relations propaganda. This failure to put an end to the flood of slanted editing is a grave danger to the concept of a truly free source of honest information, the core goal of Wikipedia, and threatens to drive away volunteer editors, leaving behind tireless foot soldiers for monied interests. Jus da fax   10:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Endorse - He had the class to just walk away, surely we can as well. His intention wasn't to slide by with any wrong doing, he said he now gets it, lets not flog him.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't something I particularly want to keep going, but I only realized yesterday that CorporateM outed himself on 12 August on the Wikiconference USA site, six days before he opened this thread. His interpretation of this thread – that we forced him to out himself, and that therefore he can't continue to do volunteer work – doesn't reflect that chronology. It has left me confused about what the problem is here., we need a clear commitment that you'll disclose employer and client for any paid contribution. Part of the point of this, as was explained to me when the TOU came into force, is that it helps us keep track of which PR firms are paying for content. Sarah (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What a fascinating timeline indeed. Thanks for the update, SV. The class to run away, more likely. Disclosed paid editing just means that many business interests play at disclosure to look transparent, while socking like mad. I'm afraid I'm getting a very bad feeling from all this. Jus <font color="C1118C">da <font color="#0000FF">fax   07:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Best practice for Paid Contribution Disclosure
I wonder if some of this could have been prevented with a better FAQ, better information at WP:PCD and better templates to make this easier. The FAQ and PCD both give a list of options - disclose on user page, disclose on article or disclose on edit summary. That may be the minimum, but I'd like to see a preferred option listed at PCD as a "best practice" for what to disclose when and where. Ideally, I'd like to see something like:
 * Full disclosure of all articles a user is paid to edit on their user page (or sub page prominently linked)
 * Full disclosure for a particular on the article talk page
 * Something in the edit summary that says this is a paid edit (even just "Paid edit" at the start)

The Connected contributor was suggested on WP:COIN as a means of disclosure but it doesn't include everything needed for a ToU disclosure. I think specific templates for such disclosures might reduce some confusion, help more paid editors remain in compliance and improve the ability to identify those edits. The templates could add categories to users and to article talk pages that would indicate this user is a paid editor / this article has edits from a paid editor. Thoughts?  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of editors prefer that paid editors list the work they have done for pay on their user page, in one place. In my view, that is where the primary disclosure should happen.  The Connected contributor template has a parameter for "otherlinks" and what I generally put there is a link to the disclosure (so that would be a link to the dif where the paid editor disclosed that particular "client, employer and affiliation".  The ToU are not rocket science. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, I'm currently working on this template. If anyone has anything they wish for me to add, drop me a note on my talk and I'll see if I can pop it into the code. Mdann52 (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you be able to do something to fix paid so that there's a space for employer and client? That would separate paid contributions from a general COI, and would make it easy to see on talk pages which companies have paid for content. Sarah (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible legal threat
Hi all, would this edit summary by count as a legal threat? Thanks, <font color="#009933">My<font color="#009933">name <font color="#009933">is<font color="4000FF"> not <font color="#009933">dave (talk/contribs) 16:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is a legal threat, not even by our definition. <b style="color:DarkRed">Chillum</b> 16:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Nevertheless, the IP has created an account to do the work: see here. <font color="#009933">My<font color="#009933">name <font color="#009933">is<font color="4000FF"> not <font color="#009933">dave (talk/contribs) 16:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Given the large amount of edit warring being done by multiple IPs and new accounts that appear to be the same person for an extended period of time I have semi-protected the page temporarily. <b style="color:DarkRed">Chillum</b> 16:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There may well be other issues at play, and blocks and protections may need to be issued for those other reasons, but I also do not see it as a clear NLT issue. The phasing "the government of Uganda has spoken" could also be an attempt to cite a source of information.  Of course, that ALSO does not excuse edit warring, but it isn't a legal threat, at least not unambiguously so.  If he had said "The government of Uganda will deal with you if you put this back" or something like that, THEN we have an NLT issue.  But the phrasing used, while it could be interpreted as a threat, is also ambiguous enough that I wouldn't feel comfortable for using that as the rationale when issuing sanctions.  Sanctions, of course, may be well deserved under a multitude of other rationales.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

After I semi-protected the page it seems that a discussion has started on the talk page, I will keep an eye on the page. <b style="color:DarkRed">Chillum</b> 19:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope somebody will reply to what I have said on my talk page, but it's becoming increasingly unlikely. <font color="#009933">My<font color="#009933">name <font color="#009933">is<font color="4000FF"> not <font color="#009933">dave (talk/contribs) 21:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with what's said above. "The government has spoken" sounds to me like "The government already announced what happened", or "The government already announced its position" — in other words, "It's already possible to know the government's position on this matter".  I can't imagine someone understanding my rephrasings as legal threats.  Meanwhile, "The government of Uganda will deal with you if you put this back", or "You risk trouble from the government of Uganda if you do X" isn't necessarily a legal threat: it's perhaps saying "Watch out, because you can get yourself in trouble".  This sense isn't particularly different from saying "Stop infringing copyright on Wikipedia, because it makes you liable to a lawsuit by the copyright holder and possible criminal charges."  Of course it could also be a legal threat, but we can't make a blanket statement: we have to examine the context.  Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

User violating WP:NOTWEBHOST on his talk page
The user in question is User:Aerppab. After having some of their articles speedy deleted they are now reposting what appears to be the same content on their talk page, in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOT. This user appears to be here only to add their own original research to Wikipedia, whether in its own article(s) or as wikilinks to other articles (namely cosmology). This seems disruptive and so I think an admin should intervene. Everymorning (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Gave them a final warning. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Feuding between two COI editors
Over at WP:COIN, we have a dispute between two editors. BC1278 has an acknowledged conflict of interest regarding some Internet companies in Israel. Grump International denies a conflict of interest, but is involved mostly with articles about certain condo developments currently for sale, primarily, and , and bio articles about their architects. (Yes, this was the "integration of volumes that flow into each other, following a coherent formal language" ad, although that language has been removed.)

BC1278 has been toning down or proposing deletion of some of the Grump International articles, while Grump International has been proposing deletion of some articles created by BC1278. (Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo) The latter is probably retaliatory; the articles involved are old. There's some incivility bordering on harassment.

Grump International, while denying COI, is very insistent about the notability of the buildings in which he is interested, and their architects. Other than a few unrelated issues, that account is more or less an SPA. However, he makes a good case for notability. The buildings involved are very expensive (condos from $2 million to $20 million per unit), designed by famous architects, and have received press coverage due to extensive PR. On the other hand, they're not finished and occupied, and they don't really need to be in Wikipedia this early. Especially because the developers are trying to sell units before construction to finance the project. I'd be inclined to delete now per WP:CRYSTAL, and let them back into Wikipedia if and when they're built. Brickell Flatiron hasn't even broken ground yet. Wikipedia is being used here to sell real estate.

There may also be sockpuppets of Grump International, but it's hard to tell. Some people are just interested in buildings.

The editor behavior needs to be brought under control, which is AN/I's department. I think we can deal with the content issues at WP:COIN. Grump International needs to stop doing some things. Warn? Block? Topic ban? Up to AN/I. John Nagle (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with BC1278, and am willing to withdraw from the situation entirely. I put the article Ronen Shilo up for deletion via AFD, and have been attacked ever since, as it is one of BC1278's paid clients, and put a News Release banner atop the Conduit (company) article after someone else had already put a COI tag atop it. Beyond this initial act, I have been attacked over and over again by BC1278, and simply tried to defend myself, as I actually don't have a conflict of interest. But yes I'm only really interested in architecture. After a significant level of bullying, I made an effort to improve one of the only articles I have created that was PROD'd, after which the editor who PROD'd it did not move to AFD it, which I invited them to if they felt it was a good move. The other article that I added one edit to was PROD'd by the same editor, and then de-PROD'd by the person (who I do not know) who created it. If someone would like to edit any article I have edited, please feel free to do so. I do not WP:OWN them of course. If they should be deleted, please feel free to AFD them. Other than being constantly accused of being a bad person, by someone being paid to edit on behalf of Conduit (company), I haven't had any issue with Wikipedia. If you wish for me to stop engaging with BC1278, I will simply stop responding to him, as I have not once ever begun an engagement with them--I have simply responded to their posts about me. If this is being seen as disruptive, I am absolutely fine with engaging no further with BC1278, his articles, or his postings that repeatedly PING me on my page (I have pinged nobody in my entire interaction with them). I will not even ask for him to stop pinging or posting about me, I have no issue with just withdrawing. I will state outright that I have no confict of interest, and have never edited under any account but this one. Grump International (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also point out that the poster of this section is stating that my edits were retaliatory, but if you look at the timeline it was BC1278 that began his tirade against me after I made the posts on the Conduit and Ronen Shilo pages--I did not do this in response to anything that BC1278 did. BC1278 started going after me once I made the edits to pages that, unbeknownst to me, he is paid to maintain. I added the two edits on these dates August 18 August 20, followed by BC1278's first aggressive edits towards me five days later. Grump International (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * John Nagle's summary is correct except that I've never directly edited, tagged or proposed for deletion any articles with edits by Grump International. I no longer do direct editing on articles that have anything to do with business, even those where I don't have a COI, just to avoid the possibility of any issue under WP:COI (in a couple of instances editors have reviewed my proposed changes on Talk, then said I should make the edits directly, which I'll only do if they explicitly ask me.) I used Grump International's Talk page to point out the COI and promotional tone of their edits (a cluster around condos, their developers, management personnel and architects), then moved the discussion over to WP:COIN when he/she deleted the post. "Blatant promotion" was identified by User:Nagle on two articles. User: Ronz, who deleted Grump's specific content on Brickell Flatiron noted in the edit history: "coi, grossly undue at best - whole article needs rewrite with eye to SOAP and CRYSTAL." See the Brickell Flatiron: Revision history. User: B137 independently noted on Grump's talk page that their contribution was "borderline on spam", language Grump removed. See the full post by B137 in the revision history of Grump's Talk page. Please note that after Grump uploaded a photo of an architect in an article he created, that architect's firm e-mailed Wikipedia to give permission to use the photo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:3GATTI_Francesco_Gatti_photograph.jpg so I don't think there's any disputing that he/she has contact with subjects he writes about. (He explicitly denies even this aspect of COI at the bottom of the COIN post.]


 * User:Nagle proposed a couple of articles for deletion. Grump International's content was removed from one, Brickell Flatiron, (the article was not deleted after COIN editors found other reasons for notability, but Grump's contributed content was removed) and on the other 520 West 28th, Grump International removed the proposed deletion tag after adding new content, but without removing any of the identified promotional material. It was then I suggested to User: Nagle that admins needed to get involved in reviewing this account because the undisclosed COI editing was recurring after much notice about not putting promotional material into articles and disclosing COI.


 * The undisclosed COI overlaps with articles where I have a disclosed paid COI because at the time I complained on COIN, Grump International was using a largely single purpose account, with just a few promotional edits, to post simultaneously a deletion request, edit and post flags on articles that have come under repeated attacks over many years, to the point where they had to be placed under protection by admins. I pointed out on the deletion request page for WP:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo, where I a disclosed paid COI, that I don't think an undisclosed COI account, that shows evidence of possibly being a sock puppet because of its sophistication in Wikimedia mark up and policy relative to small number of edits (an observation originally made by admin User: Graeme Bartlett at WP:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo), should count toward consensus in the discussion of the article. Grump International made all his/her challenges almost immediately after User: Graeme Bartlett decided to split the article Conduit (publisher network and platform) into two articles (starting Conduit (company) because of the sale of the main platform discussed in the article). User: Graeme Bartlett used a draft I suggested on my sandbox, to start it off and asked other editors to help improve it, pointing out a disclosed COI editor was involved. User: Graeme Bartlett moved over the history of my sandbox, which show my edits there, but none of it was made on the article at Conduit (company). User: Graeme Bartlett also cleaned up Conduit (publisher network and platform) a bit, but it's an article with a very long history of editors inserting biased attacks backed up by unreliable sources like online discussion boards and single user blogs. Talk:Conduit (publisher network and platform) The violations were kept out by admins for years but mostly slipped back in after the article became unprotected. I've pointed out them out in its Talk page here: Talk:Conduit (publisher network and platform) There are plenty of serious criticisms of the company in the article backed up by WP:RELIABLE sources, but that doesn't mean other attacks backed by no sources, original research, online forums or other unreliable sources should also be allowed.


 * I bring this up because I suspected something was amiss with Grump International when he placed a "news release" flag on the split off article, Conduit (company), almost immediately after it was posted and, when I tried to engage with Grump International on the article's Talk page, asking him/her to point out any issues to me, or work through the article with me section by section, or make changes him/herself directly, they declined in a nasty way: "feel free to gut the article of non-neutral material and I'm sure the tag will be removed." I pointed out to Grump International the article had very little original content -- that it was split off of another article with dozens of contributors that had been heavily patrolled and protected by two admins for several years. But I said I'd be happy to help him improve it, or, encouraged him to do it him/herself. The reply was just that the entire article was "spam." Given the user's unwillingness to engage in discussion, the simultaneous deletion request for Shilo, and the long history of biased attacks on these articles, I looked up Grump International's account and found the suspect history I discuss on COIN. I'd strongly suggest a WP:Checkuser here if policy allows - I'm not sure what the standards are for that but as admin User: Graeme Bartlett has noted,User: Grump International "is almost a single purpose account, but one that looks to have had previous experience before using this login due to their knowledge of procedures here and skill in Wikimarkup." Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo


 * The subject of the Conduit (publisher network and platform) article approached me a few weeks ago and I found the state of the article's poorly sourced attacks now and over many years to be really egregious. They just put up with it because they had no idea what to do, even though it injured them very badly. I am a paid consultant to them - I agreed to help them if we strictly abided by WP:COI. I go beyond WP:COI by disclosing my real name and job history at User: BC1278. I don't do anything on Wikipedia that I wouldn't want revealed with my actual identity. I stay above board to the best of my abilities. When I began this account in 2014 I was a total novice without a clue but I've studied pretty vigorously over the past 18 months, interacted with a lot of experienced editors, and am just now feeling comfortable enough to complain about a serious issue with another editor. I'm trying to be proactive here because I think Wikipedia is very poorly served by undisclosed COI, personal bias and undisclosed alternate accounts, all of which can end up badly damaging the encyclopedia.BC1278 (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278


 * I'm not experienced enough to track how this happened, but User: Grump International's specific denials of the various types of COI and sock puppetry have been deleted or hidden from WP:COIN and I think it's important to note he went on the record to the following questions I'd seen, in part, on the COIN board. I asked: "a) Do you have any connection with any of the people or companies you have edited about? (by that I am asking if you know the people, if you work for the companies, or work for an agency that works for/with the people or companies); b) Have you ever been paid, or expect to be paid, for editing Wikipedia?; c) Do you have an alternate account(s) on Wikipedia (or IP addresses used as accounts) and if so, what are they?; d) Have you contributed to Conduit (publisher network and platform) using an account other than User: Grump International?; d) If you don't have alternate accounts, given your small number of edits and almost total lack of interaction with other editors prior to your mark ups and nomination for deletion of Shilo, how/when did you acquire your Wikipedia mark up and policy skills, evident in the deletion nomination of Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo, the mark up and Talk discussion in Conduit (company) and your own tirade against COI editing on your use Talk page User talk:Grump International?" User: Grump International answered: "... Answering your Questions? a) no, b) no, c) no, d) no, e) Wikipedia is not rocket science and I've been here over a year. Anyone with even a moderate knowledge of computer coding should find Wikipedia fairly rudimentary...[remainder of post not shown for space] (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2015 " (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278


 * Finally, a point on a legal threat. I've been clear in challenging the Grump account as a COI and probably a sock puppet. Grump's response on one occasion was to make a hardly veiled legal threat against me: "I just don't see enough here to meet GNG, something mixed with rather slanderous accusations above." WP:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo He avoided saying "libelous" but slander is just the verbal form of libel. This violates WP: THREAT and is especially challenging to me as I openly disclose my real identity on my user profile. BC1278 (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278
 * Hi BC 1278. I had no intention of issuing a legal threat to you, my apologies if you took it that way. I also have no conflict of interest, as I explained in my answers to the quiz you demanded I answer for you at COIN :) I posted my delete vote and a news release tag on articles you are being paid to edit without knowing that you were being paid to edit them, in fact I had no idea who you were before you began interacting with me a week later, so I am secure in those decisions as they pre-date our actual interactions. Anything since, if there was an air of incivility to them, I apologize to you for that as well--no point in being stubborn on this board. Beyond that, how about we return to neutral here, and let bygones be bygones. I will stay away from articles you are being paid by Conduit to edit, as it appears we are perhaps unable to remain WP:CIVIL to each other, beyond what I have edited thus far, and we can decide not to talk to one another further. Or, if you prefer, we can try to be more amicable to one another. But if it has gotten this disruptive to Wikipedia, such that this appears on ANI, I am making the personal choice to step back from our interactions and move onto something else :) Grump International (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * BC1279 points out on my talk page that he didn't edit or propose deletion of Grump International articles. He was only arguing at length against an AfD started by Grump International at Articles_for_deletion/Ronen_Shilo. Since bringing up the issue here seems to have induced both parties to cease their disruption, this can probably be closed out.  (Longer term issue: how to prevent COI editors from using up so much volunteer editor and admin time. See my comments at WP:AN about that. Thanks.) John Nagle (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just been waiting for a decision from admins. I have nothing more to add because I think it's pretty clear the User: Grump International's near single purpose account should be blocked or topic-banned around real estate and, I would hope a WP: CheckUser initiated to discover the alternate account(s) and check for sock puppetry. (I'd be glad to assist if I knew the alternate user accounts and IP addresses as I know likely articles to check based on the user history.) I pointed out non-disclosed COI that seems obvious. Aside from all the clustered promotional editing you can read about at WP:COIN, one of the architects Grump created an article for even had his company write to Wikipedia to give permission to use a photo Grump International uploaded. The editor has explicitly denied knowing anyone related to any of the articles he edited or created. I don't think my status as a paid COI editor makes these issue I've pointed out less valid. I used the designated Wikipedia discussion forums to raise my issues. I used a similar amount of space (a lot, but the evidence was abundant and complex for me, at least) to present my arguments just as I've seen on other discussions about COI issues. Look, if obvious non-disclosed COI editing on near single purpose accounts isn't brought under control, even after a bunch of warnings to stop and disclose, then you're sending a bad message to those of us who try to convince companies and individuals in real life that they should abide by the rules. And if it's just too complex and time consuming to keep up with, then it's better to at least hire a paid consultant who knows and follows the rules rather than one who doesn't. Believe me, it's very difficult to convince companies and individuals that they should abide by COI policy rather than doing covert direct edits themselves. And it's made far more difficult by the abundance of undisclosed COI editors who offer fast, cheap results precisely because they ignore policy. Finally, I don't believe I've done anything wrong or disruptive here - unless the consensus is that any WP: COIN complaints are a waste of time and space by anyone who also does paid COI editing?BC1278 (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

User:ParamountLogoMaker
Creating nonsensical articles about made up films and songs, and editing pages just to add nonsensical things with no source. Clearly NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. --189.25.205.234 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked; clean-up complete. Thanks for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Block request for 140.200.7.58
140.200.7.58 has been warned multiple times but has not seemed to stop, the ip address was blocked before for 72 hours a few years ago, and has received countless warnings. TheJack15 (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * blocked (school block) for 6 months(!) by . --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly recreating article deleted at Articles for deletion/Herbert Hinzie Kersten
User:MrMojoRisin71 created Herbert Hinzie Kersten which was deleted through the above AfD by User:JohnCD. They then created Herbert H. Kersten the next day. User:Mufka deleted that version as a G4 recreation. Today Herbert Hinzie Kersten was recreated ignoring my warning on their talk page 31st August. Doug Weller (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the article is nearly identical, I'll delete and salt the entries. I'll also issue the article's creator a short 24 hour block as a warning about recreating the material, since this can be seen as disruptive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I just saw his interactions with the other editors at that AfD. Given that this seems to be him doing it to make a WP:POINT, I'm going to make it for 72 hours so he'll have plenty of time to read over the various guidelines on editing, assuming good faith, and so on. I note that this is his second block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked temporarily and warned. If he continues to do this once it's up, I have no problem with extending the block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

DAY6; Suspicious article behavior
I'm back after 2 months. :P

But anyways, I've found some vandalism on this article, DAY6, and then more weird edits such as "OPPA STOP EDITING YOUR OWN WIKIPEDIA", "Chicken Little 2.0", and "Totally doesn't edit his own Wikipedia" began filling the article. I then discovered that several new (and blank) accounts and IPs have been messing with the article starting here. Many of the accounts were recently created.

Blank accounts that have edited it in the past 2 hours;



IPs that have edited it in the past 2 hours;



(I might have missed some, there is an alarming number of IPs)

Is there some SPA sock puppetry going on? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I know you're aware, but others please note that I've requested, and NeilN has actioned, semi-protection on the page for two days. Let's see if things cool off after that.  I see you've also filed this.  I'm not sure there's much more ANI can help with?  GoldenRing (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice job on the SPI, by the way. I thought about it, but didn't have time to do a good job at the time.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Promotion on user talk page by User:Super51hotels
User talk:Super51hotels Please revoke Talk page access, the user is all-ready blocked Bentogoa (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Bentogoa, done <b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  10:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bentogoa (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Anniepoo's tendentious edit warring and defamatory false accusations
On Rose Venkatesan, I re added her birth name being mentioned in a sourced interview. Anniepoo removed it citing MOS:IDENTITY. I re added this and explained why. Anniepoo reverted again, but then came to my talk page and accused me of being "pro-rape". Please can somebody deal with this, I support the rights of everyone and I just want to be left alone, rather than having defamatory accusations made against me.
 * Oh God she's trying to rally everyone in Wikiproject LGBT studies against me oh God please help. Rubbish computer 16:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The underlying content dispute appears to have rationale points to be raised on both sides. The issue here is behavioral and there's been some poor decisions on both sides. The best result is for civil discussion to take place on the article's talk page (where everyone should avoid mentioning the name itself), with no more edits to the article to add the name until some consensus can be found. Rubbish: I think it would have been prudent to go to the talk page before reverting a second time (with no edit summary) – especially given the stance (even if you think it's invalid) that this is a BLP outing issue. Anniepoo: you could not have possibly been unaware that using the section header title "Pro-Rape Names" would be an intensely escalating, accusatory act, and I can't see how you could rationally come to the conclusion that RC's stance that including a name the subject acknowledged was their own was a 'pro-rape' edit, regardless of whether you're correct that it should not be included.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I left a message on her talk page, first time. Rubbish computer 17:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you not going to do anything about it? Rubbish computer 17:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (e/c with close of thread) @Rubbish computer: I'm not quite sure what you mean. I left my take above, essentially asking for de-escalation and discussion. If you mean am I going to take some action with respect to Anniepoo right now, no – that's what this thread is for discussion of by not just me. By the way, I've informed Anniepoo of this discussion using . In the future, please inform any editor you bring here with something similar. Regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible Legal Threat - 85.76.177.14
See this diff - I received this message the other day, but I failed to read the second paragraph (I was tired). I didn't realize until now what it said. The user used the term "was", but I should report this possible threat here nonetheless. The user has been notified of this ANI report.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That threat is a little confusing; which other IP is s/he referring to?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 02:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a legal threat, and the IP should be warned if not blocked. As to other IP, the one against whom the legal threat is being made, presumably it could be discerned from the article history. But who the target is doesn't matter: A legal threat is a legal threat, and cannot be tolerated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * IP blocked for 1 month for making a nondescript, but nonetheless, legal threats against other editors. I had considered a warning but after reviewing their deleted contribution at User:Simonekpa, it is clear this individual is WP:NOTHERE and only here to disrupt and vandalize this project. Mkdw talk 22:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Unresponsive editor
has been around for several years and I've left several messages for them during this period. There has been some disruptive activity on their part, including vandalism and page moves that use nonstandard naming conventions, but the most disruptive part of the person's behavior is the lack of communication. There are very few edits that include an edit summary, and talk page posts by other editors usually get removed by Kristijh after a short while, with no reply.

Several years ago, I approached the person on their talk page with several complaints including not using the edit summary and vandalism. This user has been blocked once for vandalism and once for edit warring. Here is a revealing look at some transactions on their talk page:

I'm posting here today because there's been another page move fiasco. All page moves, like their other edits, do not include edit summaries. One earlier botched move was because of a nonstandard naming convention. Today, there was another and that is why I left a rather frustrated series of notes on their talk page. In WP Earthquakes, we name events with the year and the location (we never include the day in the title).

Lack of communication is fairly major, but the vandalism and other aspects that include lack of competence are why I'm bringing this here. I've notified the editor, and would be interested to hear what they have to say, but I'd also be shocked if they spoke up. The newest page move and article creation  will need to be rectified. I moved the one article back (24 September 2013 Pakistan earthquake) twice before giving up and coming here. Dawnseeker2000 15:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping out with today's botched page move, Fuhghettaboutit. Dawnseeker2000  17:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @Dawnseeker2000: You're welcome. By the way, we might consider merging the recently created article into the other (where the 9/28/13 earthquake is already mentioned), and redirecting it. Thereupon maybe the article should be moved, but to the plural title 2013 Pakistan earthquake s .--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger that. See my move request that includes the name and merge proposals. Cheers, Dawnseeker2000  18:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Aha. Will comment there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have blocked this editor for a period of 1 month for disruptive editing following two subsequent blocks. In the past 3 years, they've never engaged in a discussion on their user talk page other than to remove warnings and block notices. They have also never engaged in any talk page discussions other than performing technical moves. Their deleted contributions log shows a troubling series of articles they've created that have been deleted that spans a number of years. At this time, it would be my recommendation that if they persist in a series of inappropriate unblock attempts (a previous problem where their talk page access was revoked) or return to disruptive editing following the end of their block, and indefinite block under WP:NOTHERE may be required. Mkdw talk 21:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

IP user keeps on adding contributor and developer names in the mainspace
Hi, I really need an admin attention in this article because this IP user 115.241.228.20 keeps on adding the contributor and developer names in the external links of the article. Here is an [edit]. I undid these edits but the user keeps adding them back again. I did notified the user telling him/her not to do it but s/he ignores my message. I really don't know what to do in this case. Please resolve this. Thanks Ayub 407 talk 19:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the page for 72 hours. The IP has only been warned twice. If they persist and they've received the appropriate number of warnings, I suggest reporting them to WP:AIV. Mkdw talk 21:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And I've removed 95% of the article, because it was a straight copy of this webpage. Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BURO bullshit
A procedural question, really. Somebody about whom there's a thread closes it. (And does so neatly and cleanly, though without signing.) Someone else reverts this. A third editor reverts the second editor (re-closing the thread), with the comment "It doesn't fucking matter who does it." Question: Does it fucking matter who closes threads? -- Hoary (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Was the thread going to result in an admin using the tools? Had it played out to its conclusion?  Who needs to be blocked as a direct result of the discussion therein?  The thread was ended.  We don't demand that rules are followed just to follow rules, where there is no future action required.  Let me make it blunt.  Should the named editor in that thread be blocked?  If not, there's no point in keeping the thread open anymore.  Nor is there any reason to have this thread, unless you want someone else blocked.  Name some names and give some reasons if that is the case.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't matter. It is unwise but very understandable to close a thread on oneself, becasue people will assume that the close is suspect, and either revert it, or waste time checking that it isn't.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC).


 * I agree with Rich – "self-closing" ANI threads is probably not advisable, but is acceptable in certain cases (e.g. the equivalent of a WP:SNOW close when the odds of no Admin action are near 100%, or when the OP "withdraws" the ANI complaint). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , my intention was to spend some time checking that all the problems had been undone, and whether there were other issues, and if everything was fine, then to close it later this evening. If you wanted to close it, that's fine. But it isn't fine to close it by scolding me and cursing at me. People ought not to close threads about themselves, especially not over an objection. That's particularly true of an editor who has been asked to respect consensus and procedure. Your close didn't send a helpful message in that regard. I was shocked to see your response, so I'd prefer to say no more about it. Sarah (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologize. It was rude of me to be so gruff, and also to cut you short in what you were trying to do.  I should have probably investigated more fully.  I have no excuse, and you are of course, entirely correct in being upset at my rash actions.  I apologize for them, and will try better next time to hold my tongue and also to be more cautious in stepping on toes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , thank you for that, and of course it's completely accepted. Sarah (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Back to my original, general question: I think that only Rich Farmbrough has given it a direct answer. This answer surprises me: If it's so clear that a thread can be closed, then surely somebody else can close it. Can we have this compromise: If somebody closes a thread about themself, they should at least avoid any ambiguity about who closed it. (This is as simply done as typing "~" .) -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC) ..... PS I missed IJBall's comment. Sorry: I blame caffeine deficiency. -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * FTR, if I had been asked in this case, I would have advised against Tortle closing that one down themselves. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * When a user tries to close a thread about themselves, they can be seen to avoid sanctions and it is right to revert those sorts of closes and just get on with the business that ANI handles. In this case, there was an acknowledgement of the problem, a commitment to do better and everyone can move on amiably. Isn't it moments like this that WP:IAR was written for? Blackmane (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk page abuse by blocked school IP
24.186.147.139 is currently school-blocked for 2 years. As soon as the IP was blocked, the IP said that they were crying, violating WP:NOTFACEBOOK and WP:NOTFORUM (and maybe WP:PRAM). Then the IP removed the anonblock template disruptively. Also, before the block, there was a personal attack by the IP and some other abuse so this already warranted a talk page revokal already, but talk access was not revoked. --<b style= "color:red">T</b><b style= "color:#FF4200">L</b><b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 01:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How long did you allow the tantrum for? Did they return after several days to continue?  Or would it be best to just leave them alone for 24 hours, with no response from us, until they go away for the day, never to return, and then we can clean up their mess?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

If permitted please copy my response from talk page to the archived discussion.
Link. Thank you. --<span style="font-family: Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif;color: #FF9933">AmritasyaPutra T 18:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Hyrdlak
A story as old as time. On 19 September 2009 User:Hyrdlak (a single purpose account with 204 edits since: 2009-09-19) created an entry called Tomasz Kamusella and by the next day increased its size to 18,780 bytes (most of it unreferenced), with a few quotes from filfak.ni.ac.yu (Server not found). By 8 July 2012 Hyrdlak increased the same bio to 26,744 bytes at which point it became glaringly obvious to me I began to suspect that Hyrdlak writes about himself. By 26 February 2014 Hyrdlak expanded the entry to 29,467 bytes with a bunch of junk from his own filing cabinet (no third party assessment).

I tried to help him write a better article about himself his single purpose, but ... no can do. He reverted me twice without addressing my concerns, and instead, by 10 February 2015 expanded his the bio to 31,960 bytes. This is where the whole thing went through the roof. Please, check out his aggressive and dismissive outbursts when other Wikipedians (i.e. Voluneer Marek) began reacting to his silly game. Hyrdlak pasted the same series of rants on several talk pages including Talk:Tomasz Kamusella: I suspect that and  may be the very same user. --Hyrdlak 14:41, 23 August 2015. Meanwhile, Hyrdlak also created an entry about his work called Polsko-angielsko-niemiecki Glosariusz regionalny Województwa Opolskiego, a fringe glossary in the Polish language which sparked outrage by his Kamusella's own employer. See: "The university distanced itself from the author of a glossary" in Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper. What Hyrdlak does not understand is that we do acknowledge his academic accomplishments of one Tomasz Kamusella, but treating others like shit is not going to get him Hyrdlak anywhere around here.  Poeticbent  <font style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 18:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Relevant diffs:
 * First revert by Hyrdlak
 * Second revert
 * Third revert
 * Fourth revert
 * Fifth revert
 * Revenge editing on unrelated BLP because it was created by me
 * Rant on my talk page
 * The same rant copy-pasted into Voluneer Marek talk page
 * Same rant copy-pasted into his own talk page
 * Same rant copy-pasted into the talk page of his own WP:BLP bio


 * Reply to Poeticebnt: Regarding your claim that I 'revenge-edited' the entry on Per Anders Rudling. How about I applied your own medicine of 'expert edit,' as formulated by you here:

"18 May 2015, Poeticbent reinstated Volunteer Marek’s version of this entry {on T Kamusella} and remarked: “restored expert edit by Volunteer Marek → you have been advised against writing about yourself User:Hyrdlak and if you persist, I will personally report you to AN/I for the breach of Wikipedia core policy/guidelines which can result in serious remedies.”

By 'expert edit,' here you mean removing information on most of T Kamusella's books and on all of Kamusella's journal articles and book chapters. Basically in my edit of the entry on Rudling, I removed the scholar's journal articles and book chapters, in line with what you endorse. --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 8:59, Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)


 * This could be exciting, but let's do small things first. a., are you in fact , and are you also an Auburn fan? b. is that fringe dictionary notable by our standards? If not, put it up at AfD. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As for Tomasz_Kamusella, that does not look very notable., , do you have an opinion? Drmies (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, Poeticbent et al. I was looking at this version of the biography, which is indeed too much like a resume. But the references in note 23 aren't in the current version of the article anymore, and that's unfortunate since those references could easily make the subject notable per WP:PROF--if legit, they would show that the book, The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe, had a significant influence. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He's probably notable. 6 books by major English language publishers, include Palgrave Macmillan, an important publisher for this subject. I cannot see the article on the fringe dictionary, but I suspect that it may be a disagreement over the status of a particular dialect. I would redirect the article on it--I cannot imagine that would be  sufficiently important by itself, unless it stirred up a very major controversy. (As a general rule, trying to write an article on an author & also one  on a minor book does indicate a tendency to promotionalism (which is why we discourage autobiographies), but the bio article in its present state seems acceptable.  DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Kamusella is probably notable. The glossary is not. DGG, you edited one of these articles at some point (I recall seeing your name in the page history), and put in a POV tag on one of them, which was then removed ... by Hyrdlak.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Found it: here and here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Kamusella (maybe he is notable), but I'm also for deleting the article about the glossary. It's not even sourced now... Peter238 (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether Kamusella is notable. Quite probably, given the books with major publishers as remarked upon by DGG, although the long post on the article's talk page about how Kamusella meets many of the criteria of WP:PROF mainly betrays inexperience with how this guideline usually is applied. I don't think the fellowship of the Royal Historical Society confers notability, given the large number of fellows listed on that organization's homepage. In this case, notability most probably will come from multiple book reviews of his books (positive or negative, that doesn't really matter). I don't think his citation record is strong enough to indicate a pass of PROF#1. Below mention is made about "crazies vs non-crazies", with Kamusella in the former category. However, given the readership at St. Andrews, apparently obtained after the controversy in Poland, I'd actually be surprised if he really were a fringe/crazy. The article needs a lot of work, though... --Randykitty (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) There is indeed some excitement to be had here. But strictly speaking it's a (regional) glossary not a dictionary. Anyway, the excitement... this is actually about a manufactured controversy which has been used as a way of self-promotion by one Tomasz Kamusella, which started off in the "real world" and then, thanks to the efforts of User:Hyrdlak made its way onto Wikipedia. Some serious BLP violations and slander of several individuals included along the way.
 * I started writing it up but then realized it'd end up being TL;DR. So here's the run down: Tomasz Kamusella = fringe "Silesian Nationalist" activist of borderline notability (this version). Publishes this glossary in 2004. The glossary has some wacky ideas in it (Opole's not really part of Poland, Polish-German border is illegal, eastern regions of Poland are really "Germany under temporary Polish occupation" etc). Kamusella in the glossary claims that it was published with backing and financial support from some local politicians and government institutions. When the book comes out these politicians freak out because they don't want to be associated with these loony ideas and apparently they neither gave money to Kamusella nor "supported" him in anyway. They want the passage which mentions them removed. Minor controversy of local regional significance ensues ... for like a week or so. Publisher also says "oh shit, I didn't realize the kind of crap that was in there". One of the said politicians makes an off-hand comment to the local town newspaper to the effect that he wouldn't mind seeing copies of the book burned. Publisher pulls the book, I'm guessing cuz they didn't want to get their ass sued.
 * Kamusella then runs around yelling about censorship, about how his book was burned and claims it was the "first book banned in post-Communist Poland". Which is all kinds of nonsense. He writes numerous letters to big name politicians who studiously ignore him. Kamusella publishes these letters himself on various websites and tries to make as much noise as possible. Like I said, a manufactured controversy designed to sell copies of the glossary and give him name recognition.
 * Volunteer Marek, have a look at the screenshot from the catalog of the Polish National Library, which you removed from the entry on Kamusella. It is quite a tangible proof censorship. You can also read about the matter in this newspaper article: http://www.nto.pl/wiadomosci/opole/art/4475287,glosariusz-bedzie-dostepny-marszalek-nie-chce-byc-cenzorem,id,t.html. --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 9:10 Sept 4, 2015 (GMT)


 * On Wikipedia User:Hyrdlak, who is a single purpose account dedicated to promoting Kamusella (see Poeticbent's links above - all articles created and edited by them promote Kamusella in some way or another), brings this whole sorry situation to Wikipedia. This version of the article basically gives you the flavor. There's a ton of misrepresentation of essentially the single source on the topic in there and host of BLP violations. There's a bunch similar in related articles started/edited by Hyrdlak. To keep this at least a bit short I'll let you figure out what those are, but I'll be happy to elaborate upon request.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, if someone gets the idea that this is some kind of Polish-vs-German thing, think again. One of the people being slandered in Hyrdlak's version of the article is Ryszard Galla, probably the most notable member of the German Minority Party in Poland. It's not Pole vs. German, it's rather crazy vs. non-crazy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that Volunteer Marek believes I am R Galla. Perhaps he did not read the references. I realize R Galla is a respected politician and leader of Poland's German minority. Nevertheless, it was him who appealed for burning the Glossary by saying 'Ogromne oczy zrobił wicemarszałek Galla z MN oglądając zapisy w książeczce, w której wydawca (Oficyna Piastowska) dziękuje mu za sponsoring. - Spalić to' see: http://opole.gazeta.pl/opole/1,35114,2062655.html#ixzz3koOJCw4U. If we don't like an unappealing reality, should we deny it? Is it the principle of objectivity in action as Voluneer Marek and Poeticbent see it. Is this interpretation of the principle of objectivity upheld by the majority of Wikipedia users? --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 11:44, Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)
 * I obviously DON'T believe you're R Galla, since I said above that you're using Wikipedia to slander R Galla in violation of WP:BLP. Not that hard to sort out is it?Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well said, . I was just wondering. Would it be possible that User:Hyrdlak created User:Franek K. on 2012-08-06 to beef up the ethno-nationalist fight for Silesia already known from the "glossary" article? Franek K. was featured on this AN/I page in October 2014. He said about himself: I live in Poland, I am a teacher at school (bingo!) and I know - most of informations by POlish authors about Silesians and Kashubians is propaganda. – On 22 October 2014 blocked Franek K. with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) - with a rationale: (Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia: Ethno-nationalist battleground editing, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:AE&oldid=630623388#Franek_K. (not an AE block)). --  Poeticbent  <font style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 05:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Is anybody aware of WP:OUTING?
 * "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. ... Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia.
 * ..attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block"

Poeticbent's claim that in 2009 "User:Hyrdlak (...) created an entry about himself" clearly violates these basic rules of privacy. Poeticbent is very well aware of this policy because his own identity was disclosed some years ago in the context of WP:EEML. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reminding Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek about some basic principles of courtesy and objectivity in discussion as confirmed by the Wikipedia regulations. --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 11:47 Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)


 * Read again what you just posted, . Your quote from WP:OUTING contradicts your own statement because writing an article about yourself amounts to self-disclosed information which is not considered outing. Please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF and follow the WP:NPA rules. Thanks,  Poeticbent  <font style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 13:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just your claim, it's just your conclusion of what you think might be the real identity of . If you just could tell us where and when did he admit to be Kamusella. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop beating around the bush and propping up claims with willful ignorance of policies directed against WP:SELFPROMOTION, HerkusMonte. You have a history of edit warring in articles devoted to Silesia and other parts of Poland from similar viewpoint. Your single largest contribution to Wikipedia is adding two thousand German names to locations in Poland ... as if the Empire never ceased to exist.  Poeticbent  <font style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 18:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Addendum: In the Polish Wikipedia there's a page called pl:Wikipedysta:Hyrdlak/Dariusz Jerczyński with a wall of text (13,017 bytes) of pure, resourceless promo about one pl:Dariusz Jerczyński, article deleted twice (in November 2013, and February 2015) and nominated for deletion for the third time on 30 August 2015. – If we were to believe what we read, Tomasz Kamusella and Dariusz Jerczyński are writing friends from the ethno-nationalist publishing venue called Wydawnictwo: Narodowa Oficyna Śląska, citing each other as experts wherever they can. – In the linked paper Kamusella demands that the Council of Europe send a fact-finding mission to study the situation of the Silesians in Poland, similar to Morgenthau mission to Poland in 1919. Henry Morgenthau, Sr. was sent in to investigate allegations of pogroms against Jews, not ethno-nationalist writings of a few local ideologues who believe that: "policies in Czechoslovakia and Poland convinced the majority of the Slavophones [sic] ... to be Germans, rather than Czechs or Poles (Jerczyński, 2006: 83-233).(page 51 and 66, or 10-25/33 in Kamusella)  Poeticbent  <font style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 19:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I wonder why the entry on D Jerczynski in the Polish Wikipedia must be removed and vilified like that. He is the author of the single and quite extensive (however imperfect) on the history of Silesia and the Sliesians written from the Silesian point of view. This national/ethnic group with is Poland's largest national minority (see Polish censuses of 2002 and 2011) continues not to be recognzied by the state, their organizations are refused registration, and the same happens to the Silesian language. Fortunately, the Silesian Wikipedia is well and active. But if Volunteer Marek and Poeticbent have such a negative approach to matters Silesian, I won't be surprised when they propose the Silesian Wikipedia be phased out, as well. Is it not a symptom of having difficulties to see beyond the ideologica perimeter of Polish antionalism? --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:12, Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)


 * May I just quote WP:SELFPROMOTION:
 * "==How to handle conflicts of interest==
 * ===Avoid outing===
 * Wikipedia places importance on the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence; it requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer to Checkuser. In asking an editor if they have COI, the request should clearly indicate that it is entirely optional for them to answer."
 * WP:COI explicitly warns not to disclose an editor's real life identity. WP:OUTING is a serious harassment and you should really stop your personal attacks against me. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:COI explicitly warns not to disclose an editor's real life identity. WP:OUTING is a serious harassment and you should really stop your personal attacks against me. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

looks to be right here,  Hyrdlak never appears to say anywhere on Wikipedia that he actually is Tomasz Kamusella, so, stating that Hyrdlak is Tomasz Kamusella is indeed an act of outing, as such , the claim made by Poeticbent needs to be removed and oversighted as outing is flat not allowed on Wikipedia.  KoshVorlon  We are all Koshundefined 11:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reminding Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek about some basic principles of courtesy and objectivity in discussion as confirmed by the Wikipedia regulations. --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:15 Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)
 * You're not being serious. No-one in Wikipedia ever admits to writing an article about themselves, but that's not the point. I did the digging myself (not you, not anybody) and posted the results above for all to see proving WP:conflict of interest based on readily available external sources. That's it. I admit that after my investigation I can no longer say who is who ... and so I redacted my opening statement above . The only conclusive proof is edit warring by a WP:SPA with probable WP:COI, as well as suspicion of sock-puppetry. Everything else stays.  Poeticbent  <font style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 16:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Poeticbent, but rules are rules and they should be observed by all, unless I am mistaken. --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:17 Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)
 * The problem is that one cannot say "this person is obviously engaging in shameless self-promotion, is slandering people they've had real-life disputes with on Wikipedia and is obviously editing with a serious conflict of interest" without at least suggesting that that person is... actually doing that. In other words, that they are that person.
 * Anyway, you can oversight any claims about Hyrdlak's supposed identity, but the fact remains that Hyrdlak is a single purpose account which is engaged in masivvely promoting Tomasz Kamusella and who uses Wikipedia as a platform to attack people who've had disagreements with Kamusella in real life in a way which slanders them and which involves some very serious BLP violations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you chimed in, are you going to answer 's question  a., are you in fact ,?   I ignored it the first time, but now, since you've responded to something PoeticBent said, it would be a pertinent question (not just that one instance, but that and the other instances Drmies mentioned )   KoshVorlon  We are all Koshundefined  15:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh.... I don't think that was a serious question, just Drmies joking around (he's feeling insecure about Bama's upcoming season so he's getting his kicks in while he still can). But for your edification I'll answer it: no, I am not, in fact, or in otherwise, Poeticbent. I did write a poem once. Wanna hear it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Spare us! Poeticbent's writing style is eloquent and elegant. Let me guess... Your poem goes a little bit like this: "Freakin', freakin', freakin', freakin', freakin', freakin', you are out of your freakin' mind." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek are not the same person, but for sure they do work as team. They keep removing my edits and references in tandem. One cuts, and the other confirms that such a cut is legit. When, as an example, I apply the same medicine (that is, no book chapter or journal articles in an entry on an academic) as in the case of Per Anders Rudling (an entry created by Poeticbent), they take offense and revert my edits --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:21 Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)
 * What you are doing at the Per Anders Rudling article is plain ol' revenge editing aimed at making a WP:POINT. I actually had no idea why you decided this particular academic to pick on until now, when you stated that this article was created by Poeticbent. So you went in and started fucking up that article to get even. Nice. So on top of violating WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, using Wikipedia for promotional purposes and most likely WP:COI you've now taken to making disruptive revenge edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear All, I have no time for that. I wanted to add to the Wikipedia on matters Silesian, as the corner is a tad neglected. I started my discussion with Volunteer Marek and Poeticbent in March. They never replied to my questions and concerns, apart from Poeticbent threatening to report me to the Wikipedian powers that be. Fine, now the discussion has run its course. But when I have some I will go around removing my account. I guess many entries on matters Silesian will be free game. Unfortunately so. --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:20 Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)
 * Please stop your self centered self agrandazing User:Hyrdlak. You are not, and have never been interested in improving the Wikipedia coverage of Silesia, only promoting Kamusella. You made 68 edits to his bio (30% of your entire Wikipedia contributions). And you lied on the page List of books banned by governments claiming that his book is banned by government, while slandering respected Silesian politicians who were disturbed by absurdities featured in Kamusella's infamous 128 page glossary ... such as this little gem (quote): "Śląsk częścią wschodnich ziem niemieckich pod tymczasową administracją Polski i ZSRR, 1945-1991." Translation: "Silesia is part of Eastern territories of Germany, under temporary administration of Poland and the Soviet Union in 1945-1991. Emphasis mine. The glossary was printed with the money from Voivodeship executive board hoping for a guide in English they could use in their official business. Once the owner of the publishing house learned what's in the glossary, he withdrew its short run as first.   Poeticbent  <font style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 01:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat at Teahouse/Questions
This edit includes "I am having our legal department and lawyers contact you guys regarding the creation and deletion of this page" - have suggest poster reads WP:NLT - Arjayay (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He's removed his comment and his subsequent clarification. I'm inclined to view that as a retraction. KrakatoaKatie 21:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The individual has returned at the help desk this time and made a similar threat [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHelp_desk&type=revision&diff=679832703&oldid=679832330]. I tried to explain to them the NLT policy and instead of retracting it like last time they denied that it was a legal threat at all.  I am not entirely sure what to make of it and would appreciate some admin input. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also notified the editor since it was never done the first time --Stabila711 (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that the first version of the article was a bad Rick rolling joke, it is likely that this whole thing is just more good ole trolling and not worthy of any editors spending any more time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that the editor in question should be blocked until or if they recant and disavow the legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

hey guyz
I'm new 2 Wikipedia and I really need some help

thnx

Somebodycall911 (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The WP:Teahouse is a better place to start. You don't really need admin attention to get an introductory course on Wikipedia-ing. (Except if you are sure you do, then be specific what you want from an admin.)  野狼院ひさし  <small style="font-size:85%;">u/t/c 11:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Editor Jytdog's none neutral GMO edits
Editor Jytdog frequently removes content from pages related to GMOs which doesn't seem to fit his personal opinion. He is also the most frequent editor on GMO pages. Most of the time he acts like he would own these pages, as a recent example: Jytdog removes most of other editors contributions, ignoring existing talk page discussions. Jytdog insists on framing organisations (or here) like Union of Concerned Scientists or Greenpeace as advocacy groups. However, this kind of framing doesn't extend to other entities, and presents a very narrow view.

Many editors have problems with Jytdog's frequent accusations, as is evident from this discussion where several editors (Jusdafax,Tsavage,DrChrissy,SageRad) wonder about claims by Jytdog that i broke 3RR. He later redacted his claim in that discussion. However, then later eventually reported me, but then withdraws his request (time stamp Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)).
 * In his report he states: I will add here, that I have functioned as a steward of this and related articles for a while now. Some consider me a whore of Monsanto etc. They consider as they will - I try to keep POV-pushing from all sides tamped down, and as mentioned, so far have helped keep these articles clear of arbcom and from wasting the community's time with too much drama board action. Apparently his words are in stark contrast to reality. Hence, this editor is creating a lot of drama, wasting time with his unclear actions.

When i challenged the editor about his claim that my edit is advocacy he responded: ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jytdog#POV_edits_and_claims And I told you - look at every single edit you made in the past day or two. Every one emphasizes negatives of GM or promotes the goodness of organic. Every. Single. One.]'' And cited this dif for his claims. That was the only dif Jytdog provided.

Yesterday Jytdog filed an AfD on a page i created, and then begun to remove reliable sources from that page. In his AfD he states, Group advocates for FRINGE science. However, Jytdog again ignores questions in the AfD discussion to explain his accusations.

Maybe even more concerning, Jytdog added or maintained on around 6 articles original research for several years, claiming that there exists a scientific consensus. Recently after several editors objections and a RFC, he begun to accept different wordings in that matter, even though it can still pretty much be regarded as to much synthesis. None of his cites actually supports his synthesis.

Jytdog was recently reported for edit warring (here), and uncivility (here). Jytdog wrote in response to Mann_jess, ''just to be clear, look at my contribs you arrogant and ignorant fuck. I know what NPOV is and I spent about 90% of my editing keeping FRINGE and quackery out of Wikipedia.''

That was in March this year, apparently Jytdog's edit history, and frequent problems with other editors, his disruptive style, are evidence that the editor is not able to understand what NPOV edits means, and is not able to work in a community environment or to contribute in a neutral way. I therefore ask the community to topic ban Jytdog from everything which is related to GMOs. Wikipedia does not require a special self proclaimed steward for GMO topics, but maybe the attention of Arbcom. Thanks.

These pages all contain talk page discussions with Jytdog, where he defends his reverts against various editors. Not a single discussion can be considered resolved, not even after months. prokaryotes (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Genetically modified food controversies
 * Genetically modified food
 * Genetically modified crops
 * Genetically modified organism
 * Séralini affair
 * Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms
 * Monsanto legal cases
 * Glyphosate


 * Support topic ban of Jytdog due to his WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:DE in that area. GregJackP   Boomer!   17:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban Jytdog is over involved in the topic. He has made 6593 edits in the area by looking at his edit history on X's tools. Those are only the easily seen ones, there are most likely thousands more if you could all the edits to drama boards like here and WP:AN/3 also question boards like WP:RSN and WP:ORN for the subjects. He shows obvious WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:DE in that area. AlbinoFerret 17:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention that GregJackP has a grudge against me as well, and continues steering into me although we were advised to steer away from each other. I have been honoring that, he has not.  Both editors continue their pattern of bias, which only brings disrepute upon them.  Unhappy, but not a surprise.Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose topic ban/Send to ArbCom. That Jytdog is willing to spend his time and effort in this topic area so fraught with POV pushing by agenda editors is a reason to commend them, not sanction. I see the bandwagon of editors who have been been in editorial conflict with Jytdog has started to show up above. Yobol (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yobo is an involved editor, as he reports in his comment below.<b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban (uninvolved editor) - I have not edited in the GMO area, but I have looked at all the diffs from the OP and from Jytdog and have found a clear attitude of ownership by Jytdog in GMO related articles, as well as NPOV edit patterns, edit warring, forum shopping, and tendentious editing. I believe this set of issues is probably too much for ANI and should be addressed at Arbcom. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not uninvolved. Fellow traveller with GregJackP and edits and !votes in lockstep with him.  Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am uninvolved, as I have not edited in the topic area, nor have I participated in the GM RfC'z and noticeboard discussions about Jytdog's editing behavior.<b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but you are in lockstep with GregJackP, who is exercising a grudge against me. I have never seen you disagree with him on any discussion where the three of have been involved, and there have been about 4 of those. Not uninvolved - not even close. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That would appear to be incorrect; you reverted Jytdog's edit here on a page regarding Monsanto to return the page to a version that GregJackP had previously worked on; you also have clearly "participated in...noticeboard discussions about Jytdog's editing behavior": in this ANI report you agreed with GregJackP's position and call Jytdog "one of the most battleground editors I have come across on WP" and then !voted to have him topic banned, you also participated in this ANI thread, where you came to the defense of GregJackP and again commented on Jytdog, and then you showed up at another thread where GregJackP had tried to get Jytdog sanctioned. In fact, the only threads you have ever showed up at ANI this year have been in threads where Jytdog have been involved as a participant. You might want to correct your misstatement above. Yobol (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah,, you may want to look at your statement again. stated she did not edit in the GMO area. The diff you provided was on a legal article, Bowman v. Monsanto Co., not a GMO article. The ANI diffs you linked also did not have anything to do with GMO. In the first diff you point at, Minor4th is reverting J-dog's incorrect evaluation of a legal source, where all of the other editors, mostly lawyers, agreed with her, but J-dog continued to be disruptive about the issue. On the shopping mall notability diff, numerous other editors also chastised J-dog for gutting articles for supposed COI problems, that had minimal to no COI editing. These editors included former Arbcom members who tried to point out to him that mass-deletions were not appropriate nor needed to protect WP. Most of the interactions I have had with J-dog deal with his repeated and constant harassment of , a subject matter expert on intellectual property law, and many of the other lawyer-editors of the project have seen the same problem, including Minor4th. In any event, Minor4th's statement was correct, as she has not been involved in GMO articles or discussions. I would suggest you strike you misstatement. Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   23:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I refer you back to Minor4th's original statement, "I have not edited in the topic area, nor have I participated in the GM RfC'z and noticeboard discussions about Jytdog's editing behavior." Note the bolded portion, and read my text again. I find it a remarkable coincidence that Minor4th has no interest in Jytdog, but every time they have posted on ANI in the last year, they comment in a thread involving Jytdog, often following a comment by you in that thread. Yobol (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I refer you back to her original statement, "I have not edited in the topic area, nor have I participated in the GM RfC'z and noticeboard discussions about Jytdog's editing behavior." Note the bolded portion. GM is a modifier for both RfCs and noticeboards, there is no comma to separate the two. You are reading it incorrectly, probably due to the loss of formal comma-use in popular usage. However, Minor4th is a lawyer, and her language was precise. She can't help it that you do not read it with precision. I know Minor4th IRL and she has exactly zero interest in GMOs. GregJackP  Boomer!   02:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban of Jytog from all GM related articles, as I have been saying since roughly 2012. His edits to pharmaceutical articles are equally non-neutral. If the true story of his edit history and interactions with the community was viewed, including his recent doxxing of Atsme, a ban from this site altogether would be the only proper response. This case should ultimately go to ArbCom in my opinion, where the edits of his supporters and the larger picture can be considered (see Yobol's recent work at Seralini Affair rejecting addition of good science, and assisting  Jytdog with reverts without interacting on the TP at Genetically modified foods as an example).  [Diffs forthcoming, forgive me, I am stuck on iPad for now.] What he is trying to pull in the sections below is actually shocking, when I didn't think that was still possible with this user.   <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   18:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog's work was called out by a team of scientists and over 300 signatories in this paper. This alone should suffice, once the paper is reviewed for accuracy, to consider a ban.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * With regard to the GMO articles before Jytdog took ownership, a quotation from
 * In many ways, I find the old article MUCH more comprehensive, readable and informative than the current version, it just needs some editing.. --Tsavage (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2015
 * Tsavage then compares the before and after articles here, calling into question the claims by Jytdog that his work on the GMO suite has been beneficial.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47 คุ  ก   21:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose topic ban for Jytdog and support a one month topic ban from AN/I for editors who support topic ban. I think the circus show needs to stop. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban - Jytdog continues to think he owns articles and won't allow anything into them if he is against it. He also repeatedly misuses guidelines to get his point across (I am an uninvolved editor).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Some of the complaint has nothing to do with the topic area. For instance, the warning about incivility (directed at me) was months ago and concerned climate change. I don't edit the GMO topic, so I'm unfamiliar with these issues, but I'm getting a very strong sense that several editors are pushing an anti-GMO stance (in opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment) and they are attempting to pile on to remove an editor who supports the mainstream pov. Topics like this one encourage a lot of advocacy and coordinated bad behavior, and we should not sanction editors for having the patience to uphold our policies against fringe theories, if indeed that is what is going on.  &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 19:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Mann_jess, there is no fringe pushing whatsoever going on. If you look at the actual content discussed it is most of the time via authorities or related to statements of organisations, which are relevant in the discussions. Please ask for evidence in regards to fringe, don't accept empty claims or framing as such. Also look at the articles if you are not sure, there are many issues of NPOV.prokaryotes (talk) 1:49 pm, Today (UTC−6)


 * Support topic ban and possibly a short block to send the point home. I'm mostly uninvolved on the GMO issue, but have noticed on a number of articles  that this editor has been getting very aggressive and would benefit from a break.  Calling anyone an "ignorant fuck" for any reason is absolutely unacceptable.   Montanabw (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support I am completely removed from this topic area, but the behavior of Jytdog suggests that at the very least a cooling-off period is required, and a separation from the topic is likely to make their editing more productive. Which is not to say that the behavior of the editors bringing this here is completely clean, either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose topic ban for Jytdog, in the strongest possible terms, but there is clearly a deadlocked content dispute here. And the accusers have some competency issues (take a close look at the header of this section). For that matter, take a look at WP:EWN, where there are multiple threads of WP:IDHT. At this point, the conflict is ready to be taken up by ArbCom, and that's the only place where it can reasonably be sorted out. We've gone through enough rounds of failed community discussion that I am confident that ArbCom will accept a case titled about GMOs. I suggest that the first involved editor who is willing to put his or her money where his or her mouth is go ahead and file the request. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose sanctions in favor of taking this to arbitration. Or, alternately, I suppose, we might be able to get a ruling from ArbCom that some aspect of GMO is pseudoscience, which would allow the topic to fall under the existing pseudoscience sanctions. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To date we haven't really had a focused GMO case at ANI (just tangential ones here and there), but I think after this ANI whether we get partial resolution or not, we might be at a place where ArbCom would consider all other options exhausted in order to take it up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose and boomerang. Being another science editor in this topic, It would be silly to topic ban one of the few editors who try to stick to NPOV with scientific sources as opposed to others who have clear behavioral or advocacy problems in the topic. There is a systemic problem in the topic of people invoking the shill gambit or engaging in POV advocacy by invoking a corporate boogeyman to make neutral approaches seen extremely POV in contrast. When you get a rare person who's critical of all viewpoints in a controversial topic (as I've seen of Jytdog across many topics besides this as my editing interests overlap with his in agriculture), it seems common for the editor to be marked pretty quickly as an adversary by editors pushing a certain point of view claiming the critical editor has a certain polarized point of view in a topic like this. Unfortunately, we see a lot of the latter from people pushing hard for anti-GMO content in the articles, and I have seen that from a lot of editors pushing for a topic ban on Jytdog now. Part of it is trying to remove someone as part of a content dispute, and the other side is part of editor behavior issues we can hopefully shed a bit more light on here.


 * I've seen Jytdog approaching various editors coming in with behavior problems about as civilly as one can within reason. This appears to be another case of Jytdog trying to work with the person despite the behavior issues instead of bringing it to ANI right away. Meanwhile, the editor with the original behavior problem tries to call attention to attempts to deal with that as problematic itself; rinse and repeat and you get the buildup of problems we have here. I'll comment more on Prokaryotes in their own section specifically, but there doesn't appear to be anything actionable when one looks at the full context of edits and other editors behavior with respect to Jytdog. When people behave crappily like we see at GMO articles, there's no clean way to deal with it, so we can't really fault people for trying within our policies and guidelines at least. ArbCom might be the end result, but I'd like to see if ANI can get some cleanup done first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For context it should be noted that KingofAces' views pertaining to this subject are quite fringe when compared with the community, and can muddy his understanding of how guidelines apply. See this RfC for example. He was one of 3 opposes against 16 support votes - and as you can see his reasoning is nothing more than pro GMO POV.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is part of the vitriol that has become disruptive at the topics. It's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black here with respect to fringe considering I cited the fringe guideline almost verbatim on what we should do in that RfC. Not exactly off-base from the community since I was explaining how it should be included. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Look at some of the evidence. The comment "Jytdog removes most of other editors contributions" with dif means they removed the openers contributions.
 * This appears to be the ref that was removed by Jyt . The organization is an advocacy group . Not a reliable source so why did Prok add it ?
 * The opener added unreffed content and
 * In this diff you are claiming their is some consensus to ignore am not see any.
 * Further issues include User:DrChrissy who has had his tiptoeing around his topic ban described here here
 * Agree that the issue we have here is a group of editors opposing main stream scientific opinion and sources and attempting to use altmed / non main stream sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take again a look at the article history of Séralini affair and a look at the talk page there. But since you made up your mind already ...prokaryotes (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked at your evidence and it was not very good, sorry. And those supporting the ban raise further concerns. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Doc James, above you cherry pick an example, but then somehow falsely conclude that he removed my contributions, or that i added content from what you suggest above is not a RS. I've added a word there, readded content from another editor, added a lede sentence based on article, and content which was part of the article since over a year. And then you fast forward through everything else (like the remaining 99%) and conclude that editors who support the topic ban of Jytdog do not accept main stream science opinion.prokaryotes (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I just took your first difs and if you are re adding poorly supported content than you take responsibility for it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You cherry pick a dif from me in an ANI about another editor, then claim that all people oppose main stream scientific opinion who are involved here, but ignore everything else. And then you call for a topic ban based on your opinion.prokaryotes (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose and boomerang - The same old FRINGE crowd trying to silence a diligent editor. Shame on them, and maybe blocks as well. BMK (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban from GMO articles, which Jytdog fails to edit neutrally in any way. He whitewashes everything in sight on these topics and neutral editing seems like a foreign concept to him, here and elsewhere. He also berates editors with differing opinions on the talk pages and quickly resorts to making personal attacks when his opinions are challenged. Politely asking Jytdog policy based questions, yields responses like "I'm not going into the weeds with you" or "don't Wikilawyer me". I see no other option for this editor. LesVegas (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose topic ban. Jytdog insists on use of the highest quality reliable sources in these articles and stands as a needed bulwark against transforming them into little more than brochures for advocacy organizations. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cullen that is simply not true; it's not clear what this assessment is based on, but truth on the ground is much different. He has been using an anti-GMO labeling position paper by the board of the  AAAS  to claim that there is a scientific consensus among scientists that GMOs are safe. He has also used the WHO to support this claim, as did the AAAS. We recently had a RfC about this SC statement and found there was no support for it. This is profound knowing that WP has touted this claim for quite some time and has been called out for it by large numbers of scientists. As Sarah SV pointed out in the RfC, and as Grist also notes, the WHO actually says that claiming all GMO foods are safe is not possible, as each much be assessed on an individual basis. Knowing this, he continues to support use of this source.   <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So User:Petrarchan47 are you stating that the American Association for the Advancement of Science founded in 1848 and being the world's largest general scientific society is some fringe group? This organization has 262 scientific affiliates that represent 10 million members. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this a serious question? Doc, I understand if you are too busy to really look at these diffs and arguments, but if that is the case your comments here should be limited. I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but I have noticed that none of your remarks here seem well thought out.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   08:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose topic ban for Jytdog. I suggest it go to Arbcom, where the actions of all involved can be examined by a third party.  I oppose any community sanctions on Jytdog.  Jytdog is no saint, but I'd rather he be active in that area than the editors who have brought this action.  Since this Arbcom is not shy about handing out topic bans, I'd advise Jytdog to be on his best behavior from now on.  He's also probably close to an incivility block for some of these diffs.  Regardless, I don't trust the community to hand out a neutral result from this; Jytdog has made too many enemies, and there are too any POV-pushers who disagree with his attempts to clean up problematic articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban for Jytdog on GM-related articles (broadly construed) and including those articles listed above by the OP. This should be an indefinite ban, with no appeal allowed for 6 months.  Given that Jytdog's disruptive editing has not been limited to only GM-related articles (I can provide diffs if these are needed but I suspect they are not), I agree with Montanabw that there should be a relatively brief site block for 30 to 60 days giving time for Jytdog to reflect on his behaviour. DrChrissy (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nothing of merit in this case. More generally Jytdog does a lot of good work in a number of areas of WP (not just working to maintain neutrality in the vexed GMO space) and for his pains has attracted a number of persistent opponents who are becoming increasingly disruptive (not least on this N/B) in their daft attempt to remove what they no doubt perceive as a thorn in their sides. Here we go again. Alexbrn (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Jytdog is the subject of a gang attack from a group of crusaders who seem to be convinced their opinions over-ride wikipolicy. I commend Jytdog for his knowledgeable and tireless work in this area. Maybe this should go to ArbCom, where I predict a strong boomerang once behaviours are eximined in detail. --Pete (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per my comments in Kingofaces section below. This is ripe for ArbCom and this ANI is nothing but an uncontrolled circus. At least ArbCom will be more controlled and the issues brought up can be addressed without all of the banter. J bh  Talk  22:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Quick note Several people in the subsections below have called for sanctions on Jytdog or actively opposed such sanctions. The closing admin will need to consider more than just the votes-and-comments in this part of the section.  Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment- the back and forth calls for bans have reached an absurd level, with Quackguru's call to ban everyone supporting a ban for Jytdog standing out as particularly over the top. With this much noise, and this many experienced, involved, and opposed editors, the community is unlikely to come to a resolution on any of this, and Arbcom is a necessary next step. This dispute is more complex than science-based editors vs. fringe advocates, and involves long term patterns of behavioral issues. Hopefully this distinction will be made clear in the Arbcom filing.Dialectric (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Response
So, this kind of case is not going to work very well at ANI. Analyzing my edits for a pattern of POV editing is going to take a lot of careful work, and ANI too easily turns into a circus.

Complicating that, there are longterm anti-GMO advocates chief among them,  (who recently, in discussion with Petrarchan, said that I am "a boil that must be lanced"),  who showed up more recently, and generally pro-altmed/anti-WP:MED editors like  and others who will reliably show up on the other side of whatever drama board action is filed against me. Likewise,, whom I was rude to a while ago and apologized too, has carried a grudge and will surely show up here too.

I have been contemplating an ANI myself, but it is too messy so I haven't filed it -- there are too many separate issues/agendas here and this is going to devolve into a mess. But since it is started, here we go. I am putting these in separate subsections, which I will post in a bit, one by one. Things have come to an ugly head of late, so this is going to look like Saint Valentine's Day Massacre or something. I have been putting up with a lot of crap for a long time, and since Prokaryotes has brought this to a head, I will go ahead and lay out all the bad behavior and abuse that has been going on of late - some of it a continuation of things that have been going for a long, long time. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The story is not so complicated. You have a clear case of ownership and have been bullying other editors, whilst twisting the most basic guidelines and disallowing normal edits on any article to which you've laid claim. The result will ultimately be that you find yourself here almost weekly, if not more often. But go ahead, convince us that everyone else is wrong.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I wanted to add to my overall response that I posed above. The issue here, is an intense rush of not-so-civil WP:CRUSH  - I provide a bunch of diffs below showing that these editors have come with a single POV  - namely that pesticides and GMOs are scary and bad and that Jytdog a shill.   The behavior issues are the aggressive editing (things must be fixed now!) and refusal to actually take the time to work things out on the article Talk pages in good faith discussion.  That is what we have done for several years now.  We are at this ugly place primarily because of Prokaryotes' reckless editing, but supported by the others I have discussed below.  Of course there is a related content dispute. That is actually not a problem.  We can work that out if people settled in and worked.


 * We actually had a pretty important breakthough last week.  We have a tentative consensus on the "food safety" statement, namely:  "There is a general scientific agreement that food from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food."  That is taken verbatim from  the first ballpark-acceptable language offered by anybody who opposed the former language and I implemented it at the GM food article. Consensus is very possible on all the content issues, if people just slow down and talk and work.  The editors I name below are not interested in doing that work.  Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I take issue with your comments that the editors are not interested in consensus. When added some material to a GMO article, you blew up and threw a tantrum. At this edit, you made a personal attack on Praeceptor, calling him incompetent, and you said that you were "too angry to write more," hardly the sign of someone looking for consensus. The rest of the editors stayed and worked on it until we agreed. This has been your habit, in my experience. You don't like it when, at legal articles, everyone tells you that you are wrong; nor did you like it at Pharming (genetics). The one who seems not to be interested in consensus is you.  GregJackP   Boomer!   04:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The matter with PraceptorIP is entirely different and one that you, in your battleground behavior, have made much worse. It is your behavior there that exasperated me: I think I could actually work with him as he has been reasonable when we could talk without your interference.   I think b/c you don't understand patent law you have no idea of the systematic way he is damaging Wikipedia with POV editing.  But that is something I will need to deal with later.  My hands are quite overfull here.  Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL, I guess you don't know how he really feels about you. I am sure of one thing. I understand law a whole lot better than you do, how many times have your positions been shot down in legal articles? I can think of four or five, and can't recall a single one where your view prevailed. And after you called him incompetent, I doubt that you'll have much luck with him in the future. But feel free to believe what you want. GregJackP   Boomer!   05:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes
The GMO articles have been very roiled as of late, as Prokaryotes, who wikignomes these articles, showed up again recently and started editing very aggressively. This started on August 26 with this dif, and if you look at their last 525 edits, you will see that they have very almost all been on GMO-related articles, and every single one of those edits was adding negative content. (the "spark" for this, seemed to be that they just learned about a WHO committee report released in March that classified glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen", which was the subject of their first few edits; we incorporated that when it came out). And yes, I do serve as a steward on these articles, and push back on pro-industry and anti-GMO advocates, on both sides.

These articles are very controversial, and Prokaryotes' aggressive editing has destabilized them. And rather than slowing down and discussing things on Talk, as I urged them many times (e.g. here on their talk page and elsewhere, they just barrel ahead.  When they do write on talk, it is ... nonsense, like this: "Greenpeace is not just an advocacy group, yes it advocates for stuff but it is also a campaigner etc." and misrepresentations/insults like this.  Controversial articles require patience and an ability to talk through things, which Prokaryotes has demonstrated none  of. The behavioral issue here is aggressive POV-pushing on controversial articles. Per the useful essay, WP:Controversial articles, it is best to go slow, use great sources, and talk things through. Prokayrotes barely talks and makes many poor quality edits

Prokaryotes should be topic banned from GMO-related content. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC) (clarify the behavior issues Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC))
 * As an involved editor, I would support a topic ban on prokaryotes, who has previously been blocked and indefinitely topic banned from vaccine related topics (see ANI thread here) for disruptive editing, given their similar behavior here in this topic area. However, I predict that there will be a pile-on from editors who have historically supported prokaryotes' position in this content dispute to show up (especially since they specifically pinged them in the original post), which will likely lead to a large, meandering ANI thread consisting of accusations and counter-accusations. Yobol (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes your very involved. It also appears your involved with Jytdog quite a bit. Looking at the Intersect Contribs you have edited 319 of the same articles and the Editor Interaction Analyser shows 49 articles that you edited an hour or less from Jytdog. How many of these do you have an opposite view than his?  AlbinoFerret  15:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't the slightest idea, as I don't compare notes with Jytdog about his views on topics (he probably didn't appreciate I reverted him only a few days ago, though). For true transparency, AlbinoFerret, you should probably have noted your own previous conflict with Jytdog in a topic of area now at ArbCom, given your own previous experience at ANI, which Jytdog was involved in. Yobol (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said I was uninvolved. But my involvement in the specific pages under discussion here is limited. I was involved in 1 RFC on 1 of the pages. In that RFC I focused on PAG which were not being followed. AlbinoFerret  19:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And you have clearly been involved in significant editorial dispute with Jytdog in the past, as have most of the those !voting to sanction him, as I predicted. Yobol (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have had disagreements on some topics with him. But that doesnt indicate that I am wrong here. Its about long term behaviour issues on his part, in areas that for the most part I have had limited involvement with him. What your suggesting is that there is some vast conspiracy against him and that everyone takes the past on a personal level. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. AlbinoFerret  1:42 pm, Today (UTC−6)
 * Again, it is a fact that most of the editors !voting to sanction Jytdog have been in significant editorial conflict with them in the recent past. It is not a "conspiracy", it is the way of ANI that editors who hold grudges against those who have opposed them editorially in the past will try to get them sanctioned in the future. Happens everyday at ANI, especially with editors like Jytdog who dares to edit in areas that are controversial. Yobol (talk) 1:55 pm, Today (UTC−6)


 * Oppose. This appears to be an attempt to silence those who Jytdog believes are wrong, as to content. And who recently were in a content dispute with Jytdog where Jytdog was the lone voice arguing against including legal material edited by a subject matter expert. We don't topic-ban people because they don't agree with others, especially when they are not being disruptive. GregJackP   Boomer!   17:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This goes to all three editors reported by Jytdog. To me, this just looks like Jytdog trying to block anyone who happens to disagree with him. Disagreeing is the whole point of talk pages, but when consensus is not in your favor, it's time to move on, which Jytdog repeatedly failed to do.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * to be frank, I don't believe that you reviewed everything.  All of the editors I mention here, edit with one - one - POV on these topics.  I have added all kinds of content, both positive, negative, and neutral, to these articles and do my best to uphold NPOV in the face of advocacy from industry as well as anti-GMO advocates.    If you are overwhelmed by the amount of stuff to work over, that is one thing. But your vote is not helpful and doesn't reflect what has actually gone on.  Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well "to be frank", whether you think I reviewed everything or not is just your opinion, with absolutely nothing to back it. I looked over every diff you brought up and the fact is you have a content disagreement and this was your "solution" to it. I'm more than capable in concluding this so don't try to undermine my vote again.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking a second look. I am sorry that you cannot see the POV pushing and campaigning across this whole set of articles.   The claim that "there is absolutely nothing to back it up" is not true.  I meant what I said about his last 550 diffs. If you go there and click randomly, you will find that every single one adds some kind of negative information.  Here I will do it and provide ten diffs - this will literally be random and selected from edits to articles, not Talk or drama boards:
 * adds content to article about a FRINGE-POV pushing article he created based on two WP:SPS sources and a meeting agenda. Padding to try to add credibility to a FRINGE group.
 * dif adds content about how humans use glyphosate to kill weeds, and lack of weeds means that butterfies starve, to article on GM food controversies. This has nothing to do with GM food (the weed stands are along roads and the edges of fields, not in the fields)  Glyphosate could be used for these purposes regardless of what is growing in the field.
 * puffing up credibility of anti-GMO groups.
 * removes content about impact of Seralini's glitzy and manipulated press conference on his rat study, which the journal ended up retracting. Deleted text is a quote, yet the edit note says "too much SYN".
 * adds content making Seralini's support seem stronger than it was
 * dif modifying "Consensus statement" on relative safety of GM food, reflecting a tentative consensus on the the talk page of the GM food article. This is kind of OK.
 * dif add content about an advocacy group suing the EPA over regulation of glyphosate
 * removed statement that per WP:PSCI gave the science-based reality where FRINGE claims are presented.
 * dif adds content to Golden rice article about Tufts study that was retracted due to investigators not getting appropriate consents for testing with people
 * dif adds content trying to discredit the Science Media Centre
 * there you go. Exactly one POV.  One.  Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I was refering to the fact that you said I never reviewed your diffs. I don't need these other ones but I will look through them as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not here about content disputes - I do not bring content disputes to ANI. Everything I have written here is about behavior.   The behavioral issue is aggressive POV-pushing on a controversial set of articles - sorry if I didn't make that more clear.  Will redact to make that more clear. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose In case my comments above are unclear. This is a content dispute. Jytdog is to involved and sees dark shadows around ever corner. This appears to be the case of trying to remove an active editor who disagrees with him. AlbinoFerret  19:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose boomerang per GregJackP. Jytdog is not a neutral editor, he has a very aggressive POV that is less about accuracy and more about bullying; it's his tone far more than his viewpoint.  He could say the same thing with far more grace and fewer attacks.  Montanabw (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would lean towards support, but this won't be the place to resolve it. Clear evidence of POV-pushing, and some competence issues. This can best be discussed at ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * there are some aspects of this Monster case that may be useful to bring to Arbcom (it may be the only way to get the longterm hounding stopped, for example, and I am sure that some editors would like my overall edits on this subject scrutinized) but Prokaryotes' editing is classic ANI-handleable disruption, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe if this ANI complaint had started as a simple complaint against Prokaryotes, but no way, the way that it actually has progressed. And I am far from sure that anything less than a full ArbCom case will end up being where this goes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - per nom. BMK (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. This is one case that I think ANI could potentially deal with succinctly as this was a very acute problem. Looking at the actual behavior of Prokaryotes shows their edit warring has locked down a couple articles in about the last week or so. It looks like they cannot competently handle editing in controversial topics as they continue edit warring when asked to discuss on the talk page,, ,. That last diff was a case where they were edit warring quite a bit that day and got the page locked down before finally coming to the talk page to specifically mention where consensus had been achieved in an entirely different article. The edit warring in that case would have been entirely bypassed if they simply linked a specific diff instead of vague edit warring summaries after being asked repeatedly to use the talk page. Once the page is protected, go to the next similarly named page.


 * Additionally, they consistently violate WP:FOC, which is policy, by ranting about other editors (I've lost track how many titles like, "OR by Jytdog" have been made) and often casting serious aspersions, such as being a shill, etc., Since they have a history of this behavior from their previous topic ban in vaccines and apparently bristles about WP:FRINGE in other diffs here, a broad topic ban for GMOs also seems pretty straightforward (or maybe even just fringe topics). Since John imposed the topic ban, I'm pinging them to this in case they remember anything from the case and have any comment on this editor's behavior here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support yes appears would solve much of the issues. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to piggyback a little bit, it does appear that Prokaryotes entering into the topic is the straw that broke the camel's back here. It wasn't the source of all our woes, but their behavior definitely became the focal point across different articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – The behaviour of prokaryotes has been apalling. Edit-warring while RfC discussion is taking place, wikihounding, personal attacks, failure to FOC - he is clearly gaming the system, and this is the latest effort. Some time out and a pause to reflect on what we are doing here might help. --Pete (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Note. I did all this with a lot of haste.  Too much haste. The GMO articles are often difficult, but the disruption that has occurred in the time since August 26th when Prokaryotes showed up is unprecedented in the 2+ years I have been working on these articles, and their aggressive editing, in the context of the new presence of the other editors I have named below, has created serious disruption.

Here is all the drama board activity, just since then:


 * Aug 28 EWN on Genetically modified food
 * Aug 31 EWN at Genetically modified organism
 * Sept 1 EWN at Glyphosate
 * Sept 4 EWN at Seralini affair
 * Sept 6 EWN at Seralini affiar


 * Right, that is really remarkable. 4 of those directly involve Prokaryotes; the other is DrChrissy. Both are new on the scene.  To provide perspective, I searched EWN for "glyphosate", "Monsanto", and "genetically" and here are the last EWN reports on related articles.


 * June 2015 EWN at March Against Monsanto
 * May 2015 EWN at Glyphosate
 * Feb 2014 EWN at Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser
 * May 2014 EWN on Genetically modified food controversies
 * Sept 2013 EWN on Genetically modified food controversies


 * The disruption is clear from EWN alone.


 * The other piece of this, is opening multiple fronts at once in editing and Talk, on difficult issues, and not actually talking through issues. Just talking about the Genetically modified food article:


 * August 26 Their first edits at GM food added a section on glyphosate (an herbicide) all based on one thrust (the recent IARC report, and not the breadth of sources on glyphosate). This edit was all about the herbicide. Not about GM food, not even about residues on good.  Just the herbicide.  This is OFFTOPIC with regard to the scope of the article. The scope could be expanded to include all pesticides used with GM Crops, but that is something to discuss.   That lead to [Talk:Genetically_modified_food#Glyphosate|this talk page section]] where Prokaryotes is just all over the place, and not dealing with scope and sourcing, and Prokaryotes [Talk:Genetically_modified_food#RFC_regarding_WHO_study|launched an RfC]] the next day.   It is just raw demands to include the content they want and no effort to actually work things out.
 * Same day (Aug 26), rewrote the "scientific consensus" on food safety section, and edit warred over this (the first EWN above). On Aug 28th opened this strange Talk section and later launched [Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Editor_adds_OR_to_aprox_6_articles.2C_about_an_alleged_Scientific_consensus|this]] strange ORN post.  We have been working over that statement since we had an RfC on it, as I mentioned above, and Prokayrotes showed no interest in actually joining the conversation and picking up the growing consensus there, just this slashing editing/Talk page style.


 * Their presence is really disruptive. The topic ban is wholly justified. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Given your recent forced redactions of accusations against other editors, I am disappointed to see you doing this. STRIKEOUT! might be needed again I feel. DrChrissy (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware there was even more edit warring going on involving Prokaryotes now with the Seralini affair article. With now 5 AN3 boards involving them for making edits and continuing to revert when asked to go to the talk page under WP:BRD or WP:STATUSQUO, it's looking like we're getting an acute case of editor misbehavior shown there was well as in this ANI. Seeing recent comments on an article talk page such as accusing someone of playing dumb or running an editor off the page seems to drive the point home they can't utilize talk pages competently or according to policy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely you as an involved editor must also consider that Jytdog is involved in all these EWNs (you too for the most part), and speaking of FOC, do you have anything to say about this statement by Jytdog? ... just to be clear, look at my contribs you arrogant and ignorant fuck. At least try to be objective. Thanks.prokaryotes (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a perfect example of your approach to WIkipedia, Prokaryotes. That happened a while ago, and I struck that quickly and apologized to the person to whom I wrote that, who accepted my apology.  But you are just throwing any random bad thing that you can dredge up.  Jytdog (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Common personal attacks are not so random, indeed very common - yesterday alone you wrote, Your mischaracterization of what I wrote and of MEDRS is malicious, incompetent, or both. and to another editor who was trying to talk with you, Your answers are opaque. I am not willing to work with you.  I doubt others will want to work with you either.. You are a bully, as have others noted several times.prokaryotes (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case however, one has to look at WP:BAITING in Prokaryotes' case rather than them being bullied (or in reality Prokaryotes doing the bullying) as they have been egging things on quite a bit lately. When you have someone constantly sniping at others by personalizing talk sections in addition to the types of posts I mentioned previously being opaque, pointy, and generally nonresponsive, that fits WP:TENDENTIOUS like a glove/ You can expect people to hold their patience for only so long there. Your talk page behavior doesn't validate such outbursts from other editors, but it does point to the source of the problem for where admin action should be taken to alleviate the problem. There's no question that you are just stirring the pot in a controversial article whether intentional or not. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy
I am seeking an extension of DrChrissy's topic ban (he is already topic-banned from discussing MEDRS/human health content) to include agriculture, and an iBan. I would like to edit peacefully (as possible given the topics I work on) without him carrying his grudge into articles I work on.

DrChrissy tends to edit content about animal health/welfare; I tend to edit content about health (drugs, food, etc) and ag biotech. We overlapped a bit at the Foie gras article back in March, which didn't go well. I was rude to him, which led him to open a thread here against me for incivility that was closed with a warning for me, which I accepted, and I apologized to DrChrissy at that ANI and at DrChrissy's talk page.

DrChrissy wasn't happy with that outcome, and [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive270#Request_review_of_closure_of_ANI_against_Jytdog|sought to overturn the close AN to get more severe action. To no avail.

Still unhappy, DrChrissy pursued conflict with me, editing health related articles outside his normal fields, like Scrambler therapy and Acupuncture, over which he filed an ANI case (closed no action) in mid-April. By mid-May his behavior at Acupuncture got him topic banned from discussing MEDRS.

In his anger, he also started to make probing edits into genetic engineering ag content, as you can see here on the GMO article, here on the Genetic engineering article, all back in the Spring.

Most recently he has pushed heavily into article that I usually edit, often incompetently and often aggressively and up to the edge of his topic ban and over into it.

You can see the editing pattern here on Glyphosate (examples of incompetent include adding in this dif content that says "Glyphosate can be lethal to non-human mammals." ("X can be lethal to Y" is true of any X and Y per The dose makes the poison - water can be lethal to humans.) That dif also has content about toxicity that directly reports the tox experiments used to established minimum exposure levels for humans). He also proposing using a very unreliable source here for the glyphosate article, and actually edit-warred over content in Colony collapse disorder here and here based on a FRINGE source (as determined at RSN.

Along with Glyphosate and Colony collapse disorder articles, DrChrissy has extended the scope of his editing to include Genetically modified bird (which he created and edited to include the ludicrous content that RNA is a small molecule), Genetically modified fish (per this; and Genetically modified food per this. There is more, and I haven't linked to talk discussions.

I asked him not to extend the field of conflict with me here and even tried to have a neural editor who seems to be OK with both of us mediate, here. To no avail.

I am very sorry that I hurt DrChrissy so deeply but his carrying a grudge around and actually seeking conflict is not OK. So as above I am seeking an extension of DrChrissy's topic ban (he is already topic-banned from discussing MEDRS/human health content) to include agriculture, and an iBan. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ban creep, this was all discussed and addressed by on Dr.Chrissy's page. The admin who banned DrChrissy months ago. This is WP:FORUMSHOP  AlbinoFerret  15:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Ajwilly was dealing with a specific instance.  I am showing a larger pattern of bad behavior  here that was not raised at DrChrissy's talk page.  It is ban expansion; this is what happens to editors who act badly.  They lose their editing privileges, bit by bit by bit. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you were unhappy with the decision of the admin in the first link not doing all that you wanted. So you started a discussion on the same topics discussed here in the second.[ Since it doesnt look like your going to get your desired outcome, you have brought it here, thats [[WP:FORUMSHOP]]. AlbinoFerret  16:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a flat out lie. I did not actually seek to extend their topic ban - I said I was thinking about it.  Nor did I seek an Iban there.  Stop lying. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you keep pushing for more, editors are free to read the sections. As for the IBAN. How about you show that your capable of doing it. Like staying off their talk page? AlbinoFerret  18:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever seen an editor list a series of editors he wants removed.While I have no experience with the other editors, in the case of Dr Chrissy, I know that Dr Chrissy and the admin, Adjwilley, who applied a topic ban are in communication as to the boundaries of the topic ban. For example   I see no reason for Jytdog to look elsewhere to find support to extend Dr Chrissy's topic ban. Doing so undercuts the admin who has been thoughtful and consistent, and is forum shopping. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC))


 * Oppose. This appears to be an attempt to silence those who Jytdog believes are wrong, as to content. And who recently were in a content dispute with Jytdog where Jytdog was the lone voice arguing against including legal material edited by a subject matter expert. We don't topic-ban people because they don't agree with others, especially when they are not being disruptive. Also, this is another attempt for ban creep, as noted by AlbinoFerret. GregJackP   Boomer!   17:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is a vendetta and a game of "gotcha."  Jytdog needs to back off.  Montanabw (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Really, I would rather not bump into DrChrissy at all. As the diffs above show, he keeps pushing deeper into areas where I have worked for a long time.  I don't know how you cannot recognize that.  He and I could be both be having a more peaceful and productive time here if he weren't doing that.  Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone who was more on the sidelines in the DrChrissy/Jytdog interactions as I at least began out working favorably with DrChrissy in other topics, I do have to agree with Jytdog's assessment. Whether intentional or not, DrChrissy has been pushing into the topic where any competent editor would know from the topic, much less editors they've been cautioned to try to avoid, would be highly controversial. Most people with bans over their head know to stay away from such things, not go towards them. That doesn't make it a "gotcha", but just extremely poor judgement on DrChrissy's part. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Leaning towards support, although I think that an interaction ban would be better. DrChrissy is a good editor, but has gotten into the bad habit of following Jytdog around. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Littleolive oil has summed it up very well. If Jytdog has a problem with the ban being broken, he should discuss first with Adjwilley. If he has a problem with the admin being inconsistent, or not enforcing the ban properly, or some other issue, then the issue should be raised here. Otherwise, as Littleolive oil points out, that undercuts the admin. DrChrissy and Adjwilley seem to be communicating well. Accusations of lying are a little unseemly - AlbinoFerret also seems to be making fair points. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * the first dif that Albino gave (|this one] is a link to a section where I didn't comment at all, until after Ajdwilley had already spoken up. I was fine with his call there.  The 2nd diff is to a later section where DrChrissy introduced a new source (so not part of anything discussed in the first diff).  Use of that source would have been a violation of the topic ban and I was fine with the outcome of that decision too.   I didn't seek an extension of their topic ban there nor an iBan - it would have been inappropriate to do there.  I have kept hoping that DrChrissy would stop seeking conflict with me; I would rather not have any idea if he is violating his topic ban on health content or not.  I have only filed this because DrChrissy keeps ploughing ahead (even right after the stuff discussed in the 2nd diff, he kept right on at the Glyphosate and other articles where I usually work). Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You characterise DrChrissy's behaviour as simply "seeking conflict with you". Do you think it's possible they are simply editing in good faith from a different point of view? There are plenty of other editors now looking over DrChrissy's edits, in the light of the ban. Don't you think it would be better for everyone if you and DrChrissy just stepped apart for a while? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I explained it above. I was rude to him, was warned for it, he sought to overturn that and get something harsher, was denied, and started following me around and editing combatively, which led to his topic ban at Acupuncture, and after that he has gone yet farther and started editing ag/herbicide articles, where he never edited before. In every one of the ag/herbicide article he has argued with me. He could have continue editing happily in the fields where he used to work, without expanding articles where he knows i work and that are very controversial. The before/after is very clear.  I am sorry that I hurt him, but his behavior since then, is entirely his choice.  I am sad to see it and do not enjoy this. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure DrChrissy is a him. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So what? Does being male or female excuse DocChrissy's behaviour? Of course not. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 09:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So nothing. I'd be the last to suggest that. And it's reassuring that gender cannot be a factor in the interaction here? But I guess it's up to DrChrissy how "they" wish to be addressed. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * DrChrissy is a guy per this. People mistake that from his name all the time. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for clarifying. I'll just go an sit in the corner for a while. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support interaction ban, neutral on topic ban. As documented on DrChrissy's talk page already here, Adjwilley (the admin instituting the topic ban) has grown frustrated with DrChrissy's constant attempts at stepping right on the line of their topic ban even after being given a lot of WP:ROPE. There's been quite a few times where DrChrissy said he understood the limit of the topic ban followed by pulling that rope extremely tight. Expanding it even further probably won't help with the block that he seems to be on track for in the future, but I do think the interaction would be warranted in this case. I have noticed that once the topic ban was put in place, it didn't take long for DrChrissy to move into GMO related articles to continue the same behavior issues that caused the topic ban. Some of those edits to seem to be closely associated with Jytdog, and DrChrissy for some reason has decided to step into very controversial articles with that topic ban in hand rather than stay clear away from areas that could easily get them blocked. I've edited rather collaboratively with DrChrissy in animal behavior articles for instance, so I think the interaction ban would help limit them to topics where they haven't such problematic behavior regardless of what's causing it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support they should have been blocked based on breaking their topic ban. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The complete opposite of what is claimed above is true.  Jytdog has been trolling, baiting, and harassing DrChrissy to no end.  He banned her from his talk page yet hypocritically continues to post on her talk page and harass her.  DrChrissy has asked him to stop.  At  13:34, 4 September, she explicitly said, "Please do not post here again".  He refused to stop and continued.  He also falsely claimed at 13:36, 4 September that he would "stay off your Talk page, except to provide notice when you are violating your topic ban or other official purposes."  Well, apparently Jytdog lacks self-control, because he just edited DrChrissy's sandbox at 23:34, 5 September 2015.  If this isn't harassment, I don't know what is.  Of course, this is exactly what happens to anyone who edits an article where Jytdog is busy enforcing his ownership policies.  And if you disagree with him, he will work tirelessly to rally other editors and lobby to have you blocked and/or banned. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose topic ban, support interaction ban. DrChrissy and Jytdog have each developed an unhealthy obsession with the other. Both are valuable editors in their own way, but the stranglehold they have on each other needs to be released. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Epipelagic, you realize that the current conflict is driven entirely by DrChrissy's choice to start editing articles where I edit?  We would have no conflict - little to no interactions - if he did not keep starting to edit articles where I already work? Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Jytdog please stop trying to deflect the discussion away from your editing behaviour. The "current conflict" is actually between you and the OP.  Please stop wasting editor's time and direct your comments towards defending why you should not receive a topic ban and total block. DrChrissy (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support IBAN They seem to have been going after each other for some time now, and it doesn't show signs of stopping. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I've been thinking about an I-ban here more, how do you think it should ideally play out Adjwilley since you've been involved in somewhat mediating the interaction/ban conversations already as an admin? Since DrChrissy only recently came to the GMO topic, should he try to just stay away from that since Jytdog already has a major editing history there? I don't think Jytdog goes near animal behavior articles, so I don't think that end of things should be a problem. Functionally, an I-ban can be a quasi-topic ban in situations like this, so I'm just curious on your thoughts here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that DrChrissy came to the GMO topic because that's where Jytdog was editing. So I guess in a sense an IBAN would act like a topic ban here. Ideally the two would just learn to ignore each other, but that seems unlikely from DrChrissy's side, and Jytdog is actually asking for an iban, so I figure let's give it to them. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment For anyone looking at Jytdog's behaviour here, I would point out three things. First, Jytdog brought up this case against me in this thread before I had even posted here! Perhaps those with more knowledge of procedures on wikipedia might care to comment on the "legality" of this - should it have been a separate thread? Second, Jytdog is guilty of following me to Magnetoception here and made completely unfounded accusations of my using contentious sources. My first encounter with Jytdog was on Foie gras. He does not limit his disruptive editing to GM-related articles. Third, and perhaps most worrying, is that given the current heat here, one would think that Jytdog and others (including myself) would be considering their current editing much more carefully. Not Jytdog. On Jytdog's Talk page, there is a section called "Remove my name and the accusation." This is a discussion Jytdog is having with a third party - I am not involved in the slightest. In this discussion, Jytdog has chosen to provide a series of diffs with comments. Several of these comments link my name to my topic ban or other subjects which Jytdog portrays in a very negative light, e.g. "3 contribs on DrChrissyy's bogus (snow closed) ANI over scrambler". These comments are totally unnecessary and completely irrelevant to the subject matter of the thread. (There are several other editors that also might be concerned by this behaviour.) I consider this to be an uncivil use of his talk page to attack me (and others). Jytdog banned me from his Talk page sometime ago, so I can not contact him there and I am unable to defend myself. One of Jytdog's favourite words is "ugly". Yes, that is ugly indeed. DrChrissy (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax
This editor is active in the GMO articles for exactly one reason, and that is to take care of "a boil that must be lanced") on August 27.   The amount of bad faith boiled into that statement is enough to ask for IBan and for him to also be topic banned from GMO articles.  Jusdafax has no interest in the content there - is WP:NOTHERE in that topic to build an encyclopedia, but just to come after me, and you can see him actually starting to try to "lance the boil" around the time he wrote that.

Here are diffs where all he is doing is ripping on me on various talk pages or rather mindlessly parroting people disagreeing with me and specifically naming them:
 * Aug 26 dif and dif within moments of each other, each just agreeing with prokaryotes
 * Aug 26 just praising whoever is disagreeing with me
 * Aug 27 again, and this goes on and on. No content contribs, just BATTLEGROUND behavior on Talk pages.
 * Aug 27 more
 * Aug 27 more
 * Aug 27 more - this one is important, for two reasons. Apparently prompted Petrarchan's remark discussed below, and shows the hysteria, and the way all these editors are feeding off each other (the comment is in reaction to a claim by DrChrissy)
 * Aug 31 personalizing content dispute with high drama. "Something is wrong..."
 * Aug 31 more of same
 * Sept 2 yet more
 * Sept 3 calling for early close to ongoing RfC (one of several launched of late over trivia)
 * Sept 3 this comment in particular, shows no desire at all to actually try to talk through issues.  It just expresses no clue that we resolve content disputes by actually talking at article Talk pages, in good faith.

When I filed at 3RR against Prokaryotes and then withdrew it because it had gone stale and the article had settled some (finally), Jusafax responded at Prokaryotes with this which was really surprising to me, as it egged Prokaryotes on instead of advising him to actually use the Talk page to work things out. I responded to him there with this.

And at 3RR where we have been three times due to Prokaryotes aggressive editing, you find this kind of dismayingly clueless stuff, trying to turn that acute-crisis board into a drama board: And there is more of that.
 * this
 * this

My interaction with Jusdafax goes back to 2013, when they accused me of being a paid editor without grounds, on his talk page here. He appears to remain convinced of that, even though I have bent over backwards to prove I am not.

Yesterday when I asked Jusdafax about the "lance the boil" comment, instead of responding in a simple human way, (like "gee that was an ugly thing to write. i am sorry about that") he responded with this truly incredible rant. Really? Watching someone's Talk page is hounding them? The hysteria is way too much.

So yes I would like an IBAN and for Jusdafax to be topic banned from ag biotech/pesticide articles. They seem incapable of AGF with regard to me. Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC) {withdrawing this, see note below. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC))


 * Oppose. This appears to be an attempt to silence those who Jytdog believes are wrong, as to content. And who recently were in a content dispute with Jytdog where Jytdog was the lone voice arguing against including legal material edited by a subject matter expert. We don't topic-ban people because they don't agree with others, especially when they are not being disruptive. GregJackP   Boomer!   17:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This section shows Jytdog's WP:OWNERSHIP if someone disagrees with him, that person is fodder for him to ABF. Its also a content dispute. I wonder what PAG outlines consequences for disagreeing with someone over content? What one outlines using the drama boards to win content disputes by getting the opposing editors banned? The last sentence of Jytdog's post is really telling, he expects everyone to AGF with him, but not the other way around. AlbinoFerret  18:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per AlbinoFerret and others.  Montanabw (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose this also, not that it can be resolved here. But I think that there is some merit to the claim that Jusdafax has been jumping too quickly to see bad things where they really aren't happening, so I hope that he will hear that from me as a friendly suggestion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now I've been on the receiving end of some of the inappropriate behavior by Jusdafax in this topic as well. It's disruptive, but not quite to the point yet where an interaction ban would be solidly justified. That being said, the improper use of article talk pages by not focusing on content is a distraction at best, and it should be made clear to them that continuing to use talk pages that way can results in administrative actions. One of my first main interactions with Jusdafax was tendentious "warning" to me after I asked another editor further up in the diff to stop accusations of editors being "pro-industry", etc on the talk page. (with a bit more of conversation ). As with the AN3 boards cited here, there is a very clear trend of Jusdafax turning a blind eye to the behavior of editors with behavior problems that are pushing anti-GMO positions, but they are very quick to jump on editors that oppose the content or are trying to get edit warring editors, etc. to the talk page and focus on content. I'm really not sure how to address that behavior though as it doesn't appear to be limited to one editor and I've only had limited interactions so far. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I see the lack of support here and have withdrawn this. I still find the "lance the boil" statement of purpose, and the following behavior to be a very clear expression of bad faith, but this clearly doesn't rise to actionable behavior in the eyes of editors whose opinions I value above.  the other issues I have raised here are much more problematic and I would rather the focus be on them.  Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet another withdrawn accusation against another editor...just when it all seems to be going wrong for you Jytdog. You are talking about other editor's bad faith but it is now totally transparent the bad faith is originating from you. You may wish that this AN/I focuses on other issues but you do not control this ANI.  It is about your totally unacceptable behaviour and the fact you have now had to strike yet again makes me even more convinced you should receive a site block. DrChrissy (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * At least Jytdog is able to admit when they are wrong...unlike some editors I know... Seriously, this isn't a political race and there's no shame in backing down on something. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree enthusiastically with what Adjwilley just said. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment regarding the inclusion and strike through of this section, and my thanks
This ANI notice was badly-timed, coming at the very start of a long USA holiday weekend, and poorly conceived. The subsequent gigantic escalation of this notice was ill-advised; the addition and eventual complete strike through of this AN/I section regarding me is unique in my experience as a Wikipedia editor, and the community obviously found the lengthy section had no merit. To those opposing or not supporting the call for sanctions, which is everyone, my sincere thanks. As it appears the larger matter will be scrutinized by ArbCom, further comment here will serve no constructive purpose. Jus <font color="C1118C">da <font color="#0000FF">fax  19:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47
It was a comment on his talk page by, that Jusdafax responded to with the "lance the boil" comment mentioned above. Petrachan's comment was likely in response to Jusdafax's comment on Aug 27 here mentioned above.


 * Hounding with personal attacks - reason for iBAN

Petrarchan has been hounding me for about three years now. I have just put up with it but since I am flushing the toilet here, this comes out too. From the diff above, it is clear enough that Petrarchan needs to step away from ag biotech topics, since they seem to make her physically ill, as she wrote: "the fact that this remains a (growing) problem has disgusted me to the point that I become nauseous thinking about logging in, or in any way participating in this project."

Going back to at least October 2013 she has vilified me as something like Monsanto's Antichrist Here to Destroy Wikipedia From Within ( see this and this followed by this, and especially this).

And all along there, is stuff like the following, basically every chance she has to take a shot at me, or egg on people who are editing as advocates against good health content in WP. (and I mean that - here are her contribs to ANI, and most of them are taking shots at me. Working backwards:
 * July 2015 diff trying to derail an ANI with a long rant against me
 * July 2015 Jumped into a snow-closes proposal to topic ban me from COI and GMO editing here
 * June 2015 Ranted against me at ANI here
 * May 2015 opposes topic ban from health content for DrChrissy, "per every word by LittleOliveOil"
 * March 2015 piles onto ANI against me re DrChrissy. This is the one where I was uncivil to him, and was warned, which I aknowledged and accepted and apologized for.
 * (many more)
 * July 2013 dif and dif and dif and dif (that one actually characterizing WP:CIVILITY as "sticky-sweet speak.") - all that trying to derail an incivility ANI filed against Viriditas by focusing it on me and others who she came to think were in the pocket of Monsanto.

It is not limited to ANI.
 * more of same at EWN
 * here at ORN.

In July of this year, on her talk page here and here she gives encouragement to, who was recently indeffed for being WP:NOTHERE but rather only here to promote FRINGE theories (block log),  and in the latter, Petrarchan pings ... yes, JusdaFax, several times to try to rally him to the effort of getting more FRINGE content into Wikipedia. In the midst of that is this dif where she goes on about her "Guerrilla Skeptics" conspiracy theorizing (which she goes on about) from time to time, and the conspiracy of a corporate stranglehold on WP articles about biotech. (here is a little lovefest between jusdafax and petrarchan on that topic, from P, response from J dif and response from P comes as close as you can without actually saying it, to calling me a paid servant of Monsanto.  The self-congratulatory, self-righteous delusion and bad faith there, is hard for me to see.   It is not WIkipedian.

; The above starts to lay the ground for consistent FRINGE advocacy on matters of science, including health and agriculture. Now for more of that:
 * advocates FRINGE content about Kombucha - proposes adding about this tea, that: "This healthy beverage has been used as therapy for several conditions like treating cancer, increasing T cell count, lowering blood pressure, curing arthritis, treating gastrointestinal disorders and alleviating constipation. Kombusha tea is also known as “fountain of youth” tonic as it restores the gray hair, reduces wrinkles and treats acne.''
 * made edits to that article like this several times, downplaying negatives and pumping up "benefits" (immediately reverted by someone else
 * this dif made a dramatic edit to the food safety section of the Genetically modified food article, which is the most controversial part of that article.
 * dif to Joseph Mercola downplaying the extent of FRINGE content on his website
 * here she says that the AAAS is an "advocacy group". oy.
 * diff and dif introducing poor quality sources and giving undue weight to them, that are in keeping with skepticism about mainstream medicine here for example
 * all kinds of poor editing at the Cannabis article back in 2013, which I won't go into
 * adding poor sources (immediately reverted by Doc James)[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_%28drug%29&type=revision&diff=555824297&oldid=555415186
 * dif introduced a bunch of content that didn't stick including claim that hemp cures cancer.
 * edit warring with MED admin over content based on poor source, emphasizing conspiracy theories about cannabis

Anyway, I have had it with taking these personal attacks for the past 2-3 years. With regard to anything related to health and to agriculture, Petrarchan47 is WP:NOTHERE. I am asking for a topic ban from health content and agriculture content, and an iban. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC) (struck bad diff per Adjwilly Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)) (amend to better focus this request to the community Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC))


 * I have checked literally one diff, where I am claimed to have called the AAAS an advocacy group, and already am finding myself misrepresented. Below is my entire comment. I recommend editors verify all of Jytdogs comments and diffs before assuming they are factual.
 * Arguments that "food safety is the core of the controversy" make no sense in light of the actual contents of the controversy section. If it is in fact the core issue, it should be stated in clear terms for the reader, not left to be assumed, and the details of this controversy laid out in full. The Safety paragraph is exceedingly detailed, whilst the proceeding paragraph says nothing beyond what a Table of Contents would. The third/final paragraph gives several examples of "opponents" and members of "advocacy groups" who doubt the claims of safety, and the methods and regulatory bodies behind them. There is no reference for this, just a citation needed tag. The Safety Consensus paragraph is very well referenced, and although the very first citation is to a paper by board members of the AAAS in an effort to block GMO labeling, there is no mention of "advocacy" here. The Controversy section should discuss the controversy in detail (with references). The Safety Consensus statement, in its current form, belongs in its own section (like a "health effects" section), as it relates directly the article's subject and is not simply a subtopic. The controversy section is being misused in that it saying "nothing to see here, folks. we're not sure what all the commotion is about, but it's just coming from a couple of advocacy groups, anyway". Meanwhile the section actually says nothing about the controversy. For instance, the vast majority of the US wants GMOs labeled, and that isn't mentioned at all.   <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Second diff checked, more innacuracy. Jytdog must have put these diffs together in a hurry, because he's misreading them. At Kumbucha, I was questioning the source, not trying to add it. Jytdog is the one supporting the 2013 source:
 * However the 2013 source is of such poor quality, there is good reason to check into whether these two conflicting sources are actually referring to the same data, with the lower quality, newer review having missed the study invalidating previous findings, resulting in misinformation. I mean, they claim too that This healthy beverage has been used as therapy for several conditions like treating cancer, increasing T cell count, lowering blood pressure, curing arthritis, treating gastrointestinal disorders and alleviating constipation. Kombusha tea is also known as “fountain of youth” tonic as it restores the gray hair, reduces wrinkles and treats acne. Do you see why some are questioning its results and suggesting any claims made to it be removed from the article?  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mercola article - I am claimed to have added bias in this edit, when actually I fixed an OR, cherry picked statement summarizing his website contents based on a primary source by adding RS. I removed a word that was repeated in the preceding sentences because it sounded awkward. Jytdog is clearly grasping at straws.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Kombucha - Jdog claims I am pumping up the positives in this edit, suggesting biased editing. Actually I fixed the negative bias and only lightly reflected on some of the benefits mentioned here:
 * It is shown that KT can efficiently act in health prophylaxis and recovery due to four main properties: detoxification, antioxidation, energizing potencies, and promotion of depressed immunity. The recent experimental studies on the consumption of KT suggest that it is suitable for prevention against broad-spectrum metabolic and infective disorders. This makes KT attractive as a fermented functional beverage for health prophylaxis..  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47 คุ  ก  
 * Cannabis - Jdog calls it a conspiracy theory to say that most of the studies have focussed on harm, but those who are familiar with the research know THE NATION'S RESEARCH-GRADE CANNABIS IS CONTROLLED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE, WHOSE MISSION TO CURB USE IS AT ODDS WITH THAT OF RESEARCHERS LOOKING TO STUDY POT'S THERAPEUTIC PROPERTIES  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cannabis and cancer - Jdog flat out lies above when he says that I added a claim that cnanabis cures cancer, or that I spun the article otherwise. I am proud of the diff he shows, and merely added that Tommy Chong claimed to have cured his cancer using cannabis extract. Cancer dot gov has just eluded to cannabinoids' effect on cancer in their (fringe?) website. I highly doubt Wikipedia hosts this information, though, which is an example of a bias problem I have been trying to call attention to for years.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * At this point I have reviewed all if the diffs brought forth against me, and I disagree with the framing of all of them. I would not change a word, and feel proud of the edits I have made. If it turns out that the bias is mine, and that I am so full of delusion that I can't see this fact, then I should be site banned immediately. I am still using an iPad so won't be providing diffs, but have provided them along with with these claims in previous ANIs:


 * I began editing the Cannabis article when I came across an OR/SYNTH claim with about 5 primary sources that cannabis had killed people. This is simply embarrassing, and if I am going to associate myself with this site, I would rather it didn't host nonsense. I worked with other editors on the talk page until we had a very substantive and accurate section on the safety of cannabis. Three members of WProject Medicine with their new MEDRS rule came in and took over all of the cannabis related pages, letting us all know what a horrible job we had done. Jdog above tries to hang me with using sources that don't comply with MEDRS, but I didn't know about this new law until the takeover. Proof of this is found on Sandy Georgia's talk page, where in my first and only edits, I sought assistance in understanding this new rule. Suffice it to say, there was no intention by any of them to allow me to help in building the articles. They purposely sought to find negatives about the medicine and present them front and center. They removed the fact that no one had died from the non-toxic herb, and used a rat study that was able to produce death by by injecting cannabis OIL into their veins. This was interpreted as proof that humans have been shooting up, and have died from, cannabis, and this was added to the article.


 * I began editing the Kombucha article because again it was embarrassing. The lede claimed that this drink had been killing people, and the talk page had an entire year's worth of different editors complaining about the ridiculous bias in the article, with Alexbrn almost singlehandedly fending them off. There is a long story to this, but if you look at the article today you will see that the lede is very different from when I first found it, the article much more science based and well rounded, and this "death by Kombucha" claim no longer exists. However the climate here I such that I have been labelled anti GMO, anti science, a POV pusher, an environmentalist, and a possible insider with the Kombucha cabal (a serious claim Alexbrn posted to the Project Med talk page). Did anyone coach Alexbrn about his editing? Nope, his friends shielded him from criticism and pretended nothing was wrong, quickly archiving that talk page showing others' concerns.


 * The Mercola article is less biased since my few edits there, but it is a hopeless attack piece on a guy who questions the pharmaceutical industry, and a page that will likely result in some sort of lawsuit against this website, I'm afraid, much like G Edward Griffin.


 * My words to Mr Bill Truth, who's article about Mercola's multi award winning documentary about GMOs was deleted just prior to him getting the boot entirely, were actually to encourage him to leave WP and just enjoy his life. I told him if he wanted to stay, he should find a mentor, and gave him a link to WPs mentor project.


 * If I had brought Jdog here with a series of diffs that did NOT say what I claimed they did, I would have been banned in more ways than one, and it would have happened within hours. Jdog does it, and his friends say nothing, instead they make noise about Seralini (???) and claim we can't possibly look at Jdog's edits in this venue. Tryptofish has recommended that Jdog find his best diffs to show that he is unbiased at the GMO pages, and says he's about to take this to ArbCom (see Jdog's TP). So this whole thing isn't about the reader. It isn't about getting to the truth, it's about supporting our friends and getting them off the hook. When atsme took Jdog to ArbCom for his fascist COI work, his friends did not say a thing against him or about the actual content, from what I recall, instead they screamed about what an awful, horrendous mess of an editor she is. It's hard to have respect for this process, or for the inner workings of this website, to be perfectly honest.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this is clearly retaliatory, P-chan shows up here and comments, and then J-dog adds him to the list for a topic ban? Clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by J-dog, and unacceptable. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would very much support this a full site ban, although it will have to be dealt with at ArbCom. Nonstop battleground editing and POV pushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Clearly retaliatory as GregJackP points out. This section should result in a sanction for Jytdog. Attacking commentators when someone is brought to this board is clearly the wrong thing to do. I wonder who will be attacked next? AlbinoFerret  20:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral/take to ArbCom. Comments that this section is retaliatory is highly disingenuous making it sound like Petrarchan hasn't been involved. Petrarchan has been a combination of a civil POV-pusher ranging to being very uncivil in a hounding manner as shown above. This editor has been highly involved in this topic and would more than qualify for a look at their behavior. That all being said, this is one case that someone needs to take a close look through the edits and behavior in an RFC:U fashion, but ANI isn't really suited for that as we don't have highly blatant actions that are easy for it to reach consensus on. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't know the editor, but the diffs that worried me most didn't hold up to scrutiny. This diff in particular is grossly misrepresented (saying that Petrarchan47 was trying to add a statement to the article that Kombucha cures cancer, arthritis, grey hair, etc. when in the diff they seem to have been criticizing the source that said that). ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for pointing that out. I have struck that diff. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I must say that this statement is concerning  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How so? Read the Grist article. This paper is an advocacy statement, not from the scientists but from the board, which contains multiple misrepresentations of the facts, including misquoting the WHO. It's atrocious that anyone would want to use this source without letting the reader know ifs true origins, let alone pass it off as MEDRS to discuss human health, as Jdog is doing. Why aren't more people speaking out against this? Why aren't you?   <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   09:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it is from the AAAS. However, the real problem is that this paper was the spear head by Jytdog to argue that there exist a scientific consensus. The outlined related synthesis by editor Jytdog has been just ignored by DocJames, and he made his judgement already - to late.prokaryotes (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That response shows how skewed Prokaryotes Petrarchan's editing here is. He She pits the board of the AAAS against an alternative magazine on a science-based topic, and the alternative magazine "wins".   That is the definition of FRINGE advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC) (wrong "p" editor, my bad. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC))
 * I have no idea what you talking about, care to share a dif for yet another accusation? prokaryotes (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry, wrong "p" Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose It is quite clear this is just a vindictive attempt for action against an editor who simply holds different opinions to Jytdog. What is perhaps more worrying is that Adjwilley easily found that diffs provided by Jytdog did not stand up to scrutiny.  We should be deeply cautious about all other diffs provided by Jytdog, especially given the amount of striking out he is now finding is necessary. DrChrissy (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict on my deeply regrettable but nessesary wall of text)


 * Lazy argument, Jdog. I'm not pitting the AAAS board against Grist. I could however pit your support of the paper against our PAGs, the RfC result, and/or the easily verified fact that in the paper, the World Health Organization (as clarified by Sarah SV and reiterated in the Grist article - a publication you have referred to as support for your own arguments recently) most emphatically does not claim that there is SC. Therefore, I have simply asked that we don't use the AAAS anti-GMO labeling paper to make a claim in WPs voice. All I have suggested is that the reader be informed, exactly as you have done by labeling those who question the SC as advocacy in our GM article controversy section, of the details behind this source. In fact, Grist's article should be included per our rules about adding controversy when well sourced and applicable. What I am saying is basic WP law, and the fact that for many months we have been discussing this, and you still remain entrenched in your POV, is another reason I consider your topic ban a valid remedy.


 * I support a topic or full site ban as a response to the fact that you lie with impunity resulting in wasted time of multiple GF editors. You have lied about my diffs in this drama board, calling me here on a Saturday afternoon to defend myself against things I didn't say, and against an addition to Kombucha which you call Fringe, but which you actually added in your revenge revert (to a page on which you have had zero involvement except to revert your detractors).


 * Finally, you lie on the article talk page and think nothing of it, nor do any of your supporters who look the other way. When I asked why the SC statement was located in the controversy section of the GM article, serving as a rebuttal, rather than in its own "health" section per common sense, you told me it had already been discussed and that an RfC supported it. I asked numerous times to see the RfC and you never provided it, because it does not exist.


 * Now, and most importantly for WP readers and the current topic of GM spindoctoring, you are lying instead of addressing actual MEDRS. When Pro brought the 2015 Tufts review to the TP, you wrote it off by snipping at him: "We've already discussed this. It's fringe". Again I asked you to link to discussion about the paper and the same is true - you won't, you can't, because you're lying. Lying and being a jerk (for instance, posting Atsme's personal information on WP under the guise of your self appointed COI hall monitor job, attempting to rid WP of an environmentalist for posting a link to a fricking fish article) pale in comparison to what you are doing to spin this encyclopedia in favor of the biotech and pharma industries. Your edits have been so heinous that when they are finally viewed in totality or at least by some truly independent-minded admins, I predict that everyone who has supported you is going to feel very ashamed, change their identity, or pretend they never knew you, and you will no longer be invited to charm this site.


 * At GMO, you have done the opposite of what our editors are expected to do - you have not embraced but ignored the highest quality source on the topic of GMO food safety, and you've done this after claiming through word and action that getting this very this information ito the WP readers is what you care about most in life.


 * For anyone interested in looking at this issue a bit more deeply, here is the paper Jdog refuses to acknowledge. TL;DR: This is a brand new meta review from Sheldon Krimsky of all GMO food safety studies and reviews in the past 7 years which finds (exactly what our RfC found) that the science on GMO safety is anything but settled, and that a substantial number of individual studies and reviews have noted serious concerns. Does WP mention ANY of this information? Not with Jdog, King and YOBOL et al on guard, no. Related TP section


 * An example of Jdog's work on pharma articles:
 * Switches the name from "withdrawal" to the new industry term: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antidepressant&diff=619945881&oldid=619881617
 * Removes the introductory sentence containing the definition and the one remaining reference to "withdrawal" from the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antidepressant&diff=next&oldid=619945881
 * Removes reference to information behind the change of wording, which links the new improved terminology to an Eli Lilly conference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antidepressant&diff=648986292&oldid=648978820
 * Note that his edit summary says the reference is not reliable. Is that because it's in Spanish? The source is the World Health Organization http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/fr/d/Js4896e/  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Anti depressant, and any article Jdog works on (such as Alirocumab), now reads like an FDA pamphlet.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog's job is to whitewash articles, to remove critical science, or opposing views. He will now just ignore you and claim your view is fringe, and because of that he will later suggest to topic ban you. That's how things are done here. Don't ask questions, don't be critical. If you do you will be reverted, your arguments ignored, and eventually topic banned. A climate of fear and anti science rules related discussions. The results are as you describe very one sided articles, and that readers turn to other websites. See Jytdog's response below, you overpersonalized apparently. prokaryotes (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea seems to be that if one's right hand is busy, there is no need to check out what the left hand is up to. It isn't surprising or particularly notable to find an anonymous editor spinning articles here in favor of highly profitable industries. Rather, what is of most concern is that Wikipedia provides a nice comfy home for this and a big, wet kiss.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

−
 * your hounding of me for the past few years needs to stop. You overpersonalized this for far too long.  I have refocused my request above to better focus it on your  long term denigration of me here in Wikipedia. It is not acceptable behavior and I fully believe that the community will agree about that. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ...I hope you are not actually going to resign! Fortuna    Imperatrix Mundi  17:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * no plans currently - I hope i didn't write anything suggesting a rage quit. Sorry if i did. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ... D'oh! Your edit summary here... "amend and resign"-!!! I've just realised what you meant. Resign! rather than Resign! Classic misread- as you were! Fortuna    Imperatrix Mundi  18:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ah ha! glad we worked that one out.  sorry for the lack of hyphenation.   Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

section break

 *  TheGracefulSlick I have added the break above but feel free to change its title. I appreciate that it is your edit below.  GregKaye 17:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC) 


 * Comment - (I'm an uninvolved editor) why is it on an ANI that was supposed to be about your behavior, you are pressing all these demands for topic bans and ibans? Even if you think you have a point on some of these claims, reporting them now just seems like a way to avoid discussion about your editing. Hopefully other editors will realize this and not fall for it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A complaint at ANI (or any other dispute resolution venue) is not the Wikipedia version of a free throw. It's not at all uncommon for the person bringing the complaint to be sanctioned themselves. This does not speak to the validity or otherwise of Jytdog's arguments, only to the idea that the thread is "supposed to be about [his] behavior" without regard to other participants. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But my point was more about the two other users Jytdog brought here. It has nothing to do with being boomeranged since they never even reported this ANI. Jytdog should have made seperate ANIs to avoid the enormous confusion and scrambling that will follow.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * TheGracefulSlick, you seem to have a misunderstanding as to what the purpose of this board is. It's not the Editor Conduct Complaints Department, it's the place one comes to report incidents which potentially require administrative action. Since all three editors' actions are alleged to be part of the same incident, discussing all three in a single section is both correct and appropriate. &#8209; iridescent 17:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No I completely understand what ANI is for, I've had my share of the mess users like to create here. I just know how the users will act here and it will quickly develope into a circus. If you want to handle it, be my guest, but I'd rather have this be an orderly civil discussion. Regardless, I'm no longer commenting on how anyone wants to sort this and want to look over the evidence as of now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for further clarification if you are still reading (and for other folks), the underling issue is that many of us science editors at this topic have patiently tried to work with editors that take a very strong WP:ADVOCACY approach, mudslinging, paid shill arguments, etc. It might have been better to nip each problematic editor in the bud by bringing them to ANI earlier instead of letting things draw out with additional such editors coming in over time. That has resulted multiple editors coming up in one case instead of spread out over time. It's tough because on one end good-faith is needed to work in controversial articles, but you also need to draw a line somewhere when behavior issues don't stop. A lot of science editors are more interested in content than going to drama boards, even in topics that attract editors like I mentioned above, so you get the situation that finally came to a head here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It might have been better to nip each problematic editor in the bud by bringing them to ANI earlier. You do realize that Jytdog has, in fact, been brought to ANI for his problematic editing numerous times, don't you? GregJackP   Boomer!   17:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Everybody here realizes that you are here with an ax to grind GregJackP. And yes everybody here knows that I work on controversial articles and topics and get dragged here pretty often.  I have been sanctioned here twice, and that was my own fault for losing my cool with DrChrissy, which I acknowledged and apologized for and have not repeated and the other, where CorporateM asked for an Iban, which I accepted. Just those two times.   In any case, as I wrote in my initial response, there has been too much going on all at once to manage this gracefully and I have been doing the best I can to just manage the surge of disruptive editing across all these articles calmly.  But this is what aggressive editing on a whole set of controversial does - it creates disruption and drama.   None of the actual content issues are unworkable - the behavior of these disruptive editors is what is breaking things.  I have gone ahead and aired the extent of what is going so the community has more insight.  Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. You keep talking about an axe to grind. I don't have one. I was appalled when I saw how you treated a subject matter expert in the intellectual property field, I helped him, and I'll continue to help him. He's the exact type of editor that we need here. You have got to back off and calm down, for your own sake. If you want, I can post diffs, but I think it would be better for all concerned if you accepted a voluntarily 6-month topic ban in order to calm down and refocus. You do some great work here, WP:COI comes to mind, but you have to let off some. You get way too involved emotionally. Just ease up. Regards. GregJackP  Boomer!   20:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but fake sighs are unbecoming and just make you look even more silly. I know that litigators think it is great to try to demolish the other side, but your inability to recognize any problems with the editors I have listed just demonstrates rank partisanship. I encourage you to take a more thoughtful, Wikipedian approach here. Jytdog (talk)  00:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Please stop with the condescending attitude and take a step back to look at this. If there are a bunch of people telling you that you need to change, odds are good that you need to change. Had you taken a thoughtful approach when dealing with others, you wouldn't be in this situation now. Please, for your own sake, heed the comments people are making about your behavior. If you don't, I fear you will be topic-banned or worse. GregJackP   Boomer!   08:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Following one set of encounters with Jytdog I took some time to a previous ANI that was brought against h' following threads on GM related articles and, while it certainly was not my area centering on my main areas of background knowledge, it was apparent to me that h' was both evasive and assertive on an argument that didn't seem to me and most other editors to fully hold up.
 * I am particularly perturbed by the content of the second paragraph of the OP and regarding issues of incivility presented later. While I respect the general intention of Jytdog's involvements, I think that he takes things to unwarranted extents and certainly.  There is certainly no excuse for the incivility and the borderline obstreperous behaviour.  It would be wrong if no sanction were given although I would not recommend this to last for any lengthy period of time.  Some time out to think things through I think would be potentially to h' advantage.  GregKaye 18:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The tone of Jytdog's approach here is very troubling.  He presents a false dichotomy that anyone opposing him is somehow a POV-pushing fringe-promoting, anti-science viewpoint as opposed to Jytdog, who portrays himself as the voice of reason.  But, clearly that is not necessarily the case.  What the problem here is tone: Jytdog attacks - and attacks viciously - anyone who challenges his own viewpoint.  Though he presents his viewpoint as "scientific" - to argue that respected entities (Union of Concerned Scientists, for example) are not is disingenuous. While I can have sympathy about how someone who is trying to keep fringe advocacy out of an article can get testy and impatient, this user is going over the top.  I think a short WP block and a topic ban for 30-60 days to allow some simmering down would be in order.  I'd also suggest he be told to stay off DrChrissy's talk page, perhaps an iban would be suitable there.   Montanabw (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * . DrChrissy has very steadily expanded his editing into articles that I edit - it is clear battleground behavior. I would just as soon never bump into him.  I have not gone and started editing articles where he usually works - he has come directly at the articles where I work, seeking conflict.  If you cannot acknowledge that basic fact here, it shows how little you are looking at what has actually happened, and are just playing politics.  But that is how things go at ANI. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog To a limited extent I appreciate what you have been doing and that there can, in limited circumstances, be a call to oppose the views of WP:Lunatic charlatans. You hold your views very strongly and, while not criticising some root arguments, this has led to (in my interpretation) erratic behaviour to an extent that is unwarranted.  GregKaye 07:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment And while this all goes on, Jytdog has made 4 (four) substantial reverts to the sandbox Glyphosate article (one of those listed above by the OP no less) here, here, here, and here. DrChrissy (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support the topic ban of Jytdog. Originally was not going to comment. Yet as we all know he has long been a  loose cannon here on WP.  He has demonstrated repeatedly that he  can not distinguish the differance between true scintific skepticism and his own pseudoskepticism.  Thus, defeating WP's aims of verifiability by deleting everything that offends his POV. Everyone can edit WP is a good dictum - but Jytdog seems to want to piss on other editors backs and tell them that is raining! Enough.--Aspro (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Likely this needs to go to arbcom. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Why exactcly? Arbcom acts as the court of last resort! Jytdog still has a lot of steam (or hot-air) left in him. Let him finish arguing his point here first. --Aspro (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Folks who have replied so far are mostly (not all) expected knee-jerkers. There will be a few more.  Most thoughtful Wikipedians are either steering clear because it is too much of a committment to read through all this, or are thinking.  I am not surprised at the reaction thus far. I've been dealing with a lot of awfulness for a long time and I don't expect this ANI to end quickly either.  Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * A knee-jerk reaction is somethibg that happens quickly and without thought. We have given you ample time, consideration, suggestions etc. All of which you have ignored. Therofore it is you that are behaving wilfuly  ignorate  based on your very own edits. If feel you have  been dealing with “a lot of awfulness for a long time” – then stop pissing into the wind. I would hate to smell your pants right now what with all this blow back.--Aspro (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Or thoughtful Wikipedians steer clear of ANI in general, because they've better things to do, and because ANI is an infamous irresponsible cesspool. But will make an exception when a user, such as you, is particularly and egregiously hypocritical with over-the-top aggression, insults, and disruption. IHTS (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This place can indeed be an drama-orgy. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Limited discretionary sanctions?
It's pretty clear to me that ANI is not going to be able to resolve this dispute. And I think that the time is ripe for it to escalate to ArbCom. However, I'm interested in finding a way to handle it, for now, with something less than a full ArbCom case. At the top section of this discussion, made what I think is a sensible suggestion, that some aspects of the GMO content area be placed under discretionary sanctions.

Here's what I suggest. Someone (could be me, or anyone else) would open a request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, asking that the discretionary sanctions put in place in the Pseudoscience ArbCom case be applied to content about the health effects of genetically modified organisms. (A good example would be the page about the Séralini affair.)

These sanctions would necessarily have limited scope, only pertaining to health effects, which I think are entirely in the realm of pseudoscience. Non-scientific aspects, such as economic or business issues about GMOs, would not be included. Nor would ecological issues, because a significant amount of the science there is not pseudo.

First, I would like to find out what editors here think about the idea. Do you think that this would be helpful? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a great idea. I had thought the only way to get DS around the food safety topic would be a full arbcom case and have been happy that we have avoided that thus far (but unhappy to not have the DS).  I hadn't thought of just ARCA.  Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue here is about behaviour. Applying DS to a topic area does not address and in fact side steps perceived behavioural issues. How do you propose behaviour be dealt with. Should all editors just go back to work and let this AN/I fade? If so. this  outcome should be clarified.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC))
 * Littleolive oil, that's the kind of issue that made me ask here, instead of going straight ahead with a request. But my understanding of DS is that behavior/conduct is exactly what it is about. In other words, administrators would be empowered to enact blocks, page protection, or editing restrictions quickly upon a problem arising, without the need for a wall of text as we have right here. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be on board with this. DS are exactly meant to deal with behavior issues in specific content areas. WP:FRINGE comes up a lot in this topic related to health, so I don't see much problem with the case going through. What we really need is someone who can come in and really look at the ongoings at a specific page removed from the ANI drama. This would give that option, and also hopefully simplify a full ANI case if we really had to come to that down the road by having some prior cases. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. Applying DS as a solution here sidesteps the behavioural issues on which this AN/I is based. (Littleolive oil (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC))
 * It addresses the issues going forward without drama. If you feel a deep need to sanction editors for past behavior ArbCom is this way along with all the drama and likely bad results all around depending on perspective. The problems are way too involved to manage here at ANI. J bh  Talk  15:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The notion that the request, brought to ANI here has somehow something to do with Pseudoscience are unfounded, and show that editors who wish to defend Jytdog attempt to distract from the original issues. The references discussed from Séralini affair, have nothing to do with Pseudoscience and if anything show an edit dispute. prokaryotes (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment it would be, IMO, a travesty if this ANI closed without some ban, of whatever length of time, being imposed. I think that the bare minimum would be a one day site ban and perhaps a greater length is warranted.  Editors cannot be allowed to get away with behaviours such as abuse.  GregKaye 07:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Great idea, and hopefully implemented as soon as possible since this discussion is continuing to devolve into editor ban proposals instead of useful discussions. Inomyabcs (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This is about the behaviour of an editor over a wide spectrum of topics. DS in relation to just one sub-set of these topics will not address the concerns of many, many editors.  Sorry. DrChrissy (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not see why the community can not choose to implement an equivalent sanction regime, through General Sanctions, to ArbCom imposed DS. ArbCom exists for things the community can not fix on its own. Just open up an RFC here or at WP:AN and request it. J bh  Talk  12:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In the US, where I am, it's a holiday weekend, so I'd like to let this discussion continue for a while, but at the moment I'm leaning strongly towards making this request. I'll try to reply to several comments here. About the community enacting General Sanctions, I don't think that the community is able, at this time, to reach consensus about that any more than we are able to reach consensus here. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, we are not going to reach consensus here, sorry. And that should be a message to anyone who insists that the discussion here cannot end without punishment being doled out. I acknowledged when I first started this sub-thread that any such sanctions would be limited, and would be unable to cover all aspects of the dispute, but I do think they would cover the most acute aspects. I tend to think that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. And I wondered when I started this sub-thread whether any editors would claim that Seralini et al. are not pseudoscience, and I see that that has indeed happened. And it speaks volumes about where the problem really lies. Perhaps limited sanctions would be hampered by claims that there is no pseudoscience at all. But I think that ArbCom can resolve that question by motion, whether or not some editors end up liking the result. Alternatively, we could go straight to a full ArbCom case, in which case some editors may end up regretting what they wished for. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * With the fact that it is a holiday for a lot of us, I don't have any problem waiting with putting a request in until later in the week or really whenever you get around to it if you're willing. It makes sense to start small with the pseudoscience aspect rather than hit ArbCom with a rather big glob of a new case. As you said, that really is the most acute area where I think we can at least get an attempt at some resolution with the least amount of drama. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Endorse - Here is an idea worth persuing, and I would urge that it be put to ArbCom no matter what the "!vote" is here. BMK (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not at all sure this needs a full arbcom case. I have ~tried~ to show that there is a particular bad constellation happening at this particular time.   I think this is manageable at the ANI level.   In some ways I would welcome an Arbcom case b/c my efforts to maintain NPOV ~should~ become very clear there, and having Arbcom validate that, would be valuable.   But it will be a huge time drain that I would rather not go through.  I do understand that by presenting some (and is just some) of the advocacy and bad faith that comes into play regularly, I am opening the door wide to an Arbcom case.  We'll see where all this goes, I guess. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This thread has nothing to do with the original or secondary subjects. If arbitration of any kind is sought with regard to this suggestion, it must be clearly differentiated from the subject of the editors in question. Secondly I would highly recommend getting your hands on the new Krimsky paper before trying to claim Seralini would qualify as fringe. (See below)  I don't see what GMOs have to do with pseudoscience, like Homeopathy. We don't apply DS just because it would make things convenient. There are problems at the GMO suite, and they are being discussed now. It's best to allow that process to continue since we have brought a lot of evidence to this board.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * More on Seralini (information not found anywhere else on WP, to be sure):


 * Dr Krinsky interview 2014


 * From Daniel Hicks:


 * "In his conclusion, Krimsky argues that the burden of proof should be on the claim that GM foods are safe. This would mean that it’s insufficient to, say, critique the Séralini study on the grounds that small sample sizes mean it has low statistical power. Low power just means that the findings could be the result of chance. We can’t conclude from this critique that the findings werethe results of chance and so the study does not provide (weak, tentative) evidence. Since the burden of proof is on the safety claim, even weak, tentative evidence of hazards needs to be taken seriously. That means the only adequate way to respond to the Séralini study — the only way to show that it does not provide even weak, tentative evidence of hazards — is to replicate it, and thereby provide evidence that the findings were the result of chance." *


 * According to Mike Hansen,


 * “Well, basically what Dr. Séralini did was he did the same feeding study that Monsanto did and published in the same journal eight years prior, and in that study, they [Monsanto] used the same number of rats, and the same strain of rats, and came to a conclusion there was no [tumor] problem. So all of a sudden, eight years later, when somebody [Seralini] does that same experiment, only runs it for two years rather than just 90 days, and their data suggests there are problems, [then] all of a sudden the number of rats is too small? Well, if it’s too small to show that there’s a [tumor] problem, wouldn’t it be too small to show there’s no problem? They already said there should be a larger study, and it turns out the European Commission is spending 3 million Euros to actually do that Séralini study again, run it for two years, use 50 or more rats and look at the carcinogenicity. So they’re actually going to do the full-blown cancer study, which suggests that Séralini’s work was important, because you wouldn’t follow it up with a 3 million Euro study if it was a completely worthless study.” *  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   07:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah well, if you're seriously pushing tumblrs and fringey advocacy sites as sources in this topic area then you'd be a ripe candidate for receiving a general sanction. But as I say, arbcom probably needs to look at a number of editors here. Alexbrn (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Krimsky is a Tufts researcher interviewed by Democracy Now. The Tumblr belongs to an AAAS scientist and is RS for his words. We need science based editors here, this rhetoric of yours does not cover up for the fact that you are not seriously looking at the science but are interested only in a certain POV. Threatening me makes you look bitter. It has no other effect  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   07:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Scientists respond to attacks on Seralini.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   07:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43
The editor above claims that i edit war and locked down several articles last week (Dif). However, the editor does not mentions: Because editor Kingofaces claims (Dif) that i edit war, an claims my edits locked down pages, and wants me banned for it i have to call WP:Boomerang on that user.prokaryotes (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Editor was recently reported at edit warring board, when he not accepted RFC outcome, and all reasonable attempts to explain to editor were ignored. Until Jytdog himself commented and supported the decision. Additional Kingsofaces kept reverting after talk page discussion was established.
 * Editor is involved in many of the edits on GMO related pages. In fact he is often there supporting Jytdog, trying to intimidate me with accusations here he claims i broke 3RR (notice how he cites my own edits,and this editor kept at it even after Jytdog redacted his claim of 3RR in the same discussion).
 * Here he removes my talk page discussion comment, and claims it wasn't related.
 * Editor claims i do advocacy (Dif). Difs he cite show me adding a study from the WHO, published in Lancet, and after reverts brought it to a RFC at the talk page there, what he and Jytdog claim is aggressive editing.
 * Editor tries to prevent addition of historic, well sourced case on Monsanto, when this is brought to RfC only him and two other editors (1 is Jytdog) oppose the addition, at the article about Monsanto legal cases. Editor Tsavage mentioned there, you are misapplying WP:CRYSTAL, which clearly states its intentions: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." A well-covered lawsuit is neither unverifiable, nor a speculation.- Editor Dialectric responded to Kingofaces, As a participant in the rfc, you are in no position to propose a 'logical conclusion' which favors your viewpoint.
 * Support, Kingofaces43 usually shows up to back up Jtydog, and uses many of the same arguments while also not hearing the other side. GregJackP   Boomer!   08:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - User in question continues to support Jytdog's aggressive editing habits and makes accusations with little to no evidence to back it up.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Guilt by association is a poor reason for a ban. I obviously have some crossover in topic areas and have a similar stance of reliability of sources and weight in scientific topics. That's really about it. That people couple their disdain for Jytdog to me because of that is unfortunate, but that's a problem with the underlying vitriol in this topic. As for "accusations", what are you referring to? In this board, I've brought quite a few diffs when I was referring to my own interactions or referred to things already cited previously by others. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban for Kingofaces43 on GM-related articles (broadly construed) and including those articles listed above by the OP. This should be an indefinite ban, with no appeal allowed for 6 months. Given that Kingofaces43's disruptive editing has not been limited to only GM-related articles (I can provide diffs if these are needed but I suspect they are not) there should be a relatively brief site block for 30 to 60 days giving time for Kingofaces43 to reflect on his behaviour. DrChrissy (talk)
 * Oppose this nonsense. Evidence does not support a topic ban. The same people who were complaining of Jytdog "trying to get opponents removed" are the first ones to throw their support here. Sad, hypocritical, but ultimately predictable behavior for ANI. Yobol (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban for Kingofaces43. It is like a State within a state is forming here on WP and those interested in history will know where that leads to. It is dangoerous to alow a few vocal editors to work in unison, so as to put their actions above others. Looks like Yobol  is puting himself  forward  as candidate for  the next topic ban. Talk about opening a can of worms. --Aspro (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose These tit-for-tat topic ban requests on general principals. From what I have seen pop up at the various noticeboards and the very few times I have looked at GMO talk pages, the POV pushing of FRINGE material is un-relenting. Take it to ArbCom if you feel editors need sanctions for past behavior. My guess is most of the major actors would face sanctions in that case. Clean out the topic and get some new blood in. The down side of this is there are many more FRINGE POV pushers out there than editors to keep them in check. J bh  Talk  15:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Jbhunley, while you apparently entirely ignore anything related to the discussion here, I must ask you to stop making up claims that involved editors are Fringe pushers.prokaryotes (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you actually saying there is no FRINGE POV pushing in the GMO topic area? Really??!!?? I very consciously did not make any statements about editors on either side of this specific matter because I did not go dig up diffs to support those statements. If you think my statement about the general state of editing in GMO is wrong I suggest that our views of what is FRINGE is not compatable. I do not doubt for a second that if I wanted to make statements about specific editors it would be very easy to find the FRINGE pushers in the GMO topic area. That, however, is not the purpose of my comments here. J bh  Talk  17:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We discuss an ANI report here not the history of general GMO article edits. If you meant that as an excuse for Kingofaces, then I at least didn't understand it. prokaryotes (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, my discussion of the ANI report is that it is better addressed at ArbCom if people want to get other users sanctioned. The entire topic area is a pit of POV editing. Any closer can read this as my opposing any and all of the proposed topic bans in this section for the reason that they all look like simply an extension of the conflict and attempts to silence opponents. Trying to argue it out here is pointless and this exchange shows that quite well because you are unable to allow a simple stated opinion from an un-involved editor to stand without, personal and condescending, challenge. That, to me, indicates an environment that has become too toxic for 'business-as-usual' to be allowed to continue for the health of the project. J bh  Talk  18:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Tit-for-tat is putting it mildly. At this point, we have reached tit-for-tat-for-tit. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious oppose. No evidence is provided by Prokaryotes for any action, but rather further justifies a boomerang on their part for misconstruing edits. It also seems to be retaliatory for trying to address their behavior issues. One thing I've noticed is that Prokaryotes makes a point of mischaracterizing people's posts and pushing forward in a sloppy manner in controversial topics that only inflames drama. I'm not going to push for a boomerang further here, but just bring some context to what I was doing in the cited links since my name is at the section header. Let's look through the diffs they gave for each bullet:


 * 1) The first bullet point is cherrypicking and avoiding what made that dispute an edit war. This series of diffs show the actual exchange:, . There, Prokaryotes changed a statement on scientific consensus, which very much needs talk page consensus. In hindsight, text at another article had been worked out that I wasn't aware of, but Prokaryotes never pointed it out. Seeing none, I reverted it asking them to come to the talk page, but instead they reverted posting a link to a huge RfC (instead of a specific diff) that simply said the content should be changed, but didn't have any specific edit ironed out. Prokaryotes just made sweeping claims of consensus for their edit in edit summaries and links without pointing to something specific. It wasn't until after Prokaryotes escalated the situation to AN3 that Jytdog posted a link to actual consensus. This is all summarized in the talk page discussion as well. Given the sloppy editing by Prokaryotes (the burden was on them), simply providing the specific diff instead of vague comments would have resulted in not a single revert.
 * 2) Of course I cited Prokaryotes edits. That's what you do when demonstrating 3RR. The diffs show the series of edits made, as has been pointed out to Prokaryotes already, so they aren't going to show the traditional old vs. new edit, but just the start and stop. Ironically enough, I actually pointed out that I didn't actually see 3RR when Jytdog was posting about it (so much for the gang conspiracy). However, my comments on 3RR were after that point when Prokaryotes made additional edits later in the day pushing the revert count up further.
 * 3) More cherry picking and appears to be competence issue with respect to WP:TPO. The comments in question were very appropriate for hatting per TPO as it was not based on content at all. I posted on their talk page explaining how hatting works and to not alter other people's comments by removing select ones from the thread. What originally happened was someone else moved Prokaryotes' original comment into a new section awhile back. Prokaryotes didn't like that, but never pointed out that was done until after some discussion occurred in the new section. Instead of moving everything back, they for some reason left my comment out of the thread in the section making it look like I posted a new section with an out of context comment. I moved my comment back into the proper threading while hatting the thread, and Prokaryotes deleted my comment from the threading again. However, I explained in the edit summary, "hatting discussion note[sic] related to content per WP:REFACTOR. Most recent attempt to only partially move some threaded comments misrepresented another post making it seem like it was the start of the section" I warned them again for altering my comment in the next edit summary and on their talk page linked earlier. Everything was by the book on my part here for dealing with editors altering talk page comments and for hatting off-topic conversations.
 * 4) As mentioned in Prokaryotes section here, they have been solely focusing on anti-GMO perspectives exclusely since they've come into the topic. That coupled with the behavior of constantly pushing edits in a controversial topic, edit warring, etc. was where the advocacy comment came from. There's nothing inappropriate there (honestly, read my actual post), and it was meant to get Prokaryotes to slow down and focus on talk page discussion and consensus building that we need in WP:CONTROVERSIAL topics. The RfC comment was because it was putting the cart before the horse at that time. There wasn't any serious attempt at talk page discussion to figure out what to do with it the source in question, but instead Prokaryotes went straight to RfC.
 * 5) There's quite a bit more posturing calling this a "historic case." This content in question is about a court case that was filed, but has not been completed yet. I and a few other editors do take the stance that incomplete court cases in all but extreme cases (e.g., Supreme Court cases) do not meet due weight for inclusion, but rather that weight is determined by the findings of the court at the close. This one is just a content dispute through and through with no behavior issues from anyone that really stick out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Kingofaces43. You need to change the above into a Comment as it is a given that an editor facing a topic ban would object.--Aspro (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a convention I've never really seen followed at ANI as we don't vote count here, but act on consensus. I do expect whoever is reading this section though to see my signature and see that the Kingofaces43 responding here is also the same one being discussed. That should be pretty apparent. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Aspro. Furthermore, your edit seems very much a a wall of text.  Please consider the time constraints of other editors and the closing admin by keeping your posts as concise as possible.  Thanks for your input. DrChrissy (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's extremely tendentious considering Prokaryotes misrepresented a large number of situations above and is very reminiscent of other actions you've bee chastised for here. Of course I'm going to describe the entire situation as opposed to cherrypicking. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. We are talking here about Kingofaces43 not to him. So whilst he may comment, etiquette expects the subject to step aside in such cases. So please Kingofaces43 change the above to   Comment.--Aspro (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sticking to the conventions typically held at ANI, not rules you want. Quibbling over what I bolded is just plain silly, so it will remain. If someone reads my post, it should be obvious it's me either from context or signature. Beyond that, we're just talking bureaucratics, so there's no need to continue this particular thread. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Kingofaces43. Change the above to Comment: please.--Aspro (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Lets discus fringe. Jenner, had no ethical approval to infect James Phipps with cow pox. John Snow  was dead by the time his germ theory was finally accepted by the rest of the medical community.  Albert Einstein (well, we all know about  Einstein) and many others  were by definition fringe scientists. They were on the cutting edge – the fringe. If “you” had the power to suppress their views back then, would this World be a rich in  understanding as it is now? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is space to keep it cutting edge by including referenced material that  indicates that the old accepted dogma is now in question based on the latest research. Please don't say that believers  of old dogma have a god-given-right  to censor Wikipedia.  It exposes you and other believers as  Luddites who were born knowing everything.  One of the first, if not the first controlled trials was on blood letting – yet doctors continued blood letting and losing any hope of future income  as soon  as they had  killed their patient. Et cetera. So don't argue this  defensible nonsense by resorting to the much loved pseudo-skeptic buzz word of 'fringe'.--Aspro (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ( It's good to read an editor with their brain turned on.--TMCk (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC) )
 * Yes, this might be true, but this is not the place for such a discussion, even when some want to frame it that way (See also editors who mention Pseudoscience).prokaryotes (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * oppose unsurprisingly. Kingofaces is a science-based editor who follows NPOV and like me has become a target for anti-GMO/pro-organic/Pro-altmed advocates in WP, who reliably turn up to !vote against him.  Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sutor, ne ultra crepidam. William_Shockley experianced a similar problem when he thought that his science-based background made him an expert on race, human intelligence, and eugenics. An abundances of  naïve misplaced overconfidence.--Aspro (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting choice, I would have picked Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare. Cicero. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh. How true User:GregJackP. Why don't schools today, educate children in the skills  of correct critical thinking anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspro  (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The hypocrisy in these accusations is breathtaking. Prokaryotes doesn't seem to understand that the behaviour he decries is exactly what he is doing himself. His idea of what constitutes diffs and evidence is very sloppy, to say the least. I think there is a question of competence arising here. Someone launching such aggressive attacks as we have seen here and on multiple talk pages should have more idea about what wikipolicy is about, and less about how his personal feelings are wounded. --Pete (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pete/Skyring, btw is another editor who opposes adding Monsanto legal cases to the article of Monsanto legal cases. Pete, can you provide a dif as an example for what you call aggressive attacks?prokaryotes (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, your allegation is incorrect. I added a legal case, right here. See what I said about sloppy work? The diff you want for an example of an aggressive attack is this one and several subsequent. The disruption you are causing to the project is severe - we are spending far too much time dealing with your petulance instead of doing useful work. Just because someone has a different opinion to yourself doesn't mean they are some sort of corporation shill. Wikipedia thrives on difference - the trick is to work coöperatively. --Pete (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pete's (along with King) additions to the |Monsanto legal cases TP should be viewed for context. He is fending off GF attempts to improve the article by multiple editors. The only who is stalling progress is Pete, from what I can see.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support King has been an ardent supporter of the biotech industry and has worked alongside Jdog for quite some time to guard articles and keep them POV. He sees editing not through the lens of our guidelines, but though industry PR. I have watched and waited for one solitary neutral comment or edit from this user, and can tell you that he is 100% pro Monsanto and pro Jdog regardless of the facts. i have not seen signs that he is interested in learning and adhering to our guidelines that help inform readers about a controversial and complex subject. His responses on the GMO talk page are often very convoluted and nothing but OR, free of usable RS. We need neutral editors who are able to work with others, not industry guard dogs working in collusion.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Very good observations, i agree with you. prokaryotes (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * While I didn't agree on a ban at this time for Petrarchan above, making false statements like these do make me reconsider a need for them to be banned, especially when they go around spreading lies about editors in violation of WP:NPA and contributing to the vitriolic atmosphere. I stick to policies and guidelines, especially ones like WP:RS (WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS in my area) and WP:WEIGHT primarily and frequently cite them. Calling someone a supporter of the biotech industry is essentially a shill gambit. The problem we face in the topic is editors like this who a very steeped into a particular point of a view (based on the content they try to add) and essentially view anything not vilifying a company, etc. as a polarized POV itself.


 * In reality, I actually tend to be just as critical of industry in the agricultural field if not moreso than whatever you want to call the opposite of industry. Take the industry pushing of insecticidal seed treatments when they aren't worth it at all for farmers. I'm definitely not an industry supporter there if you read my edit, but I shouldn't even need to respond to this witch hunt attempt. The problem is that when you have anti-GM/biotech POVs being pushed into articles really hard on a consistent basis, reacting against that just causes editors such as Petrarchan to engage in a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and start assuming I'm supporting a company. That's an editor POV showing there. We rarely if ever get true pro-industry edits making their way into articles (being in academia, I can tell some stories about some stupid things industry has pulled in my field), but they get snuffed out pretty quick when such edits do occur. I also don't intend to keep a list of every time I don't agree with Jytdog to disprove the claim I just agree with Jytdog all the time. We have similar views on content policy when it comes to science, but if I was engaging in some sort of tag-team, you'd see me outright supporting all the bans he proposed here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Kingofaces43, you strike a chord with me there. I feel quite uncomfortable being placed in the position of having to guard Monsanto against attacks. I see their business practices as being pretty much everything I detest about modern corporate behaviour. Normally I wouldn't touch this sort of thing with a bargepole. But when I see dogmatic fanatics tag-teaming to push a POV here on Wikipedia, it needs action, otherwise the whole project just becomes a morass of poorly sourced propaganda. As far as I can see, most of the editors who have commented on the recent RfC at Monsanto legal cases are working in good faithg. But a few, whose names are sprinkled throughout this whole megathread, are one-eyed crusaders, where every source supporting their views is not just reliable, but Holy Writ, and every argument in opposition is made by "corporate guard dogs". I resent this sort of behaviour. It creates nothing but disruption and animosity. --Pete (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Get a grip, please. BMK (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Repeating myself here. Oppose per my long standing principle to always oppose sanctions proposed by one party in a dispute against another. Blackmane (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Pete
Editor Pete recently argued above that he considers my ANI report an aggressive attack. He did not comment on the ANI report, but also claims that my ANI is disrupting the project. However, Pete has been disrupting a RFC for inclusion of a lawsuit, for quiet some time at the article Monsanto legal cases. When i tried to add the lawsuit per SageRad, Pete reverted and called it premature and an action against consensus. Basically what Pete does is he argues in circles, citing rules depending on the weather, together with Kingofaces and Jytdog against 13 other editors, still going. The RFC is pages long, above quotes do not show the entire picture, almost every single comment by Pete is ignoring other editors and wikilawyering. Because the editor claims that my edits are disruptive and my ANI report an aggressive attack i call WP:BOOMERANG on that editors disruptive behavior on a related page. Pete should be topic banned for continued disruption at Monsanto legal cases. prokaryotes (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pete cites various rules why he opposes inclusion of a lawsuit, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:Original Research, WP:NPOV
 * Pete said after days of arguments, Whether this case is significant or not seems to be a matter of opinion (Dif).
 * Tsavage mentioned, Skyring/Pete: You seem to be in I don't hear you mode now, where Pete responded, Thanks! Naturally I disagree with your opinions there.
 * Another response by Pete was: The world is full of stuff that was well-publicised but isn't in Wikipedia. Kevin Rudd's earwax incident, for example.
 * Jojalozzo responded to Pete, Suggesting that what I am proposing has any similarity to a news feed is a strawman.
 * Gandydancer, wrote, Something is wrong when an editor needs to go to these lengths to get mention of this lawsuit into this article when it is so obvious that it is appropriate. It should concern any good editor. Pete response, Who - apart from Wikipedia editors - says that these cases together are significant? WP:SYNTHESIS means we can't add two plus two, no matter how much we are certain the answer is a very important number. We have to find a reliable source linking these cases and stating their importance. We don't have one. Yet.
 * Notecardforfree responded to Jytdog, significant media coverage of the filing of a lawsuit will likely meet WP:GNG guidelines. I was simply saying that editors shouldn't argue for exclusion of content by saying, "but we haven't seen the result of litigation yet!" -- When Pete responded with, It seems to me that a good many editors here are part of a personal crusade, using this and other articles to mount a propaganda war for or against Monsanto. We're not a blog for advocacy.
 * Pete insists, There's a clear division of opinion. You can't just discount the views of other people just because you don't happen to share them. (Dif)


 * Oppose - Ok, this is getting ridiculous. I stood by my view that Jytdog needs a topic ban and King. But now it seems like a shoutout between POV-pushers trying to block one another because they disagree with one another. It needs to stop here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Please User talk:Prokaryotes you are putting way too much on the closing admin. Close this part  of the ANI immediately before it develops into something totally distracting.  I suggest you strike through - Jytdog does this and seems to get away with it without negative comments. DrChrissy (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm tempted to say "for Pete's sake!" I said above that we have progressed to tit-for-tat-for-tit, and although I'm losing count, I'm pretty sure we are up to another tat now. On the other hand, we are certainly accumulating evidence about editor conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – Discussion at the article is progressing, with focus on wikipolicy. The main question is whether a just-filed lawsuit is significant. In time we'll have a clearer idea, once the thing hits the courts, and in more time we'll have an actual outcome. Some editors want to use this as a soapbox to push their personal views, and Prokaryotes above is one of those who preferred to edit war while the RfC was under way. The RfC will conclude one way or the other, and while I don't envy a closer their task, we've managed to stay pretty much focussed on content and policy rather than slinging rocks at each other, so that's fine. Obviously Prokaryotes and I have different views, but pulling remarks out of context as above doesn't do much to help here. --Pete (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and further evidence for a boomerang. It's really looking like Prokaryotes is using ANI to gain advantages in content disputes rather than address behavior issues. The diffs don't show any behavior issues at all on Pete/Skyring's part. We had a tenuous situation in these topics before Prokaryotes entered the topic, but tactics like this seem to really be stirring the pot now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not simply tit for tat, and I will note that this claim didn't start until King was up for a ban. The respected editors who have been patiently working alongside Pete on the Monsanto legal cases talk page have been discussing this problem for some time. Please note 's interaction with Pete at the bottom of "Blogs and sources". notes in another section, I agree that outside admin input is needed here, and feel that the focus needs to be on editing behavior over not only this article, but the entire range of Monsanto-related articles. It's my belief that the long-term editing of several editors needs deep scrutiny, and that the coming days and weeks are the time to do so. This situation has gone on far too long. Jusdafax 18:43, 31 August   <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Ridiculous is right. BMK (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ANI is often pretty bad, but this is plumbing new depths. Probably all the GMO-involved disputing parties should be scrutinized at arbcom. Alexbrn (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with you Alex.prokaryotes (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we really need arbcom. There are a specific set of bad circumstances happening at this particular time. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * oppose this is clearly retaliatory and nothing actionable has been raised by the OP. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my long standing principle to always oppose sanctions proposed by one party in a dispute against another. Also, per BMK. Blackmane (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal
The ANI is about discussing editors behaviour – right. The editors who are being discussed here are also being allowed to chip in their two cents worth without any oversight. Would Judge Judy allow plaintiff and defendant, to just interject anytime they wanted to, in order to fly off at tangents and confuse issues. Of course not. The hearing or case would never end. Yet, this is what is happening here. A complaint has been brought here on ANI and it should be discussed rationally without all the injections of rhetorical augment. Let us ask the plaintiff and defendants for their side when we are ready. Until then, they should excuse themselves from interference in the ANI process.--Aspro (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. Waters have been substantially muddied here by Jytdog raising complaints in a blatant and clumsy attempt to deflect attention from his totally unacceptable behaviour.  Editors are seeing through this, however, Aspro, I think you need to make a clear proposal here if that is your intention.  I could suggest several proposals, however, I do not wish to hijack your thread. DrChrissy (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please hijack it User:DrChrissy. The Wisdom of Crowds is more important here on WP. I don't own this debate. Unlike some others that think they do.--Aspro (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that permission. Proposal: I repeat my proposal above which I have not ramped up despite recent attacks by Jytdog. '' I propose a topic ban for Jytdog on GM-related articles (broadly construed) and including those articles listed above by the OP. This should be an indefinite ban, with no appeal allowed for 6 months. Given that Jytdog's disruptive editing has not been limited to only GM-related articles (I can provide diffs if these are needed but I suspect they are not), I agree with Montanabw that there should be a relatively brief site block for 30 to 60 days giving time for Jytdog to reflect on his behaviour. DrChrissy (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * After much consideration, I think it is more important to have it written in to WP policy, that once a complaint has been brought to ANI, the complainer and the editor accused of unWP spirit, excuses themselves from the deliberations – (unless asked to provide more information). The current editors under discussion here are really ephemeral when you come to think about it. We need to look at the longer term to protect ANI from this type of wikilawering  by the few, who can build a Big Wall o' Text' ad infinitum. Look-at-the -length of this debate. We need a more organized and better way.--Aspro (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support for Dr Chrissy's proposal with one amendment: it should include pharmaceutical articles as well as biotech. Arguments for this have already been made in my previous statements. (Support for Aspro's idea too.)  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Propose this thread be closed with recommendation parties seek Arbitration
It is more than obvious to outside observers that absolutely nothing productive is going to come out of this thread. To paraphrase one editor above, the tit-for-tat-for-tit... is just silly. Each of the sanction proposals in this thread would make great evidence in a Request for Arbitration but is just a wall of text and noise here. The issues involved and the 'high spirits' of the involved parties make this unsuitable for the unstructured environment of ANI.
 * Support as nominator. J bh  Talk  00:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This venue is to discuss editor behaviour, and there is no reason to state only minutes after Dr Chrissy's proposal that the community will be gridlocked.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - All these smaller proposals by users of both sides has gotten as ridiculous as it can possibly get. AN/I is no longer the venue for whatever this has turned into.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is one of the more ridiculous ANI threads I've ever seen. Capeo (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:  If the complainer and the editor accused of unWP spirit, excuses themselves from the deliberations -as I suggest- there would be no opportunity of tit-for-tat-for-tit... would there. Doh! Lets improve the structure of ANI. --Aspro (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Aspro, great idea! I also despise the "boomerang". How many times have we seen an ANI raised only for a boomerang to be thrown at one of the subsequent contributers and the main issue is not ever dealt with! Ban the boomerang! If the boomerang complaint is serious enough, it should be the subject of another separate ANI. DrChrissy (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I've tried to stay out of this mess until things blow over, but it's clear that's not going to happen any time in the foreseeable future. Although I have some pressing obligations over the next week I'll try to find time to write up the WP:RFAR. If someone else wants to take the lead let me know and I'll be glad to help out. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here, Tryptofish mentioned potentially drafting something for already existing sanctions. Might be worth seeing what they had in mind already. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * While Tryptofish is a respected editor, their edit history shows fairly heavy involvement in this issue (83 edits to Genetically modified food controversies and 164 to March Against Monsanto). In the interest of distance from past conflict in this area, it would be best to have an uninvolved editor draft the request.Dialectric (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Arbitration is for when normal DR doesn't work. It ain't working here. Alexbrn (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Occasionally there are conflicts that develop into shouting matches to see who can "win" by making the loudest accusations. This has become one of the conflicts, and it is clear that there is plenty of shouting, and that when there is so much smoke, there is fire.  That is, if there are enough accusations of conduct issues, there almost certainly are conduct issues.  I see at least three ways out.  We can close as no consensus, and this will come back again.  We can close with one or more sanctions based on the volume of the shouting, which doesn't identify where the real misconduct is.  Third, the ArbCom can be asked to conduct a full evidentiary case that really does determine where the conduct issues are.  Only the third, arbitration, is likely to resolve this issue.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The fourth (or part of the third depending on how you split it), mentioned in an above section, is utilizing already existing limited discretionary sanctions under pseudoscience. This would skip introducing a full case, ask ArbCom to specify that it does indeed apply here, and let admins evaluate the situation. Either way, I welcome the opportunity to get some really focused attention on edit behavior here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @Robert, this should not be categorized as a shouting match. [sorry, that was King's comment I'm referring to: and if you think we can skip a full case, you have not been paying attention.] I would support the idea of a full evidentiary case (I voted oppose because I don't think this means the ANI should come to a halt).  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   06:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @King, there is nothing pseudoscience about GMOs, and DS is not to be used in this manner. It was created to help with articles like Acupuncture and Homeopathy. GMOs are based on hard science. We don't have DS for this yet. But perhaps we should create them especially for pages where huge corporations and special interests are concerned, especially if they have received many complaints about possible spindoctoring and other malfeasance. The idea of forgoing a deep look into the claims made on this thread is unacceptable; it would be offensive to those who have put diligent work into uncovering this mess during a holiday weekend. In fact, Jytdog should be sanctioned for the fiasco he created here, and for bringing unfounded claims against 3 people.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   06:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support- Arbitration is necessary, as this issue is showing no sign of resolution, and this is the latest in a series of messy AN/I cases related to behavior on GMO articles generally and Jytdog's behavior in particular. Trying to shoehorn this into existing discretionary sanctions will leave parts of this issue unresolved. Now is a good time for Arbcom to look at the broader picture. Thanks to Short Brigade Harvester Boris for offering to write up the RFAR.Dialectric (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. This has gone on long enough and is likely only to get worse. There are clearly some accounts that need a break from editing in this area, but I will explain that during the arbcom case. jps (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We should remember the reason for this thread and its development.  An OP is concerned about the editing behaviour of Jytdog and began this thread.  However, Jytdog then went on a spree of accusations.  Those he "accused" then felt (perfectly naturally) the compulsion to defend themselves, and so the ****storm begins.  This is a deliberate tactic by Jytdog to escape his own accountability for his own continued incivility (which he has been warned about before) to the OP and others, and disruptive editing over various topics.  The community can deal with this.  This is not to say that an arbcom should not be brought for other more intractable behaviour, but in this specific circumstance, let's all remain focused and attend to the reason for the reporting of the ANI. DrChrissy (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I think that it is abundantly clear that there is not going to be any kind of consensus for sanctioning anybody in this discussion, and therefore it might as well be closed. I realize that editors have commented that they feel strongly that the community ought to be able to enact sanctions here, and maybe we indeed ought to be able to do that. But, the practical reality is that it won't happen. And I agree that ArbCom is best equipped to deal with it. I also am sympathetic to what some editors have said, that a full ArbCom case will be needed in order to deal with the entire scope of the dispute. On the other hand, I think that a reasonable case can be made that ArbCom should take the process step-by-step, by starting with discretionary sanctions, seeing how that works, and then going to a full case only if the community fails to resolve the dispute via discretionary sanctions. I also have listened carefully to what Dialectric has said. I thank Dialectric for the kind words, and I see no reason why anyone else, other than me, could not file a request. But the fact that I have edited the subject matter does not mean that I cannot make a request – only that I cannot decide what the answer to the request should be! I have no intention of filing the request in a biased way, and the process amply allows any other editor to comment and dispute anything I might say. I'm probably going to file a request in the next few hours, unless somebody else does it first. But in any case, this ANI discussion has gone past its expiration date. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have had many interactions with Trypto and although we might not always agree with each other, I have every faith that any filing will be completely unbised. And as he says, there is scope for discussing the filing if that is needed (which I doubt).  Trypto, given that Jytdog's editing is so widespread, including disruption to other editor's Talk pages and using his own Talk page to attack other editors, how do you propose that discretionary sanctions are imposed? DrChrissy (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much DrChrissy, I appreciate that. I recognize that there are conduct issues that extend beyond the scope of the Pseudoscience ArbCom case, but I also observe those issues on both sides of the present dispute, unlike the way that you just summarized it. Both sides: hands not entirely clean on either side. I expect to post the request as a fairly narrow request for amendment, that would extend discretionary sanctions to health effects of GMOs, and discretionary sanctions would work the way that they always work: admins could quickly block, protect, enact 1RR, and so forth. The sanctions would apply in all page spaces, not just the articles themselves. I also intend to lay out for ArbCom the reasons why they might, instead, want a full case, and it will be up to them. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors who would like to know what discretionary sanctions are and how they work can read: Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wholehearted support - ArbCom cases tend to have theoretical limits to the amount of information which can be posted, which if nothing else would reduce the amount of attacks anyone attempting to read through it would have to read. Also, it seems to me, anyway, that there may well be grounds for requesting if not an extension on pseudoscience, a possible new ruling allowing for potential sanctions on "unresolved science" or scientific disputes which involve really big possible financial complications and that sort of thing. Scientific lawsuits involving big bucks may not be common, but I have to think that they are going to be some of the bigget and most long-term arguments we have here. John Carter (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support: Primarily from exhaustion.  Clearly there is some personal behavior that needs to be addressed.  ArbCom may help with the larger issue of pseudoskeptism that underlies some of this particular drama, but it can't help with the bullying situation that is going on here. I am very troubled that the behavior of Jytdog has not been addressed and I most sincerely hope that his supporters can suggest to him more productive ways to engage those with whom he disagrees.  At the very least, Jytdog and DrChrissy really need to each stay off the other's talk page save for, if necessary, automated notices. Period.  Montanabw (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Montanabwl makes some good points just above, but the matter has gone to ArbCom as noted, and further comments here will likely generate more heat than light. This page can be closed by any uninvolved editor, including a non-admin, and requires no closing statement longer than "Moved on to ArbCom."  Jus <font color="C1118C">da <font color="#0000FF">fax   20:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom request has been made.
Please see: Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Simultaneously, another editor opened a full case: Arbitration/Requests/Case. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

User:GinaKaluga32
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This editor did make a number of edits seemingly to reach autoconfirmation threshold and then vandalized a semiprotected page. Normally I'd just warn them but that page is about a LTA account that has attacked the page itself in the past.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b>  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by MrSean99
– continued disruptive editing after final warning. Inserts apostrophes into decades (e.g. changing "the 1990s" to "the 1990's" contrary to MOS:DECADE. Never responds on talk, never provides an edit summary, so no clues as to motivation and no prospect of participation in any form of dispute resolution. Diffs provided are for illustration – there are others:



Adding to the difficulty of understanding this editor's motivation, there have also been some edits that are constructive:



– Wdchk (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you tried WP:AIV?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 00:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion, but no I haven't, because in my judgement, there is not enough evidence of a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia to call MrSean99's edits vandalism. The policy states: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." This user may believe he is doing the right thing and the MOS is wrong. Note that some of his edits have not been reverted. I am happy to listen to other opinions on this point, but my hope is that in a borderline case, it wouldn't matter too much which forum is chosen to request administrator attention. Whatever label we apply, unfortunately the end result is time-wasting. – Wdchk (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely, but certainly not permanently. The total refusal to engage with other editors is an issue. If this editor is willing to indicate they would be willing to engage with other editors going forward, I'm happy for anyone to unblock them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair and reasonable; thank you. – Wdchk (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

User:The Spartan 003 and reference falsification
(Lowercase sigmabot III doesn't understand "case not solved", so I'm re-reporting.)

After receiving a 24 hour ban a month ago for OR and altering sourced content, he's returned to doing the latter. Actually, he returned to doing that about three weeks ago (see ), and I warned him about that (see ).

Now, the following edits are another instance of altering sourced content. Fortunately, I have that book, and I can confirm that what he added is not what the source says.

This edit is another case of ref falsification/OR. Peter238 (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Blocked. Since The Spartan 003 hasn't edited in a few days, I've escalated Nyttend's previous 24-hour block to a week-long one, hoping that he'll notice. Deor (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response! Peter238 (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Manika
The Manika (singer) article has descended into chaos. The article had become overly promotional and possibly with content by individuals close to the subject (e.g. User:ManikaOfficial, User:Manikaofficialmusic). Some of the material in the article appeared to be incorrect; other material was poorly sourced. User:AyanP did some heroic work trying to clean it up, although this got reverted and mixed up by others' good faith edits. Articles for deletion/Manika (singer) was begun: I and some other established editors have voted keep, other established editors have voted delete, and there's been lots of IP input. The article has since then become a mess: there are IP edits pushing the article towards a more promotional state. Many of the IP edits are well-meaning, I assume, but against Wikipedia policy or poorly formatted. There is some enthusiastic tagging of problems -- perhaps overly enthusiastic: see this by User:Chasewc91? There's been some straightforward vandalism: see this by User:ManikaWard, which I presume is not actually the individual concerned. The whole thing is becoming unreadable and formatting is messing up.

It would be useful if an "adult" could step in and try to do... something? Warn actual vandals; welcome new editors while pointing them to some advice on how to edit; maybe semi-protect. Thanks in advance for any input. Bondegezou (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The AfD is a mess, the article is even worse, and there were were some silly edit wars a few days ago ( is lucky somebody didn't block him for violating 3RR), but your work is heading roughly in the right direction. The insane amount of inline templates shotgunned over the article makes it unreadable; if you are absolutely sure a source is unsuitable (anything Soundcloud or obviously user generated probably is, the magazines I'd have to check in detail) should just be removed per WP:BLP, not even tagged - that will at least make what's left understandable at a first glance. Also, having seen these things before, I'd wager a pint of Shepherd Neame Spitfire that File:Manika.jpg isn't "own work" at all but a copyvio from Facebook or something similar. I'll have a look at cleaning up. Oh, the presence of iTunes has no bearing at all on notability; I've got some songs on there and I don't see people tripping other themselves to creating an article about me (thankfully). In the meantime, I have indef blocked as it appears to be a vandalism only account (and assuming Manika doesn't want to vandalise her own article, which is likely, also fails the username policy by impersonating someone). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hopefully resolved. I've closed the AFD as TNT delete, i.e. it's worth of keeping but so horrid that we need to start over.  I will userfy the page at anyone's request, or you can take it to WP:REFUND.  Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring and POV pushing by 120.18.134.78
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;"> An IP is committing an edit war here and does not participate in talk page discussion. He tries to push his own POV and only communicates using edit history. Mhhossein (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're probably just as guilty of edit warring. However, the ip-hopping is a bit irritating, as is the lack of talk page participation. I reverted and semi-protected for three days. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I will try to handle it through discussions in next cases. Thanks to to your intervention. Mhhossein (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b>  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bronx hoaxer needs a block
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The above IP which geolocates to The Bronx has been inserting hoax material in the exact same manner as the person described at Long-term abuse/Bronx hoaxer, for instance adding a hoax episode to the end of a list of episodes. I have reverted the harmful edits, but this person needs another block. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked for two days. Is this normal, too long, or too short?  Feel free to reblock with a different length if appropriate.  Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b>  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How blatantly obvious does the SOCKing need to be?
Is it appropriate to remove this RFC as an obvious SOCK post attempting to EVADE scrutiny? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors are not required to use an Internet Service Provider that assigns them static IP addresses. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct, but editors are not supposed to log out of accounts to make edits in ArbCom Sanctions to EVADE scrutiny. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have behavioral evidence of socking, SPI is thataway. Otherwise, is there anything to discuss here? GoldenRing (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible to do something about TheRedPenOfDoom's repeatedly tagging of my posts with the "SPA" tag? He has done this seven times in around three hours: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 His justification is that although my IP address is dynamic, I have not edited any other topics with the two IPs that I'm using today. Based on his unlimited reverting in this case, I'm assuming the three-revert rule does not apply to article talk pages, but there must be some other rule that applies here. 43.228.158.25 (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Telling us your registered ID would go a long ways toward demonstrating some good faith. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have an account. I've never cared much for being viewed as a member of the Wikipedia "community", and everything that entails. I know unregistered editors are typically regarded as second-class citizens here, but if there is a policy that covers TRPOD's tagging of my talk page posts, it still should be enforced. 43.228.158.25 (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You know full well that checkusers won't do anything about IP's. IP's are not treated like second-class citizens here, though trolling IP's often make that straw-man claim. But if you were to list all the IP's you've edited under, that would demonstrate some good faith. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Request move to temporarily block user Ritsaiph for personal attacks
Hello Wiki admins, am I coming to the right place? I hereby wish to make a request to you all to take action against User:Ritsaiph for making threats, personal attacks, insults, harassment, and using derogatory language against other users while discussing on a thread.

The case issue can be read at here. This user, who has never made any single contribution to this template, came onto the thread went on whacking another user rudely, who has been contributing to this template for many months, out of sudden just because consensus has reached a deadlock. I hope the Wiki admins consider looking into this manner properly and take further appropriate action against him. We only want to continue our civil discussions but he had to keep attacking and issue threats somehow. Thank you. Myronbeg (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As it clearly states at the top of every edit block for this page, “When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user page.” I have done this for you. Now please provide specific offs of what you need help with. --Adam in MO Talk 16:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This user was upset that no one shared its POV in the article talk page which concerned making changes to the article. Many other editors have disagreed with the user, so the user had a Wikipedia tantrum and began accusing me of harassment and personal attacks. I do admit to criticizing the users ability to type coherent sentences while ranting on the talk page "If by "personal attacks, harassment and making threats" you mean correcting your poorly typed-grammar, then I fully agree, I am being a terrible person for doing something your grade 2 teacher should have taught you a long time ago... or maybe not so long ago. " and that, in light of the multitude of editors who disagree with Myronbeg, that we could make the edits whether he agrees or not i.e Regardless if he was on board or not, we would simply ignore the user. "We could ride roughshod over you and you can't really do anything about it." I am not apologetic for either of these statements.

I did state firmly that I would launch an WP:AN or WP:ANI against Myronbeg if the user kept reverting any future edits which had been agreed upon on the talk page, which would constitute as vandalism, "If your intransigence still kept the coloring from being implemented, I could always file a WP:AN or WP:ANI against you for disruptive edits. " diff here. The user implied that he would revert any edits made without his consent, "I did not made any vandalism to this template as the original color was always black for AQAP, red for government forces, and yellow for Houthis (later I requested changing to green, but at least at that time no one objected it unlike I do for AQAP-grey)... I can argue that people are vandalizing this page by imposing their own opinion...You are not in a position to challenge me." diff here.

Because consensus had been reached by an absolute majority of 5 editors to 1, and followed consistency with other articles, I thought it was appropriate to use a heavy-handed response to  Myronbeg's continued whinging about no one sharing the users POV. Furthermore, I was the one who actually recommended Myronbeg to file an WP:ANI against me, "Of course, you can file an WP:AN or WP:ANI against me, and I would support it if you did" diff here. I wanted admins to see what kind of an editor he is. One who believes that his opinion weighs more than the opinions of others, and whose attitude has caused editors to divert their energy to argue against him on the talk page rather than improving the map that the article is based on. I am aware that some of the statements I have made were crude and inappropriate and may come under scrutiny. But when all you want to do is to actually make an article better with an improvement seen on many other maps, (Libyan Civil War map and Syrian Civil War map) you get tired of nuisances that impede the progress. --Ritsaiph (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

IP hopping edit warrer
Originally I was going to take this to WP:ANEW (and it's too minor an issue for WP:RfPP), but when this user hopped IPs, I figured ANI was probably the best place for it... Anyway, has been edit warring at Streetcars in North America (see article history) to include content that is too trivial for an overview-level article like that, and has been reverted by both myself and  several times. I was hoping my recent reversion was the last of this, but now has made the exact same edit (diff), so it's clear by WP:QUACK that we've got an IP jumper here. I'm asking for a short (c.48 hour) block on both IPs. And, yes, I have notified both IPs of this ANI action. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Streetcars in North America semiprotected for 24 hours by instead. That should do the trick – thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Talk:History of Japan
Despite warnings to stop, User:Signedzzz continues to add and re-add an unsigned and unhelpful message to an already bitter talk page discussion at Talk:History of Japan.

Before this I'd already already declared I'm giving up copyediting the article as there are too many serious problems and—more frustratingly—too many editors who are unwilling to work in good faith on improving the problems—rather, they'd rather attack me when I even bring them up. Discussion and cooperation are impossible, and this hostility will clearly continue without me. Signedzzz isn't the only problem, but the editwarring to keep a message designed to bait and avoid working toward article improvement is a concrete issue that needs to be dealt with. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied to "warning" on my talk page. This is ludicrous. zzz (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Am I mistaken, or is the subject of an ANI report allowed to delete his name from the report heading? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is apparently disagreement on that area. I have had my ANI reports altered for not having "neutral" headings in the past, and certainly a heading that gives the impression that Signedzzz is either the only culprit or the principal culprit in this case is not neutral. I frankly don't care about 90% of the stuff you, Nishidani and Signedzzz have been arguing over one way or the other, but implying this dispute is the fault of anyone but CurtisNaito and TH1980 is basically a misrepresentation in my opinion. Another user recently tried to alter a heading in an ANI discussion to make it about me when it clearly was not just about me, and I reverted them; their response was to say the same thing you just did, claiming that I alone, and not the other user, was the "subject of the report" and so should not be allowed delete my own name. I thought he should have just dropped it then, and I think you should just drop it here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure editwarring on ANI is not permitted. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You would be right, of course. But, again, if someone felt policy was on Signedzzz's side (and a lot of people think WP:TALKNEW applies to ANI as well as article talk pages) then you would be the one engaged in disruptive edit-warring while Signedzzz is just trying to enforce policy. Again, I frankly agree with the point of view that ANI headers don't have to be neutral, but I think in this case a neutral header would have been more constructive. And I've had just about enough of both users both edit-warring to change ANI headers and inserting non-neutral headers against consensus of late. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment from peripherally involved but basically neutral observer It is not clear what sanction is being called for here. This is essentially a content dispute that has been exacerbated by the toxic atmosphere on the talk page, which was primarily the work of User:CurtisNaito and two other users he brought in to be the "bad cop" to his "good cop" and help him fight his battles. The users in question (User:Nishidani was also involved for a time, and both he and Signedzzz have been accused of trolling by Curly Turkey as a result) have done a pretty poor job of discussing the dispute. Again, I must emphasize that it is not, in my opinion, the fault of Curly Turkey, Signedzzz or Nishidani that constructive talk page discussion is near-impossible in this case. Nishidani briefly brought the dispute into the article space by inserting a bad ref to verify not the factual claim in question but the use of a grammatical structure Curly Turkey disagreed with. This was an unnecessary and somewhat pointy edit, but was also extremely minor. Nishidani and Signedzzz opposed some proposals from Curly Turkey on the talk page, and their comments were collapsed with the heading "Political horseshit not focused on improving the article". I know Curly Turkey has a reputation for not being as polite as he perhaps could be, but in this case all parties on the talk page except for CurtisNaito and TH1980 (including myself) have been uncharacteristically aggressive. The reason I say except CurtisNaito and TH1980 is because CurtisNaito is engaged in his usual passive-aggressive, ignore-every-dissenting-opinion, slow-motion-revert-war, never-ever-use-foul-language but constantly-accuse-others-of-not-being-constructive behaviour, and TH1980 is engaged in his usual "CurtisNaito is right and Hijiri88 is wrong" and "everything I don't agree with is a personal attack, despite what the policy says" rambling. If anyone is to be sanctioned in this dispute, it should not be Curly Turkey or Signedzzz, or for that matter Nishidani, me, Sturmgewehr88, Rjensen, Phoenix7777 or Vivexdino. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably the main issue is that some editors are spending an excessive amount of time making personal attacks on other users instead of actually commenting on article content. When I post anything about article content, too many other users ignore the issues at question and instead rely exclusively on personal attacks. Curly Turkey apparently has been having the same problem, though he said it was Signedzzz and Nishidani who were derailing the discussion.

I don't think the off-topic commentary that Hijiri has been making about me personally on the talk page has contributed much to article content.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, what Curtis calls "off-topic commentary" by me is my asserting that his recent edits to the article have been disruptive and overall unhelpful (something everyone else, including Signdzzz, Nishidani and Curly Turkey agree), that his edits have a tendency to introduce OR and misrepresentation of sources into the article (again, something everyone agrees), and that this pattern is consistent with CurtisNaito's edits to other articles in the past (something everyone agrees now, and agreed in the past on those articles as well). Pointing out where the problems with talk page discussion and the article content originate is not a personal attack, despite what CurtisNaito wants to claim. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If my edits were disruptive to the article, I would not have succeeded at bringing it to good article status before you or any other editor did. You keep on making accusations and personal attacks against me on the talk page, but the problem is that you have no evidence to support your claims. I am reminded about what John Carter said recently about you, "taking recourse to irrational, probably unsupportable, insults and obscenities directed against those with whom you are in disagreement". You apparently disagree with me (while still so often declining to discuss actual content), but that's no reason to make false accusations against me.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What "false accusations" have I made against you??? Wikipedia policy clearly defines accusations of bad behaviour made without evidence as personal attacks. You have been asked several times to provide evidence of the above "false accusations" you keep claiming I made -- when is the evidence getting here, Curtis? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already requested a few times that Hijiri lay off on the personal attacks and discuss article content instead, but he will not listen.TH1980 (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And I have requested the same thing of TH1980, who has contributed nothing to the discussion except to claim that I am making personal attacks. In fact, TH1980 appears to have followed me to the article, having never shown any interest in either that article or Japanese prehistory and early history before this. Let's be clear: as long as one has evidence it is not a personal attack to say "User X has been adding OR and misrepresentation of sources to the article. User X has previously added similar OR and misrepresentation of sources to other articles." Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban violation by
User:Ihardlythinkso has undone my edit to Evergreen Game, in direct contravention of the terms of the Interaction Ban which was applied to him in April 2014. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The reverse is true . IHTS (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * IHTS was at the article before MaxBrowne, but MaxBrowne was first to edit it after the IBAN. I propose both are instructed to leave the article forthwith. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Two editors in iBAN together can edit the same article according to WP:IBAN, so it isn't a matter of "who was at the article first". They just can't trample/undo/modify one another's edits, which is the issue here. IHTS (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * IHTS made a series of edits to the article, the last one being on December 26. 1½ years later, MaxBrowne makes a series of substantive edits which seem aimed at improving and developing the article, not stepping on anyone's toes. IHTS makes a minor edit in the midst of this here followed by another series of edits by MaxBrowne here just before IHTS makes the revert that MaxBrowne's complaint is about. By themselves, none of the edits by either party would be problematic, but the bickering is harmful, especially considering the IBAN that is still in effect. Still, I am not prepared to support sanctioning or blocking for otherwise constructive editing. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  10:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The minor edit you're referring to was to restore some condition of the text that I'd previously added to the article, which was presumably inadvertently walked on by the user improving the article. (But I put an alert to the fact on the article Talk page how some other text I had added got wiped out, so the editor might know about it and be more careful. But that didn't seem to help - more of my previously added text was overlaid after that point. So I restored my original text and included an edit summary that I thought was clear as a bell, that overlaying my edits are in violation of iBAN. Then I sought an admin's help as linked above. Then in spite of my clear-as-a-bell editsum, this ANI was opened.) IHTS (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I did not open this ANI; however, there is an issue here. (One editor overlaying content of another editor they are in iBAN with. Which is what has been happening at that article. So I don't quite understand how you can say "none of the edits by either party would be problematic". I agree the trampling was originally clearly unintentional; however, after my Talk page posts, and lastly my clear editsum, it should have been abundantly clear.) IHTS (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is why two editors under an interaction ban should not edit the same article. Given the length of time MaxBrowne could hardly be expected to know which part of an article was written by you (and I doubt anyone expects him to check edit histories to see if someone he is an iban with has recently edited it) As there is nothing to suggest he was deliberately reverting content you added, you should have left it well alone. Especially since you *did* know that an edit was made by him and reverted it in part to reinsert content. At worst he violated the interaction ban unintentionally (due to IB limitations), you deliberately violated the interaction ban to reinsert your own preferred content. I would note the use of words like 'trampling' and 'walked on' above which clearly show what you think of their editing. I concur with Guy above, suggest you both leave it and look elsewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your opinion has no foundation in policy, and is contrary to. (WP:IBAN clearly says, that editors in iBAN can edit the same article. So why are you attempting to debate the point?!) And you are wrong in stating that the editor could hardly know about overlaying my edits -- as stated more than once, I updated the Talk page accordingly, twice. (Of course I agree that checking edit histories means work, that is why I updated the Talk page to alert. Duh.) I'm sorry, but my edits were overlaid, that is specified clearly in WP:iBAN as forbidden (so again, why are you arguing the point?!). The first time, yes, the editor violated iBAN unintentionally, but (repeating myself, why aren't you reading?) I posted on Talk and in editsum that, and both together s/ have been abundantly clear. And by "trampling" and "walked on" I mean to convey the editor overlaid my edits, nothing more. (Your assigning insult is pure bad faith. The word "modifying" could have been used instead by me, but that is technical term and doesn't convey the meaning as easily. So go soak your head for picking on my words w/ your bad faith.) IHTS (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And BTW, if you think your suggestion to avoid editing that article is so great, then how about you getting a response about your suggestion from the other editor, not me?! (As explained, I think you are totally off-base for other reasons. Nevertheless.) IHTS (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I said 'should not' as in 'best practice not to because of all the shit it causes'. Not 'prohibited from by policy'. I am not required to assume good faith regarding your deliberate reversion of someone you are in an interaction ban with. Which you admit you did. That "your" (smacks of ownership issues there) previous edits (of a year before) were 'overlaid' is not an excuse to violate your interaction ban. There is no situation in English where 'trampled' is a neutral or positive depiction of an event. The herd of cows did not 'trample' the farmer's crops and leave him happier for it. You meant to convey that someone edited the article in a manner YOU did not like and removed YOUR content. And you succeeded admirably. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I give up trying to reason with you, Death. My use of "my" in referring to my edits, was to identify that I made them, me and not some other editor, pertinent to the issue of iBAN and undoing someone's edits, and nothing more. Go soak your head in all the bad faith you display. Goodbye. IHTS (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Sexual harassment by new account(s)
Could someone please take a look at User:Bonniejamesj? There appears to be a group of editors, possibly including that editor, using the user page for what appears to be rather clumsy sexual harassment. I will notify everyone who has edited that page. GoldenRing (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Golden, what makes you think it's sexual harassment? The other user by the way is Who created a similar Page SPACKlick (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Umm, yeah, no. That is not sexual harassment in the slightest.  What it is, however, is someone (likely the same person behind both accounts), demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is and merely commenting on a crush in the same way people used to carve initials on trees. Resolute 15:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that rather depends on whether the advances are welcome, doesn't it? GoldenRing (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if the commetnts are unwelcome and even if the details in the post (most of which censored) are not public and being disclosed here without consent the activity is not sexual harassment. It could well be a form of bullying but it refers to friendship not behaviour or relationships of a sexual nature. For all we know the referent could be the user and this could be self promotion, like a description of self on a social media site. SPACKlick (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if the "sexual"part is doubtful, I can't see how calling someone cute, innocent and heartless and splashing their school history about is not harassing. GoldenRing (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See the diffs here and here. I'm smelling possible sockpuppetry. Bonniejamesj created his/her user page (here - "A.B is cute and Innocent..."), the A.B Heartless account is created afterwards, and then edits Bonniejamesj's user page. This, along with their contributions (1 and 2), and these user page creations here and here with almost identical text - makes me feel that this is a simple case of socking and not much more.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Two accounts created a few hours apart. Their only edits concern the silly message back and forth and requesting redirects to their user pages. I don't see any reason to think this is either sexual harassment or sock puppetry. Their user pages talk about a school. Occam's razor: these are students goofing around. If they continue doing so, block them for WP:NOTHERE disruptive editing. Otherwise, we can close this, I think. &mdash; <tt> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk </tt> \\ 18:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Rhododendrites - I still suspect sockpuppetry, but if it's decided that it isn't / isn't worth investigating, then I agree - this ANI can be closed.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not impossible, of course, but until the accounts are used for something at WP:ILLEGIT, it's not a concern. &mdash; <tt> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk </tt> \\ 19:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, looks like you're seeing the same thing that I am :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture talk page
racism at Talk:Acupuncture and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

would a moderator please step in and get these people to stop, theyre basically saying that chinese people can't do science. wikipedia should not allow this kind of behavior, its really demeaning, might as well be, "slanty-eyes can't think straight" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaynas (talk • contribs) 16:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you expect anyone to act on this, you're going to need to provide links to specific examples. If you do not, this will be closed as unactionable. OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie  Talk 17:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I expect it's the usual complaint about the reality-based community pointing out the documented evidence that Chinese studies of acupuncture are never negative, which makes Chinese studies suspect per WP:MEDRS. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think these kind of sweeping criticisms of those with whom you disagree is very constructive. (And I'm talking both to Amaynas and JzG, the latter of whom should really stop referring to those he agrees with as "reality-based", as it is a personal attack.) Everymorning (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not an attack. There are people who base their opinions on reality as we know it through things like double-blind clinical trials, peer-reviewed science, and changing their opinion in the face of new evidence. And there are people who do not. Wikipedia is 100% on the side of the first group, and this is not going to change any time soon. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Michael Demiurgos
I became aware of yesterday with this edit of theirs to, an article that I have had watchlisted for some time. In it, they removed a number of commas from the article in a seemingly indiscriminate manner, while also replacing uses of the word "and" with "as well as". A quick look into their edit history shows that this is not an isolated occurrence, and indeed, they seem to be performing these detrimental changes across a wide variety of anime-related articles at an alarming rate: see, , , and. In fact, they have received warnings for similar behavior from as far back as February. Based on that, I left a message on their talk page asking them to stop: however, they resumed making the same edits almost immediately: see, , , , , , , and. While some of their edits may be an improvement, the vast majority are not, and it may be worth considering blocking this user under WP:COMPETENCE concerns. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You have just exchanged brief talk page remarks with each other about this difference of opinion. I think it would be worthwhile to hear Michael Demiurgos's response here before considering a block. Liz  <font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">Read! Talk! 22:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, and hope they will be willing to comment here. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be a case of difference of opinion. Why the edits occurred on anime related articles was because I was researching those animes in relation to a video I was watching on youtube to better understand what they were about. If I have upset anyone I am sorry. I never meant to cause trouble. Michael Demiurgos (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you have chosen to participate here, but you need to recognize that is not merely a "difference of opinion": your edits, especially in regards to commas and the word "and", are grammatically incorrect. I would feel much more comfortable if you would acknowledge that and agree to cease making them.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"I would feel much more comfortable if you would acknowledge that and agree to cease making them.": While I do not acknowledge they are wrong as I do not see them as such. However I will agree to cease making them for now as I have unfortunately upset others and do not seem to have any argument to back myself up further at this point. Michael Demiurgos (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Michael Demiurgos first started editing  in  May  2014 and the complaints began almost  immediately. No fewer than 15 different editors have complained in  that  time, including  the admins who  administered and reviewed his two blocks. It  is of note that  immediately  following  expiry  of one block  he continued with  the same disruption  he was blocked for. This is clearly  a case of WP:IDHT or WP:CIR or simply  that  he is a very  young  user. In  either case the community  does not  need to continue to  accept  this disruption  and I was about  to  block now. However, in the edit  conflict  that  arose, I  will  concede to   and 's suggestion  that  he chime in  here with  some reasonable explanation otherwise I  will  proceed with  a week-long  block  to  prevent  further disruption  and give him time to  understand what  he is doing  wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggest he stay away from grammar edits for now as with this recent edit on Rosario + Vampire in which he replaced semicolons with colons.    AngusWOOF   ( bark  •  sniff ) 02:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This too. The semicolons were being replaced with colons; I had to undo that, despite some possible changes in word choices that might have helped. []   AngusWOOF   ( bark  •  sniff ) 03:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Michael Demiurgos is the indefinitely blocked ; see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 19. Because the WP:CheckUsers for Michael Demiurgos's WP:Sockpuppet investigation case didn't block him as Jdogno5, despite overwhelming evidence that he is Jdogno5, and that they didn't block him after I pointed to additional evidence (even with Kuru stating that he or she would have blocked him on a WP:Duck basis), I've been meaning to start a new WP:Sockpuppet investigation on him. Because the WP:CheckUser evidence will apparently be dead, blocking Michael Demiurgos as Jdogno5 will be based purely on behavioral evidence. Betty Logan and SchroCat are the ones who listed behavioral evidence in the first WP:Sockpuppet investigation against Michael Demiurgos, and I can list more. There is no way whatsoever that Michael Demiurgos and Jdogno5 are not the same person. On my talk page, I told him, "You should be immediately blocked for WP:Sockpuppetry; but if no WP:Administrator is willing to block you for that, you will eventually be indefinitely blocked; I'm certain of it." And as you can see, here we are commenting on more of his WP:Disruptive behavior. Flyer22 (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

in light of the fact that they agreed to cease making these type of edits (above), yet have continued to make them since (see, , and ), as well as the matter brought up by above, I think it should be worth considering a lengthy block. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I made my post ten hours ago. Whatever the situation, I think it's fair to first allow him 24 hours to chime in here. If he choses not to, I'll block him. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Enough of this; see Sockpuppet investigations/ Jdogno5. There's a gap between the slash in the title, which needs to be fixed; once it's fixed, the new case will be at Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5. Flyer22 (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The actions of Burst of unj in relation to the Alan Kurdi story.
I am asking the administrators to consider suspending the account of Burst of unj (BOJ)

The first contributions from BOJ were dated 3rd September 2015, the day after the death of Alan Kurdi. And it is that subject and that subject alone which he is working on. His contributions are relentless in the extreme, but it is very clear that they are all with one POV, which is to minimise any sympathy or any emotional reaction to the story.

He has even nominated the article Alan Kurdi for deletion. I have said many times on the talk pages that if it were to be deleted, Wikipedia would face a media storm and public backlash of unprecedented proportions. And rightly so, to be honest. The Alan Kurdi story is one of those game-changers which shift public opinion and shape society. Its importance cannot be over-estimated. Yet BOJ nominated the article for deletion.

At the end of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Kurdi

there are many experienced Wikipedia editors asking him to give up over his nomination. But he is just carrying on and on.

I simply do not have the time to respond to his every action, few would. But something must be done.

To be frank, I think it is shameful for Wikipedia, not only that the article could be nominated for deletion, which most importantly means that the fact of the nomination is the first thing people see when reading it, but that the discussion has been allowed to go on for so long. And all of this is due to one editor, BOJ.

Further, here is BOJ being reported for editwarring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alan_Kurdi#Eyes_open_.2F_eyes_closed

While on top of all of the above, these two examples indicate that BOJ is trying to abuse Wikipedia and turn it into the website of investigative journalists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alan_Kurdi#Claims_of_disproportionate_sympathy_for_a_dead_Caucasian_than_for_drowned_African_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Photographs_of_Alan_Kurdi#posed_photos.3F

I have no doubt that there are more of those.

Thank you for reading and thank you for looking into this most important issue. Boscaswell (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Emotional responses aside, any editor is within their rights to raise an AfD to discuss the deletion/merge/keep of an article. Unless they are being blatantly disruptive, the only course is to let the AfD run its course. Blackmane (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As I wrote above, "He has even nominated the article Alan Kurdi for deletion. I have said many times on the talk pages that if it were to be deleted, Wikipedia would face a media storm and public backlash of unprecedented proportions. And rightly so, to be honest. The Alan Kurdi story is one of those game-changers which shift public opinion and shape society. Its importance cannot be over-estimated. Yet BOJ nominated the article for deletion.


 * At the end of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Kurdi


 * there are many experienced Wikipedia editors asking him to give up over his nomination. But he is just carrying on and on."


 * I'm sorry to have to say this, but this case draws attention to this point: if anyone can nominate an AfD even if the proposed AfD is of a very sensitive issue, one which is exceptionally topical, being at the forefront of the public eye, and that once nominated it must just be allowed to run its course, then that is a failing of Wikipedia.


 * However, that is not the immediate issue. And that is the ongoing, the sustained, the relentless disruption to NPOV reporting of the Alan Kurdi story carried on by BOJ's overwhelming deluge of edits. Boscaswell (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In that regard you're going to have to do better than to link to Talk page sections. Which particular diffs do you take issue with? What evidence is there of "relentless disruption"? Blackmane (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Blackmane, I am very sorry, but I simply cannot afford the time to respond to everyone of BOJ's article edits and talk page edits. They are far far too numerous to mention.  It is clearly BOJ's life's work at the moment to do what he is doing.  Undoing that should not have to be mine or anyone else's for that matter.  Neither am I suggesting that it should be yours.  Might I humbly suggest, however, that it would only take a matter of a cursory few minutes of perusing his contributions to see what is going on?  The Alan Kurdi story is a massive one still.  BOJ's efforts to remove any sense of injustice from it, from a story which has changed the whole view of anyone who has the remotest interest in global society and has shifted policy worldwide...this story must surely be more than just worthy of those cursory few minutes? Boscaswell (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Added comment.While BOJ is certainly hankering for a delete close, I would certainly side more on merging into an article on the event surrounding the boy's death rather than a biography. The boy himself isn't notable, but the event of his death certainly is and the ripple effect it has had around the world. Barring the fact that his death was noised around the world, the death of this particular 3 year old is no more notable, from a Wikipedia policy perspective as opposed to the sad fact that a child died, than any other 3 year old dying as a result of the ongoing crisis in the middle east. Blackmane (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Changing the title of the article to The death of Alan Kurdi is something which has been suggested by many contributors to the AfD page and I don't think there is a problem with that. That is not the issue.Boscaswell (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Admin eyes requested
At Articles for deletion/Palagonia double homicide. I am not involved in the dispute, but this deletion debate has started to spin out of control and needs attention by administrators. Winner 42 Talk to me!  06:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've hatted a lot of the discussion that is not related to the AfD. -- Orduin  Discuss 20:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Blatant block evasion
Could an admin please block - they are obviously the same person as serial hoaxer and block evader  (same user name, these edits in which they requested that the Randelearcilla account be unblocked, and the same editing pattern. I'd do this myself, but I've had the admin tools turned off while I'm travelling. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Neil, including for the fast response! Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (Reopened) It's bigger than this. There are also and, we may need a sleeper check. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone feel like opening Sockpuppet investigations/Randelearcilla? I agree a sleeper check would be quite handy. -- Orduin  Discuss 20:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Opened. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way I checked earlier using Special:listusers, and there's no more accts in the "Randelearcilla" series. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Editor Bill edmond pushing his personal view on Nigerian City and town articles
This editor acts like a genre warrior, only that his special kind of editing consists of adding the words "igbo town / igbo city" into the opening sentence of the lead section of Nigerian city and town articles without providing any source as verification (e.g. here, here and here). He is adamant in calling certain Nigerian cities and towns "igbo town" and "igbo city". Personally I don't care if certain Nigerian city & town articles are "igbo" towns or not. What should not be done, however, is to violate against Wikipedia's core content policies of verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research. This is the case with editor Bill Edmond and his numerous IPs.

I have reverted and removed the word "igbo" from the opening sentences of these articles, because they are unreferenced. It should be clear to anyone looking at editor Bill edmond's edits and his numerous IPs that he is adding unsourced material into the said articles and he's violating against the neutral point of view policy. Here's a list of articles which I found where Bill Edmond pushed his preferred "igbo" version:

Igbodo, Ogwashi Ukwu, Issele Ukwu, Ubulu Ukwu, Opobo, Kingdom of Bonny, Ogwashi Ukwu, Obiaruku, Ahoada West, Agbor, Illah, Obomkpa, Igbanke, Igbodo, Onicha-Ugbo, Urhobo people, Ahoada

This is not a content dispute. This is an issue of an editor who appears to be on a mission at Wikipedia to place his own personal stamp unto Nigerian city & town Wikipedia articles without providing any sources for his additions. Editor Bill Edmont has in the distant past been involved in sock puppetry and was blocked twice for vandalism and disruptive editing. To further complicate matters, Bill Edmond does not reply to well-intentioned messages left on his talk page, or to the warning templates placed on his talk page.

Meanwhile, to give an uninvolved editor / admin an idea what the inclusion of the word "igbo" in the opening sentence of Nigerian city and town articles can be compared with, imagine what would happen if an editor changes city articles like so: "Danzig is a German city", or "Ceuta is a Morrocan city" or the "Dixon Entrance is a Canadian strait"?

I simply don't have time to keep on reverting these unsourced additions. Could an administrator please take a close look at the contributions of Bill edmond and his numerous IPs? Thank you. 77.4.178.87 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Dispute and comments on Talk:Dutch Schultz
There is what appears to be an ugly dispute going on on Talk:Dutch Schultz and related pages, involving User:JesseRafe and User:4.35.70.123. My initial reaction is that the IP has made some highly inappropriate comments, but I have very limited time today and therefore ask that another admin take a closer look and take whatever action might be appropriate. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, this seems to have been taken here already, while I was reading and typing. See thread just above this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikicohen, WikiShanwnio, and IP at Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo
At the talk page of Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo, there has been an ongoing content dispute that has descended into severe incivility, including claims that one editor is the subject of the article themselves as well as a criminal while the other editor is a stalker who has faced charges. I originally reported this to the oversight email yesterday because I saw it as attempted outing, but that was not acted upon, so I assume that the lack of specific names here means this is not a privacy issue. Still, both editors have ignored warnings on the talk page to keep things civil, and I doubt anything short of a block will stop the incivility at this point. Please note that based on both self-identifying as "Shawn", the IP and WikiShawnio are almost certainly the same editor. ~ RobTalk 14:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)



Rob, it is the same person. [redacted per WP:OUTING] He seems to think I am her. He has so many obsessive content all over the internet about her and the cops in a long email told me that it was endless work while Ms Omololu-Olunloyo was in canada. Shawn built blogs, stalked Ms O-O's Youtube videos, duplicated and defaced her content, DCMA filings all day. Im telling you what a detective and a spokesman told me. [redacted per WP:OUTING] Shawn said she's not a Pharmacist, not a Journalist, wanted fugitive which is still not proven, says her name is not Kemi, says he has her birth certificate, says he's her non official biographer, says her pharmacy license was revoked 10 yrs ago. All these have been proven wrong and I cannot keep editing his page for libel and slander. This guy outed himself and should be blocked from editing this page but of course he'll create another profile. I am a new wiki writer and just fed up! When you start editing pages of hated ppl, these wikistalkers arrive and something must be done

Wikicohen (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The way to settle this is at AfD. I predict it will be deleted, but nobody can accurately predict afd.  DGG ( talk ) 12:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

thank you Rob for taking the time to enter me into this discussion, I resent the fact you believe I am being uncivil, I have been more than such, you can see by Wikicohens rhetoric that she is upset that someone is adding sourced information to her own authored biography page, I don't think I have anything more to add to this, the fact you believe that I might be concealing my identity as the IP user is uncalled for, I was told to register, I did so. This issue was looked over by the admin because I believe you might not understand the whole picture here, one glance at the Talk page on the Kemi Olunloyo page and you can see what is going on, please don't pool me into what ever facade the user Wikicohen is doing. thank you. WikiShawnio (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunate combination in this article of blatant promotionalism and overstatement along with excessive detail of no encyclopedic interest on the one side, along with some relatively minor alleged criminal activity reported with similar over-detail  on the other. I suggest AfD, or possibly G11.  DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with DGG in that this article looks to have been created with a promotional or self-promotional point of view - either way, It isn't neutral. This article has been the subject of uncivil discussion between editors on it's talk page. I think it should also be known that, looking at the contributions of Wikicohen, WikiShawnio, and 70.26.73.164 - the majority of of their edits have been to either the Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo article or its talk page. I highly recommend that these users step away for a bit, cool down, and let others help with the dispute.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When I first looked at the article, I thought that Ms. Omololu-Olunloyo probably met the general notability guideline, but I'm less convinced now. When you check what's claimed by WikiCohen with the sources, much of it wasn't supported at all and sometimes even contradicted by the sources. AfD might be the best way to settle this. Sjö (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the point of self promotion, I am new to wikipedia and only doing what I have seen others do, I have tried to be as civil as possible, I agree this article is nothing more than a dramatized resume but at the same time I do believe that Olukemi has earned herself enough notoriety online this page might be what Wiki needs, it's hard for me to be unbiased when I am constantly being bumrushed by the subject matter editing and reverting edits, you can plainly see what is going on with this back and forth. WikiShawnio (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Shawn you are not new to Wikipedia, you edit with two accounts, you libel and slander Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo under the controversy section. May I remind you that you said she is not a pharmacist nor Journalist and her license to practice pharmacy was revoked 10 yrs ago, you even claimed to have someone you stalked's (according to Toronto police) birth certificate. you lied that you were her unofficial biographer? Wikipedia edits is about the good the bad and the ugly, not the libelous and slanderous. Your sources are not credible. You keep sourcing from Nigerian blogs and not Nigerian media. Blogs in Nigeria copy whatever each other writes. they write based on celebrity and public figure tweets which may be deleted by those figures later. Ms O-O has not bowed out of Journalism, i will take off that edit AGAIN. Look for better sources and stop destroying the article. Certainly you have a COI with this subject and its a huge one. Also pls stop posting primary sources when secondary sources of her criminal case was reported by 3 Toronto papers. nobody knows if those charges are still pending.I will contact that police department on the update of their website if I have to. Stop posting things you are not sure of. DGG this article was created with neutrality but has been edited and altered too many times by Wikishawnio with false information. there is no self promotionalism. It simply describes a person, their career, their activism and controversy in their life. their numerous achievements and awards were taken out because of that very reason before it was approved. Wikicohen (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry but is anyone else reading this drivel, bottom line, you keep editing your own biography, seems every day you come to this article and "buff it up" for the readers, all of wikipedia can see your edits and the patterns of your behaviour, I don't know how to handle this situation, I add credible sources., events that actually transpired and you seem to keep deleting sourced information based on the facts you "feel" it paints yourself in a bad light. one day this section is allowed the next day it isn't, then you make these long winded allegations about the internet is attacking "you" when the whole time you are writing your replies like you are not Kemi Olunloyo, do you even comprehend how your actions are being viewed right now? can someone please resolve this issue? WikiShawnio (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Both of these editors have continued their personal attacks on the talk page since this thread was started. Both of them are SPAs that aren't here to build an encyclopedia, in my opinion. ~ RobTalk 14:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * COI editors or not, both of them have shown that they can't maintain a neutral point of view. Sjö (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

you can see from my contribs that I am adding events that transpired with sourced references, it seems like there is a bit of interest in "breaking up" a fight that is not even happening, you have a new contributor to Wikipedia here trying to complete his first rounds of edits on a topic I am very familiar with, it seems like instead of doing some research and reading the interactions between us you are just injecting your opinions without knowing the full picture, I contribute to an article, she deletes it, I try another avenue, even rewording and doing what the mod asks, she deletes it. I am getting the impression because someone has a wikipedia page and is reverting their edits because they might tell the real story, I am now being ganged up on and roped into what ever the user wikicohen is doing., so let the record state that I am simply trying to paint a picture here of the subject matter backed up with credible sources, apparently to some this is not wikipedia material? I don't get that at all. right now I am watching her use her cell phone to revert edits that have been resolved by 3 different moderators. I would like to know how I am not being unbiased here, I do research, I find events I post them with credible sources, she deletes them, so that means that I am like her now? please elaborate here. thanks WikiShawnio (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

the user wikicohen is now following me around and attempting to slander me with accusations I was arrested. I am requesting that it ceases immediately. she is also roping in another person not associated with wikipedia and I keep having to redact the names from the talk pages, wikicohen has even gone ahead and created me a user page without my permission> I don't know what the angle is here but it's hindering my use of the service here. I don't want to be lumped into wikicohens behavior as I am legitimately trying to help this article here with sourced material. The user wikicohen appears to be deleting large chunks of well referenced material because it doesn't tell the story she wants to tell. can someone please look into this, thank you. WikiShawnio (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Both users have now begun edit-warring and have violated WP:3RR. I've warned both. appears to have backed off the personal attacks, which is appreciated.  definitely has not, based on:    ~ RobTalk 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please let the record state what I am reverting is well sourced material, I believe that wikicohen is attempting to paint the subject in a good light, unfortunately there is alot of controversy to add to the article even yet and I fear we will never come to an impasse on the issues of reverting edits if wikicohen has a COI with the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiShawnio (talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to paint Kemi in a good light, Wikishawnio's edits have no encyclopedic value based on Facebook posts. He needs to stop reverting MY edits and that is why I have been reverting his. The edit war has to stop, you cannot cite Nigerian blogs using non existent Facebook posts on Nigerian blogs. People go back to those posts and if they cannot see them, it presents a source issue. Use sources from legitimate Nigerian newspapers who actually write the stories not hearsay on Facebook posts that is not even valid some times. Stop posting libelous information. I will continue to go after you for that. For example you say that Kemi is not a Dr. Have you heard of a Pharm.D? Its a doctor of Pharmacy. Do your homework. wiki has no say n that. It is her title on every Medical Journalism platform she has. Now I will continue editing this article and pls do not revert my edits either.

Wikicohen (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rob, Edit warring is not why Im here, I will not be harassed outside wikipedia by Shawn (redacted by wikishawnio) [redacted per WP:OUTING]. Harrasing me on twitter (which he tracked me to) will not be tolerated. He can do that with Kemi not me. [redacted per WP:OUTING] To edit this articles with facts, I go beyond articles and hearsay. wikishawnio should stop roping me into [redacted per WP:OUTING]. I am requesting page protection and a dispute resolution Enough is enough. I'm not kemi and Im sure she won't be happy reading all this edit war going on because of her. Wikipedia should be about encyclopedic articles backed up with solid relevant sources. Wikicohen (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * More personal attacks from Wikicohen: . ~ RobTalk 11:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have backed off from directly interacting with wikicohen, I have even gone and found additional sources to back up my references, I even use the same sources that wikicohen is using, it's frustrating. I will let the admins/mods come to their own conclusions, the personal attacks and libel needs to cease immediately.I am all for locking the page for review, I don't want it deleted nor do I want to hurt Kemi Olunloyo in any way, the story just needs to be told, this is Wikipedia. I/O (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikishawnio, pls stop reverting my edits. When I added that Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo still writes as a Journalist for her websites and a VIP blogger for Pulse Nigeria, you REMOVED them. They were sourced. You went on to call it a temporary position when the website has an entire section of her profile. Also there is no extradition order for her as of August 2015. Nigeria does not extradite it's citizens according to the united Nations. The only extradition order was when she was in Canada and it failed. I have sourced that from the Toronto Sun so pls do not post false information. I have also moved your Nigerian personal hygiene story to the controversy section as its not a career issue. She did not write it as an article. I am still expect a page protection and a dispute resolution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicohen (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC) I completely agree with a lockdown. I already requested for a page protection Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo must be going crazy if she's reading it all. Wikicohen (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * COMMENT These editors are causing great havoc on this page, and action needs to be taken. For me, I would recommend a Topic Ban from the article, and an Interaction Ban with each other.  The talk page is a horrendous mess, and the article needs a complete review.  It should be locked down, and a couple of uninvolved editors should go through it line by line.  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support a topic ban, but I think an interaction ban is not necessary. They are both SPAs interacting only over this topic, so functionally the topic ban should take care of interaction as well. If it doesn't and personal attacks continue, blocks or an interaction ban can be handed out at that time. ~ RobTalk 14:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo must be going crazy if she's reading it all." guys, please don't lump me in with wikicohen, please. I/O (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * comment An article on this nigerian self-publicist has been deleted once before see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kemi_Omololu-Olunloyo 78.149.122.149 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I have indef-blocked the account. It is easily verified on the web that there has been a long-standing harasmment campaign (or mutual feud?) involving these persons, and the WikiShawnio account is clearly (and barely disguised) part of the same pattern, so I've blocked them for harassment. At the same time, I also consider it quite obvious that the Wikicohen account is indeed the subject of the article – they said here on this board that a Toronto police spokesperson personally gave them information about the case involving that "Shawn" person, "in a long e-mail". I'm pretty sure the Toronto police would not give out such information to somebody who just happens to be a Wikipedia editor interested in Ms Olunloyo, so either that claim is false or the recipient of that communication from Toronto police is Ms Olunloyo herself. Therefore, I warn to cease all COI editing on that article immediately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As a result of you blocking Wikishawnio, he has started posting comments on Ms O-O's blogs which I read daily and have a right to. Wikishawnio thinks Im Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo. I am not. All Toronto Police records of his arrest and harrasment case is PUBLIC and online. The claim is not false and I am not Ms Olunloyo. Below is what was revealed this morning.

AI have only one account on Wikipedia and have no time for sockpuppeting. It may be of interest to see a comment left by someone on Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo's Gun violence blog which I read daily. You should be investigating her confirmed stalker Wikishawnio [redacted per WP:OUTING] Pls don't accuse me of false and unwarranted investigations. I appreciate it. I repeat, I do NOT have multiple accounts and have no time for that. The comment written is typical of comments written by Wikishawnio on Kemi's blogs [redacted per WP:OUTING]

The Writer feels they are talking to Kemi and feel she felt for their "ploy" Unfortunately, I'm not Kemi. I created her page and once again I know the history of Kemi and Shawn McQuaid as told to me by Toronto Police. Never met or spoke to them both but their history is all over the internet. INVESTIGATE Wikishawnio properly. Wikicohen (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You may be misunderstanding the remit of Wikipedia. There's no police force here, and blocking Wikishawnio is the be-all-and-end-all of actions that can be taken against him.  If, outside of Wikipedia, you believe that Wikishawnio is harassing you, then your sole recourse is through the legal system.  We don't need to "investigate" Wikishawnio worth squat; that editor's already been indeffed.   Ravenswing   08:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Legal threats
I filed an SPI against based on fairly obvious IP edits being used to fake support for their edits and edit-war. As a result, they have threatened me with legal action here:. As per WP:LEGAL, they should be indef'd until the threat is withdrawn. ~ RobTalk 14:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Pinging as the admin who previously warned Wikicohen

Rob, while everyone keeps accusing me of being Kemi or even 4 sockpuppets, you should be watching the comments on this thread on Kemi's blog which I subscribe too. I already notified the administrators of this. Who is posting these sort of messages? They are obviously "talking" to kemi thinking she is Wikicohen (which is me) I cannot prove it is Wikishawnio who was blocked but don't you think when someone posts that they set up someone for a ploy, obsessed about Kemi's tweets which have nothing to do with this page and even more comments like getting dragged out and KILLED? I have a right to seek legal advice when someone else is the sockpuppet. [redacted per WP:OUTING] I need a feedback on this in the investigation. Wikicohen (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm focused on what's occurring on the wiki, not what's occurring off the wiki. If those comments are genuine, then they're certainly deplorable, but that does not allow for legal threats to be made on Wikipedia. You have the right to seek legal action whenever you want, but it is Wikipedia's policy that you cannot make legal threats on the wiki, period. I encourage you to withdraw your threat. ~ RobTalk 02:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Not to sound completely dumb, but as an uninvolved user, I'd point out that IPs here on WP (and the blog comments offwiki, for that matter) are both "anonymous." I'm not sure how, without CU (to avoid outing), it is possible to be sure that the IPs in question are definitely one person's or the other's without opening an SPI for both of them (which we haven't). Anybody can copy old reverted text, and I'm going to guess that because these people are known to one another, they're going to geolocate to just about the same place anyway, even though there's a lot of play in "location".  Shawnio may be doing it, or Cohen may be fluffing "evidence" on her side, but we can't tell based on the extent of procedures at SPI as they currently stand. MSJapan (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand; the alleged socking is by Cohen, who is claiming Shawnio is "setting him/her up". I'll let the SPI run its course, but the behavioral evidence is strong. When a bunch of IPs appear in an otherwise low traffic article around the time that an edit war breaks out and heavily favor one side of the war, using the same odd turns of phrase that are rarely used, that points to one thing. Either way, that's not the issue I've brought to ANI. The issue that remains unresolved is that Wikicohen has made legal threats toward me at the SPI. ~ RobTalk 21:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This remains unresolved and the legal threats have not been withdrawn. I just realized, however, that the legal threats have been suppressed due to Wikicohen's outing of another editor, so unfortunately it appears the inaction on this report for a week will leave me with pending legal threats against me from an active editor on the wiki. Joy! Not much that can be done, I suppose. ~ RobTalk 04:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Outing
I have removed several portions of the above discussion because it appeared that the "outing" policy was being violated. Given the quickly changing nature of the WP:AN/I page, it may not be feasible to use suppression (oversighting) or revision deletion here, but at least I can do ordinary deletion on the material. The "outing" policy is taken very seriously — regardless of whether you believe the redacted material is correct or not, do not reinstate or repeat it here or anywhere else on Wikipedia, or you risk being blocked from editing. 03:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Dexbot
Someone needs to mass undo the edits by Dexbot. Dexbot has wrongly been removing all references to cite doi even though there was no consensus to do so. see the new RFC that shows that people like having all references stored in subpages so that the articles are cleaner. 166.176.57.125 (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Examples?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 02:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * see how [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Milky_Way&type=revision&diff=679398492&oldid=679106225 Milky Way] was ruined here. 166.176.57.125 (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * One can easily include references in articles cleanly using reflist AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It still adds to the text size. The point is to have it all hidden away so that people can edit a clean article without all that nonsense. That's what the new RFC at Template talk:cite doi is about. People should learn how to use templates. 166.176.57.125 (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Point is, the bot needs to be reversed. There was no consensus to implement it, just a consensus to deprecate its use. 166.176.57.125 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Approved to run at Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 4, following discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 47, among other places. If there's a problem, discuss it elsewhere, the bot is not malfunctioning or operating outside approval. Mdann52 (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, just found Template talk:Cite doi too. Mdann52 (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On a related note, this is not the first time Bots (or editors using automated tools) have used an RFC's consensus to depreciate use as a justification for making mass-changes. Which isnt what the RFC's were about. To run a bot or make mass-automated changes there should be an RFC specifically about that. The local discussion at project medecine to use cite journal instead of cite pmid should not be taken as justifcation for replacing cite templates site-wide on non-medical articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I will note the RFC states "however, the bot function should remain, with a BRFA raised to change its function to use cite journal within articles without separate subpages", so this does appear to be in line with the most recent closed RfC on this. Mdann52 (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I read that as changing the function of the existing bot (that was adding the template to be depreciated) so instead of one template it used another. Not changing its function so it replaced already existing uses of the template (which the next sentence appears to be in line with) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't anyone going to fix this or not? There's no consensus for Dexbot's actions. That's why there's a new RFC, there a lot Of alternatives than deleting these citations. 166.176.59.107 (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Oath Keepers
This page needs some administrator help - there are two editors in particular and many IP addresses deleting NPOV, cited information and replacing it with non-neutral material - it's here: Oath Keepers.

Also, I don't know how to seek consensus on the talk page - any help would be much appreciated. Uenuku (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You have administrator help-- is on the talk page. I don't know what your specific complaint is, which edits you think are problematic, which editors you are pointing at. And you seek consensus on the talk page by participating in or initiation discussion on the edit/content you think needs work. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. noted on the Talk Page "...I can see we are going to have problems with IPs and SPAs here due to the publicity, so it may need semi-protection which I can't do as I'm involved. Doug Weller (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)". There are two users who have recently made sweeping changes to the article, especially relating to whether the group can be defined as "right-wing". The users have not engaged in the discussion initiated by Doug Weller and contributed to by me.


 * Doug may be involved, but he is certainly capable of soliciting administrative action if it is needed. No IP has edited the article in ~10 days. Which "two editors" in particular are you referring to, and did you notify them of this discussion? VQuakr (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sietecolores
I strongly dislike coming here, but there's an ongoing issue with an user that needs resolving, and some community input. , presumably a Chilean user, has been, for some days, nominating for deletion several articles related to Pichilemu, a provincial capital of Chile, given that these articles were written by me. I feel the user is harassing me, because we've had different points of view before on other stuff.

The nominated articles are Marta Urzúa, Radio Entreolas, José Arraño Acevedo, Antonio Saldías and Heredero de tu Amor; all of these but the one about the radio were written long ago, and have stayed here because they pass notability guidelines. There is plenty of material about these individuals, mostly offline, I have pointed out such a thing to Sietecolores, but they have omitted discussing objectively, instead distorting arguments and reasons, prefering to disrupt the project.

A block (or at least a warning) should be in order. Sietecolores should stop pushing their bias against articles about so-called third-world people and stuff. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You're required to provide them with an notice to the ANI discussion. Articles for deletion/Marta Urzúa shows that it's not a clear-cut nonsensical AFDs as does Articles for deletion/José Arraño Acevedo. There are going to be difficulties in finding supporting sources online but at the very least, notify Sietecolores as required above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sietecolores notified. Blackmane (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, that notification is great. Thanks. Now to the matter at hand: Ricky81682 already noted what I saw as well. I looked at all of them hoping to find easy bad-faith nominations, so I could close them early and we'd be done. But that's not the case. It may well be so that the nominator is picking on this particular community, but that in itself is not in violation of anything--all the nominator would have to say is the magic word, "walled garden". These AfDs by themselves are valid. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * A note of background. All these non-notable Pichilemu-related articles have been around in Wikipedia since 2009-2010 when Diego Grez-Cañete joined the project and begun creating them. Prior to that coverage on Pichilemu was equally bad to the coverage of other Chilean towns. Much good content on Pichilemu has been created but also much that is not notable. The non-notable content has survived not because of notability or a "test of time" as Diego suggests but because nobody has cared about the issue. Pichilemu (pop. 13,000) and Chilean towns of that size in general are not a hot topic that might attract scrutiny. Also, users who don't read Spanish might have felt incompetent to evaluate the "notability" of the content that relies on Spanish language sources.  Sietecolores (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. When someone finds one, then two articles that need AFD, it isn't uncommon to expect a nest of them and go searching.  Maybe by article creator, maybe by Wikilinks or some other method.  This isn't picking on someone, this is looking for low hanging fruit.  Unless a nefarious motive can be demonstrated, you have to assume it was old fashioned hunting and finding within a group.  The AFDs themselves each seem reasonable, the number generated won't put an undue burden on the system, the community can decide just as they do all AFDs.  Some of the language below the nom is assuming bad faith, which really should be avoided.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The nominations are reasonable, there is something of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN going on here with Pichilemu content. See Template:Pichilemu for examples. I applaud Diego Grez-Cañete for his efforts but some rationalization through mergers/redirects/deletions is needed to keep this content in line with notability standards. Vrac (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of articles about Pichilemu in Wikipedia, most of them are completely unessential. -- Keysanger (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an strange case of an editor with so much accounts. User Dieggo Grez has following accounts in the English Wikipedia:
 * User:Küñall
 * User:Diego Grez-Cañete
 * User talk:Diego Grez (usurped) <-- that is the name of the account
 * User:Lester Foster
 * User:MisterWiki <-- moved
 * User:Kyusakamoto blocked in Special:Contributions/Kyusakamoto


 * beside these accounts, Diego has created a lot of other user accounts, see User creation log. I don't know whether the user has commited meatpuppetry, but at least one of them has been blocked because of being used only for vandalism. -- Keysanger (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kyusakamoto

But, it isn't all about Diego Grez. Diego Grez created his own article in Wikipedia, for himself: Diego Grez It has been created four times and deleted four times. -- Keysanger (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that this user is engaging in sock puppetry in this dispute; let's not turn it into a witch hunt. The articles should be evaluated on their individual merits, not all of them are obvious deletes. Vrac (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Claims of off-Wiki extortion and ongoing investigation at Everett Stern
Please see Talk:Everett Stern where an IP editor claims: This is way beyond my comfort zone. J bh Talk  00:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "The Everett Stern team received a extortion fraudulent demand from a 3rd party Wikipedia editor. Mr. Stern immediately reported this to Wikipedia and law enforcement..."[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Everett_Stern&diff=680142690&oldid=680140802]
 * Yeah. I pointed them (this is not singular they--they speak in the first person plural) to OTRS. Thanks for the notice, and what a blast, that talk page and that article. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for following it up. I can just tell that article is going to be... errmmm... "interesting" would be the best word. J bh  Talk  01:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Rats121Rats or User:Fuckit121
Not sure exactly what is going on here but there appears to be some kind of wonkiness going on with User:Rats121Rats and User:Fuckit121. One redirects to the other, multitude of page moves, blocks, and unconstructive edits. Can someone take a look at this mess and figure out if there needs to be a user cleanup, sockpuppetry complaint, or some other kind of action taken?--<font color="#005000">&#9790;Loriendrew&#9789; <font color="#000080">&#9743;(ring-ring)  02:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Admin failing to carry out their duty
is failing to block an IP at Edmund Payne despite the IP recieving three warnings today for blatant vandalism. This, this, and this is apparently not enough to warrant a block on the IP. JustBerry is showing incompetence at identifying someone whose sole purpose is to vandalise the project, and nothing more.  <font face="Papyrus">Cassianto <font face="Papyrus">Talk  23:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * JustBerry is not an admin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * According to their user page, they are.  <font face="Papyrus">Cassianto <font face="Papyrus">Talk  23:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see the mistake now. Fine, can someone else oblige then?  <font face="Papyrus">Cassianto <font face="Papyrus">Talk  23:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I had mentioned to you a handful of times to report the issue directly to WP:AIV. If you read the user page, I am a bureaucrat on Beta Wikipedia, not the English Wikipedia. --JustBerry (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In any case, after consulting a few sysops myself, the general rule of thumb is to block a user after the final warning, which is mentioned on my talk page. Also note that the appropriate page for such issue is WP:ANI not WP:AN. WP:AN is for administrator-purposes only. --JustBerry (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Conversation has been moved per rationale above to WP:ANI from WP:AN. --JustBerry (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * even if JustBerry would be an admin, they are under no duty to block anyone. No admin is under any obligation to take any admin action at any time.  -- GB fan 00:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment above has been edited to ping User:Cassianto. Accept/authorize. --JustBerry (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like everything that needed to be said has been said. I think this can be closed. Report the IP to WP:AIV and an admin will review the report. Done and done :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Invalid report, issue seems to be clarified. All members of the discussion reserve the right to remove the resolved template or add an unresolved template to the discussion if they see fit. --JustBerry (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User: springee and Koch Industries

 * Note: I have undone the closure and request that discussion continue here. If somebody will explain how to retract the Arbcomm complaint, I will do so. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC) (added bold) - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Complaint regarding Springee and the Koch Industries page:

I (VeritasVincintUSA) am a new Wikipedia editor, and attempted to make a substantive change to the Koch Industries article, which I believe to have been deliberately whitewashed. Following the complete reversion of my entire edit, springee and others have attempted to completely shut down or delay discussion on the numerous substantive problems identified with the article. Instead, springee filed a frivolous "sockpuppet" investigation against me and posted a spurious accusation on my talk page about association with a conspiracy theory site.

In the context of the Koch Industries talk page, springee has:


 * 1) analogized my edits to arguing that the "confederate flag isn't racist"
 * 2) initially repeatedly argued broadly against the entire substantive edit, while refusing to engage on the substantive details (even after a detailed edit summary was posted for each proposed change)
 * 3) when he did engage with one of the proposals (see the particularly egregious current language under "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" and springee's defense), he again would only say broadly that "I do not support the new language as better than the existing entry" and reverted my attempted edit without posting any sensible justification

It appears that springee has also been active on the talk page for the related Americans For Prosperity where he also analogized criticism of the Kochs with "racism." The discussion, to date, on the Koch Industries talk page, coupled with the text of the page, itself, seems to confirm my belief that the entry has been deliberately whitewashed.

I hereby request redress both, specifically, regarding springee, and more broadly regarding the integrity of the Wikipedia entries concerning Koch Industries and its affiliates. There were allegations of paid PR firms "airbrushing" these specific entries back in 2011, and both the activity and text that I observed seems to suggest that some form of shenanigans is ongoing. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Springee Initial Reply I don't want to snap at a new user. In this case I think he is misunderstanding things and has filed this in frustration. To address some of his specific points. Overall I think VVUSA may be expressing frustration that things aren't going his way. I believe Ricky81682 was worried that the user might be problematic. I think the user has a clear and strong POV on the subject and clearly wants to make BOLD changes. But I also think he has thus far played by the rules. I would ask that this ANI be closed. Springee (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigation: Yes, I did ask for an investigation because VeritasVincitUSA (same user as blocked Kochtruth). I was correct they were the same user but I was wrong in thinking that making a new account was not allowed in that case.  Please see 's comments on the KochTruth's talk page.  Note that I never mentioned the investigation.  It was "brought to his attention".[]
 * The user misunderstood my analogy. I was attempting to explain that having a user name like KochTruth suggests a strong POV and thus other editors may be suspicious of claims to a NPOV when a user has such a name.  My analogy is here [] and the follow up statement mentioning the confederate flag here [].
 * VVUSA's initial article insertion was 8600 bite [] and reverted by another editor. I have only made one revert of 215 bites []. VVUSA added a lot of information to the talk page (which I'm OK with) but it's taking myself and others a while to get through it (20,500 bite addition []).  Asking the user to slow down so others can have a proper look seems very reasonable.
 * The question about the KochTruths blog seemed reasonable given the previous user name. I think my phrasing could be better but I think the question was reasonable regardless.  Please see VVUSA's talk page for the question and my reply.
 * The implication that I'm no a company payroll is a bad faith claim.


 * I think that a thorough impartial review of the talk page as of the time this entry was filed will tell a different story other than "things not going my way." Specifically, there was a strong-willed reluctance to engage with the facts and sources as presented, coupled with an attempt to circumvent discussion with the frivolous "sockpuppet" investigation and attempt to discredit me by asserting that I was associated with a conspiracy theory site.  While I did not mean to assert that springee, specifically, was "on the dole," I continue to believe it is advisable to call the integrity of the articles for Koch Industries and its affiliates into question.  The combination of the entries' checkered past, and current presentation, cast down on their integrity.


 * springee has repeatedly (on the talk page) tried to cite his belief that I have a "strong POV" to discredit my edits. However, he seems incredibly reluctant to actually engage with the proposed edits and sources, themselves, while the nature of his participation on the Americans For Prosperity and Koch Industries threads demonstrates that he, himself, has a "strong POV."  Engagement with the sources would show that the current article suffers from a clear "POV problem."  In at least one instance (which I outlined in "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" on the talk page), the text of the existing article is so biased and misleading that it is my contention that the language in question could only have been written by somebody on the company's behalf.  It should be noted that springee reverted back to the problematic language without adequate justification or explanation. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , not only are things "not going your way", but, when last I checked, no other editor had agreed with any of your 10 suggested edits. As I said before, an editor who actually wants to improve Wikipedia would only introduce one or two of these suggestions at a time, and allow time for discussion before adding controversial material.  As for the thinkprogress.org reference, I believe it was considered "disproved" in the actual Wikipedia investigation.   I could be wrong, but at least one item from criticism of Wikipedia is without evidence of actual problems with Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Your claim that "no other editor has agreed with any of your 10 suggested edits" could just as easily be re-framed to state that, at the time of this ANI, only 3 of the 9 proposed edits had any objections or rebuttals since they were posted days ago. One of the three, to which an objection was raised, was the disputed "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" entry.  As I indicated, I expect an independent, thorough, review of the Koch Industries talk page as of this ANI will refute your assertion that things were "not going [my] way" or challenge the relative strength of the facts, sources, and arguments that I presented to defend my proposed edits.


 * Your assertion that I might not "actually want to improve Wikipedia" is unfair and, again, I rest on the specific facts, sources, and supporting arguments that I have cited on the talk page to support my criticism of the existing article and the need for substantive revisions. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI is not appropriate for content disputes. VeritasVincitUSA, you started with the name Kochtruth which made me question whether you are here with a proper purpose or not. Many admins would have blocked you outright and moved on. I'm again presuming that you come here with the intent to create a neutral article and not to create a hit piece. The subject matter, as you are well aware, is extraordinarily controversial, is subject to numerous restrictions at the highest Wikipedia levels due to the behaviors there and as such, sources need to be neutral and reliable. Your starting comments here don't indicate that you are treating the views of others with equal respect as required here. An accusation that someone is "whitewashing" an article is no minor nor laughing matter as it's a direct personal attack on the editors. The article exists as it is exists either due (a) to some massive conspiracy of editors to whitewash the article or (b) because that's the consensus view over the years this has been topic. One allegation is frankly not productive here and is likely to get you topic banned if not blocked. At the moment, you've proposed ten separate edits and have opposition to all which is normal for new content proposed on controversial pages. Accept that opposition with an modicum of respect and try suggesting re-wording to provide a consensus viewpoint that supports the views of those who disagree or otherwise, try one of these other remedies for broader support (this is not one of them). However, I warn you that most people would presume that someone who comes, make a demand for a number of specific wordings, received opposition and only responds by making further and further attacks on their opposition is not the kind of editor wanted here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ricky81682: Your assertion that I have "opposition to all" of my edits is not supported by the discussion (or lack thereof) on the 9 specific edit proposals on the talk page. I just checked again and no specific objections or rebuttals were made to most of the edits as of the time that I started writing this post.  "Accept[ing]...opposition with an modicum of respect and try suggesting re-wording" is precisely what I have done on the specific requests where there was opposition. For example, the version of "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" that I attempted to insert (which was promptly reverted by springee without explanation or justification) was not the original proposed revision and reflected the earlier input that I received from other editors.  I have not made "demands" for wording as you indicated above.  All of this is borne out by the content on the Koch Industries talk page submitted with the ANI request.


 * I have also not been the one "attacking." As a new editor, I was immediately met with a "username ban."  When I continued the conversation with a new username as directed to by the notice I received, I was met with a "sockpuppet investigation."  After posting my detailed edit requests, I was accused of association with a conspiracy theory site.  Accusations have been repeatedly made (including in this thread) that I have too "strong a POV" to be an effective editor.  And, yet, there is a remarkable lack of engagement from my "opposition" with the specific substance of my edit requests despite all these "attacks" that I have been subject to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeritasVincitUSA (talk • contribs) 09:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)  (sorry, I forgot to sign) - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * VVUSA, you actually are attacking via implication. You just again implied that editors on the article are Koch affiliated.  That does not help others assume you are coming with a NPOV.  You now have three editors on the article who have asked you to slow down and give people time to read over your proposed edits.  Please heed their requests and let the process take it's time.  Springee (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Where did I "again impl[y] that editors on the article are Koch affiliated" in the paragraph immediately above? I merely responded to the accusation that I was "attacking" people by illustrating how I, in fact, was the one being "attacked." In fact, I explicitly made clear that I was NOT leveling such an accusation against any individual editor (and you in particular, springee) in a preceding paragraph. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I recommend that an admin also address Springee's tendentious editing. On multiple articles and with multiple editors, Springee reverts material or demands a consensus before well sourced information gets added to the article. This is an explicit example of tendentious editing. As per WP:TEND, "You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first." A cursory search of of the article in question or Springee's contributions supply evidence for this on multiple occasions. I can provide diffs if necessary, just ping me. Scoobydunk (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that you were not involved in the recent edits on the page in question. Perhaps you should review them and all of my "changes", all one of them, before accusing me of tendentious editing.  If you think there is evidence that I was in the wrong please present it.  Springee (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is the evidence of Springee's tendentious editing by ways of removing material from articles for the reason of "no consensus": What's even worse is that Springee is not consistent with his barrier of gaining consensus before material gets added into the article. It appears when Springee finds the material agreeable, he's more than happy to keep it in the article without requiring consensus and even reverts others who remove the material. Here Springee commends the adding of material by Rjensen though there was no consensus to add the material. In the first diff above, Springee reverted removal of some of this material while citing "no consensus", though that material never had consensus in the first place. As explained above, WP:TEND specifically identifies that removing material from others with the complaint of "no consensus" as tendentious editing. Springee has applied this barrier of editing to multiple users on multiple articles.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for administrator to close this ANI Though I think VeritasVinvitUSA was not acting in bad faith, this is an improperly formed ANI. I ask that it be closed. Thanks Springee (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I reiterate my request an impartial review of the referenced Koch Industries talk thread in the context of this ANI thread. The hostility, persistent insinuations and accusations regarding my POV and motives, and absence of meaningful, specific, constructive engagement on the substance of the individual edit requests that I have proposed should be obvious to a detached observer. That said, if Springee and others are willing to cease their "attacks" on me, and similarly work constructively as part of the editing process, I do not object to the ultimate closing of this ANI without sanctions being applied. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Springee - We're past that, I think. You might wish to read WP:BOOMERANG, however, as it may become relevant. VeritasVincitUSA - OK, let's start over. However you intended your statements, some editors have taken them as attacks. The term "Whitewashing" is taken very seriously around here, and you've got to understand that people take that sort of statement very seriously and, frequently, very personally. They don't know you, they just know that a newer editor is demanding sweeping changes to a very controversial article, and that this new editor seems to be accusing people of shenanigans. I'm not saying this is the case, but look at it from their side - we get a lot of that sort of thing. So you're clearly upset, and they're clearly not agreeing to your edits - whether because of perceived bias on your part or because of flaws in the edits themselves, I don't know. So take a deep breath, acknowledge that there were misunderstandings, and start over - pick one of these edits, propose it, and discuss ways in which the core information (who did what when with whom, etc) can be added to the article. Perhaps the references can be supplemented with sources from other editors, or assertions can be corroborated. Discussion is your path forward, here. We have lots and lots of very new editors who come here to right great wrongs - many end up blocked for reasons best laid out at WP:NOTHERE. If you can work with us, we welcome your input, just as we require you to be open to the input of others. If not, then perhaps this is not the project for you. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the Koch Industries talk thread, I am not only welcoming of input from others but eager to collaborate with other editors to arrive at the fairest and most objective treatment of the facts. In fact, I incorporated feedback from other editors in each revision of language that I proposed.  I am still eager for a constructive dialog and very open to new information, such as additional sources that challenge the facts or narrative in the sources that I initially supplied.  Per springee's earlier suggestion to start with a single edit, I recommended that we start with the "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" entry, and even he admitted that the language in the existing article "could use improvement".  It would be great if we could start there and work collaboratively and constructively on that topic. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, I think you do want to discuss and actually I'm pleased that you have elected to put your proposed changes on the talk page rather than on the article. All I, and others are asking is that you slow down and understand that people are going to assume you have a strong POV on the subject.  As I've said before, a strong POV is NOT a problem and doesn't mean that you will make bad edits.  You just have to understand that people have to be given time to digest the edits you want to make.  As I said on the talk page, you should come at this with the assumption that the editors think the current article is fine and thus you must sell them on the idea that your changes will improve things.  Often you have claimed a fact is significant but how do we decide that?  We have to assume you have a bias towards including those facts based on your strong POV.  That means we need something other than your opinion.  That's not an attack, just explaining things from the other side of the table.  Springee (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment All articles that are related to the Koch brothers have seen a fair amount of both whitewashing and blackwashing, but there are also a lot of editors who are working hard to maintain a NPOV. There has been some actual misbehavior on both the whitewashing and blackwashing sides but there are a lot more claims of misbehavior where no misbehavior -- just a content dispute -- exists. Normally I would predict that this was going to end up at arbcom with the result of discretionary sanctions, but the articles in question are already under discretionary sanctions as part of the american politics case. As the US elections grow more heated, I expect we will see a lot more of this. I think the best answer is to be liberal with the admin-issued warnings and with short blocks when we see misbehavior, meanwhile referring content disputes to WP:DRR. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I accept springee's implicit argument, above, that my own having come on too strong and been too aggressive, coupled with some measure of Status quo bias, is responsible for the current dispute.


 * I think it appropriate to apply a metaphor that illustrates what I believe to be the misunderstanding on both sides:


 * From my perspective, it was as if I was driving through an unfamiliar neighborhood (Wikipedia) and saw what I believed was a body in the middle of the street (a problematic article). My first instinct was to apply CPR (edit the article), which was completely rebuffed by the local authorities (reverted in its entirety by the existing editors).  When I went to file a police report (on the talk page), I was repeatedly reprimanded about the way I was filing the report, asked why I would file a report since it isn't my neighborhood, and repeatedly told there was no body in the street by police officers who had not yet fully read or thoroughly engaged with the police report, itself.


 * From the perspective of the local police (existing editors) in a dangerous neighborhood (defending a controversial article), however, my behavior as a proactive and seemingly aggressive newcomer was seen as both against the neighborhood code of conduct, and an implicit "attack" on the quality of service that they had rendered to their local community. Their defensive and skeptical behavior is both understandable and possibly even justified (maybe the newcomer will increase the body count rather than merely help deal with the existing body).


 * Given this set of facts, it was inappropriate for me to assume that a murder coverup ("ongoing shenanigans") was being committed. If there is a body in the street (as I contend there still is), it is entirely possible that somebody died of natural causes, and/or that people in the (dangerous) neighborhood are so used to there bodies there that it had not occurred to them to question its presence.


 * I look forward to working constructively and collaboratively with the existing editors once they have had a chance to read and digest the proposed edits that I recommended. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting, however, that, since the suggestion that we "start over", another editor (AdventurousSquirrel) has posted yet another personal attack to my talk page and the Koch Industries talk page in an attempt to discredit me. It might be relevant that this user has previously posted long-winded defensive statements from Koch organizations, which are sourced to Koch-owned websites (Kochfacts.com), and replaced independent secondary source citations that cast Koch in an unfavorable light with (again) statements sourced to Koch-owned websites (KochPipeline.com) .  The second diff also shows that he is the source of the misleading Koch defense to the EPA 300 oil spill settlement (the "lack of attribution") that is explicitly rebutted by the EPA response (Koch refused to supply maps) in one of my edit requests.


 * It is also worth noting that there has been no constructive engagement (or any engagement at all) with the substance of my edit requests since September 3, despite the eagerness of multiple unmentioned editors to pounce on me in this ANI thread.


 * I do not mean to make accusations. However, I find the multiple unfounded attacks against me in this thread (which are contradicted by the Koch Industries talk page that I submitted with this ANI request), coupled with the lack of willingness to engage with the underlying edit requests, somewhat suspicious.  I hope you will pardon my Shakespeare but they "doth protest too much, methinks." - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

(adding reflist-talk) - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi again VeritasVincitUSA. It may also be worth noting that the statements sourced to Kochfacts.com that you've expressed concern for here, are contained in a section called "Koch Industry response", which contains - as you might imagine - responses from Koch Industries.  The KochPipeline.com reference, as far as I can tell, was already used in the article, and is used as a reference for one line about the terms of a settlement, along with three other references, including an occupational safety website, and two deadlinks to a newspaper and the EPA website...I'll see if I can recover those two sources.  I haven't read about the map thing you mention yet, so I'm not really familiar with what you're talking about.  If it's agreed to be an improvement, then it should absolutely be included.
 * I'm not sure I can be more clear about what I wrote on your talk page, but I'll give it a go: WP policy says that an account should be operated by one (1) individual. In the English language, individuals don't refer to themselves as "we"/"us"/"our", as I noted you have.  I informed you of the policy, and suggested that if you happened to be in violation of it (since you're new and might not be familiar with all the rules), you might want to talk to someone about how to begin editing as prescribed by policy.  I don't believe this could be construed as a "personal attack", but I apologize if it was.
 * And your "dead body" analogy makes a lot of assumptions that I don't know are true, probably colored by your apparent perception that you are an intrepid savior of some kind, as some of your other comments (and your username) seem to indicate. I think that what actually happened is that some people down the street told you the guy was dead, and you didn't really bother to check his pulse between sprinting up and proceeding to thump on his chest.  If you had, maybe you would have found that he just needed to be woken gently, and repositioned slightly - to a bench nearby, perhaps; everyone standing around probably would've been happy to help you walk him over there, or even take him to the hospital to get checked out if need be.  And now you're wondering why everyone's upset that you tried to crack the poor guy's ribs.
 * But anyhoo, I'm not sure this will get us anywhere - ready to start over when you are. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, and I apologize if I have come on too strong. But, the ball is (and has been) in your court.  If we can all agree to start with the "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" edit summary, I look forward to a thorough discussion of the relevant events, facts, and sources as we work through the issues identified by that edit summary. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * To update, almost a day later and still no engagement with "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" or any of the multiple substantive and detailed edit summaries posted on the Koch Industries talk page. The 9 full edit summaries were posted nearly a week ago and there is still no meaningful engagement from any of the editors who were so quick to level unfounded accusations at me.


 * Even a cursory review of the specific details of these proposed edits, in the context of the current article text, would show that the existing Koch Industries article is not merely "a dead body", but already blue and starting to attract maggots. springee's broad criticism (that the facts are not significant) are disputed by the detailed edit summaries and supporting evidence.  In addition to the "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" language, which is both biased and intentionally misleading, the detailed edit summaries I posted illustrate multiple very significant errors of omission.


 * From a report in Rolling Stone that the company pleaded guilty to five felonies including conspiracy to commit fraud, to a US Senate investigation into the company's theft of oil from tribal lands that culminated in a False Claims Act settlement, it should be clear that these edit proposals all have three things in common: (1) they involve "inconvenient facts" from the company's perspective, (2) they are all material, reliably sourced, and more noteworthy that other information already included on the page, and (3) the editors who have attacked me on this page have tried very hard to shut down and/or delay discussion on all of them without any specific justification or supporting arguments on any of them.


 * I would encourage the administrators reading this report to thoroughly review the Koch Industries talk page submitted with this ANI in the context of the behavior in this thread, and also take into account the context of the existing article. In the meantime, I eagerly await the response of the existing editors to "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" and the other detailed edit summaries that I posted. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I also ask that Guy Macon's comment above be treated as a comment by a party that is somewhat involved with the underlying issue at hand. He was very vocal against reporting negative information about the Kochs in the same Americans For Prosperity talk thread that is cited at the top of the page (I knew I recognized the name).  I count 19 separate instances of his signature in that one thread, alone. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Man, this just keeps looking worse and worse. I've been playing around with the "Wikiblame" tool, and it looks like, FOR YEARS, anybody who has tried to cite either of these two critical articles , for any reason, has had their content summarily reverted without explanation.  The talk archives for Koch_Industries have multiple angry posts asking why such posts had been taken down, such as this one, which implicates our own Arthur Rubin.  In other cases, the same type of behavior that I observed (objecting to the posting of critical content from new users by citing obscure Wikipedia WP: policies while refusing to engage with the content, itself) has been discussed.  Not only do I not see myself as a "savior", as AdventurousSquirrel claimed, it appears I was just the first user in all this time that naturally responds to the type of frustration that they attempted to induce with increased (and not decreased) motivation to push through.


 * It is also worth mentioning the continued radio silence from the implicated users. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Based on the "Wikiblame" evidence described above (and full history of the Koch Industries talk page and Koch Industries article), the content of the Koch Industries talk page referenced above, the content of this ANI thread, and the content of the Koch Industries article as of 9/6/2015, I would like to level a specific "bad-faith" accusation against the named entity Koch Industries.


 * This evidence strongly suggests that, over a period of YEARS, individuals directed by Koch Industries and/or operating on its behalf have:


 * 1) Systematically removed content containing specific citations that paint the company in a negative light.


 * 2) Responded to negative content with a "playbook" that consists of objecting on the grounds of various arcane Wikipedia rules and/or making broad sweeping objections while steadfastly refusing to engage with or discuss the specific negative content itself.


 * 3) Posted company statements, and other astroturf that links to company-owned websites, both in place of and in addition to organic Wikipedia content.


 * As evidence of "prior bad acts", I reference the 2011 Koch Industries Wikipedia "airbrushing" scandal that was reported by ThinkProgress and others. I call on the administrators and the Wikimedia Foundation to thoroughly investigate this claim. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It also appears that I am not the first person to make the observation that there appears to be an organized effort to prevent unflattering facts (and, specifically, facts--not criticism) from finding their way onto pages related to the Kochs and/or to be given more prominence within the page. Here is a post by a Reddit user who noted as far back as 2013 that "every time anyone has attempted to add a controversy section [which I pointed out in the Koch Industries talk thread seems to be standard for large, controversial, companies] for Koch Industries it gets removed/shutdown by a group of diligent "contributors"".


 * Some of the comments in the cited Americans For Prosperity thread above also show a strong reluctance, from a "loyal opposition", to allow noteworthy (but unflattering) information about the Kochs to appear. Guy Macon (the user who made the comment above) went so far as to say "Just say no to blackwashing" twice and (in bold) "There is a political faction on Wikipedia that wants to demonize the Koch brothers wherever possible." Springee wrote "I don't think the citations rise to the level of rock solid" (the primary, but not even the only, citations in question were articles that appeared in the The Washington Post, one of the most widely circulated and respected newspapers in the United States).  Arthur Rubin argued "current coverage of the Kochs is excessive".  AdventurousSquirrel is also very active in the thread but his arguments (again, against the negative information--which seems to be a consistent position for him as well) are reasonable and justified.


 * There does appear to be an organized, consistent, and loyal opposition to including negative facts about the Kochs and/or presenting that information in a way that is unfavorable to their interests (such as having a "legal and regulatory issues" or "criticism" section that seems to be standard for similarly large, controversial, companies). With respect to the complaints of "excessive coverage", I would point out that Koch Industries is both consistently ranked as one of the largest private companies in the United States and the Kochs are also far more prominent, active politically, and more widely covered by the contemporary media than most similar businesspeople.  The edit summaries I submitted (which the "loyal opposition" has refused to engage with) consist of significant, objective, verifiable facts related to the company's history, key details that were omitted, balancing facts that rebut company statements/assertions that are included in the current article without balance, and an accurate substitute for the intentionally misleading treatment of Smalley v. Koch Industries.  The silence was, and is, deafening. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * UPDATE #2: It seems this same cast of characters has also been involved with sanitizing the Charles Koch page over an extended period of time.


 * In response to one anonymous user's observation on the talk page that "This bio reads like it was written by Mr. Koch himself or his staff" roughly two years ago, Arthur Rubin justifies having all of the critical information on a separate page (that conveniently doesn't rank in SERPS for "Charles Koch").


 * AdventurousSquirrel also objected to including negative information from the separate page in the main Charles Koch profile on the Charles Koch talk page (under "inclusion of JBS") in 2012.


 * The evidence I have presented in this thread is strongly suggestive of a pattern of long-term abuse, by multiple users, who have diligently worked to exclude and divert negative information from pages related to the Kochs over a multi-year period. Furthermore, the sophisticated efforts to divert negative information from SERPS and seeming use of a "playbook" to suppress negative content are suggestive of an organized reputation management effort.


 * Given Koch Industries' prior history of abusing Wikipedia, I do not believe that remedial actions taken against these specific users/usernames is sufficient. This type of abuse impugns the integrity of the Wikipedia project. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI: This is being reported on DailyKos as some kind of a sting operation. Appears to be a misguided use of both sites involved, and a misunderstanding of how Wiki works, regardless of the merits of including some of the info suggested at the talk page. 99.126.240.200 (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm, an IP that has seemingly never posted on Wikipedia before chooses to level a broad criticism coupled with some misdirection, without addressing any of the specific allegations made above... - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And, one eagle-eyed Daily Kos reader's comment helped me catch YET ANOTHER example of our cast performing reputation management on Koch-related pages that are outside the bounds of the typical political controversy. Back in 2012, Arthur Rubin removed a reference to Jane Mayer's New Yorker article, and Koch Industries, from the John Birch Society page.  According to the user on Daily Kos, over time that article has also been "whitewashed". - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, it appears that Springee left the following statement on Arthur Rubin's talk page (what, exactly, does "involvement" and "this" consist of): "Since you are also involved with this I thought you might want to know thing are brewing" . - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * springee also had the courtesy to implicate Ricky81682 by posting: "We made it to the DailyKos!" to his talk page (note the "we" despite the fact that Ricky81682 was not mentioned on DailyKos). In that same thread, springee seems to be conspiring with Ricky81682 to ban me from Wikipedia.  For the record, I fully complied with WP:ROLE, as I indicated on my talk page when accused by AdventurousSquirrel.  Let's see if Ricky81682 takes the bait, and if springee implicates anybody else... - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Admins: watch out for the boomerang
I had previously asked that we take it easy on VVUSA as a new user. However, it is clear that the user has not been honest with us. In the DailyKos link it is clear that VVUSA is either the author or part of a group that authored the DK article. VVUSA previously claimed to be acting as an individual despite referring to the account as "Our" (see user talk page []). Both in the DK article and here VVUSA is making a number of accusations that amount to personal attacks. I can no long assume he/she/they are acting in good faith. Springee (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * springee, the eyes of the Internet community are now on Wikipedia. However this gets resolved will reported in a follow up article.  As I mentioned multiple times, I am in full compliance with WP:ROLE and have been throughout my time here.  Smile, you're famous! - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I find it appalling that you have taken to the Daily Kos to malign and slander long-time editors who didn't agree with your edits. I, for one, also don't believe that you are only one person (that's certainly not the way your Daily Kos "We are Kochs" stuff reads). I suggest you take your campaigns and mudslinging personal attacks elsewhere, you are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Capitalismojo, it's not a matter of "not agreeing". Its that multiple of the implicated editors have a multi-year documented history of behavior that is consistent with "reputation management" (and object to any and all information, no matter how noteworthy, well-sourced, or relevant that might be damaging to the named entities whose articles they seem to be faithfully guarding).  As I conceded on my talk page, and will repeat here, I concede the point that you, specifically, may have just wandered into the wrong place at the wrong time while acting suspiciously; but, you must admit that the circumstantial evidence (particularly as it relates to Arthur Rubin and AdventurousSquirrel) is extensive and extremely convincing. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been watching this unfold from the sidelines for a while. I became involved with Political activities of the Koch brothers a few years ago specifically because there was quite a bit of whitewashing and filibustering going on, by many of the same editors involved now. My question is: Is there any chance that this will not end up in front of Arbcom soon? - MrX 17:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * MrX, I don't think the existing Wikipedia adjudication process is adequate to handle cases like these. If a third party, in fact, directed or sponsored these editors' coordinated activities, that third-party should be the primary target of any formal Wikipedia inquiry.  And, if another third party sponsored or directed that party's efforts, that party should be the ultimate target.  My personal bias would be to give the individual editors involved conditional immunity from any formal sanctions in return for spilling the beans on the full extent of their behavior and any third-party that sponsored or directed their activities (and signing a binding agreement to refrain from future abuse).  That would enable Wikipedia to develop safeguards to prevent this type of conduct in the future and pursue appropriate remedies against the ultimate leaders/directors of this behavior.  - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You may not think the Wikipedia adjudication process is adequate to handle cases like these, but that's all we have. Allegations that editors were directed by an outside Koch-connected entity to edit Koch-related articles needs strong evidence, not a witch hunt and lambasting in an anonymous DailyKos article. If you're so certain of malfeasance, you should request and Arbcom case. WMF is not likely to get involved based on the scant evidence from your sting operation.- MrX 17:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

VVUSA, have you ever considered that just perhaps the issue here is not one of conspiracy but instead people getting tired of the issue? First, if you look at my edit history, almost exclusively automotive related until I became interested in a RfC a while back. Do you really think that after 6 years or so on this site I just two months ago decided to work for the Koch brothers? That is the claim you are making. Now look at recent history, many of us were just involved in a long and ugly RfC about a Koch related article. The editor who started the RfC, the same one who just welcomed both you and your DailyKos loving IP friend [] really wore a lot of editors raw. So then you come along and want to start the fights all over again. It was natural that people would say, SLOW DOWN. That is what people were saying to you. You clearly are on a crusade to correct what you think is wrong. That's fine. However, you still need to play within the rules. Other editors, myself included, had just dealt with the very editor who welcomed you. We were not interested in more drama and not interested in fighting. When your edits went too far we said no. It is not our burden to propose changes just because you aren't happy with the articles. You did try to tone down your edits but you weren't able to get consensus in the short period of time you wanted to wait. If you had done this before the RfC fight perhaps people would have been more willing to work at your pace. There is no conspiracy here, just people who were tired of fighting and didn't feel like fighting with you. However, you decided to take things to the next level and publically insult and attack editors both on this site and on an external site. Opening up editors to attacks and harassment from external websites is unquestionably a violation of WP:HARASS and WP:NPA. For these reasons I'm asking that you are given an indefinite block. Springee (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support boomerang - I see nothing but disruption and harassment from VVUSA right now. Perhaps the SPI was in poor faith, but this ANI and several of the responses I have seen from VVUSA incline me to believe that a block is in order. -- Orduin  Discuss 19:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The "DailyKos loving IP" does not appear to be my friend, at all. His comment was clearly dismissive of the pattern of behavior that was observed.  Per Orduin's comment, I am convinced that both the "sockpuppet investigation" and unsigned accussion of association with KochTruths.com were "bad faith" accusations designed to implicate the messenger rather than focusing on the content.  The content I proposed was explicitly apolitical.  In the case of the "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" language, the existing language in the article was both biased and intentionally misleading.  It is so biased and misleading that I continue to contend that it is the "canary in the coal mine".  The transcript of the talk thread certainly makes it appear that springee was deliberately stonewalling any attempt to "correct the record" while placing an undue burden on me to justify the new language prior to inclusion.  In fact, an independent user came forward to complain about springee's "tendentious editing" in other contexts, as well, specifically in cases where springee disagreed with the content being proposed.


 * Furthermore, as the talk thread indicates, I explicitly refused to question the motives or intentions of *any* editor, despite being repeatedly accused of having ulterior motives, myself. I did not even begin to go down that rabbit hole until AdventurousSquirrel posted his (second personal) accusation to my talk thread.  Once I saw his "contributions" on Koch-related entries, it became immediately evident that such edits were not the product of an "attempt to build an encyclopedia" and were instead suggestive of a seemingly ulterior motive of "reputation management."  That, coupled with springee's attempt to "rally the troops" to make accusations in this ANI thread that are not consistent with the evidence in the talk thread, is suggestive of some form of coordination.  The "doth protest too much" comment earlier in the thread is instructive; the implicated users were more than willing to take the time to level spurious accusations regarding my behavior yet were completely unwilling to engage with the underlying content. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Boomerang I'm not an admin but I clearly support boomerang based just on VVUSA's comments here. A block is clearly in order. Springee (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Party To Dispute Not only is Springee "not an admin" as per the above "Support Boomerang" comment, he is one of the key implicated parties in the underlying dispute. His attempts to redirect the conversation from the underlying issue at hand to a Boomerang should be viewed in the same context as his Declined edit warring report against HughD from back in August. That thread also implicates him in "tendentious editing"/"stonewalling" relating to US political topics, and an uninvolved user commented on the same type of "pack behavior" related to Springee, Arthur Rubin, and Capitalismojo that I observed here. I would be curious to have input in this thread from Scoobydunk and HughD, who have been around longer than I have and observed and interacted with the implicated users over a longer period of time. It appears that trying to "shoot the messenger" in also a key part of the "playbook" that I alluded to, above.

Springee's defense (that he was just "tired of the issue") is not supported by his own behavior. He proactively interjected himself into the Koch Industries talk thread, and was not one of the original editors to have raised objections to the edits I proposed. He seemingly grew "tired of the issue" only when it was time to actually make an edit. All this is borne out by the Koch Industries talk thread, itself. Let's get back to the underlying issue of systematic "whitewashing" of Koch-related articles by a core and seemingly coordinated set of editors. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And, here's more evidence of Springee actively "campaigning" to get me banned or blocked. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Give me one sentence, - What do you want administrators to do? You seemed, for a moment there, to be willing to discuss the content of the article in a calm and reasonable manner, on the article's talk page. And then it got weird. You've spent a week leveling accusations at other editors, most particularly Springee. You're going on and on about a content dispute that is outside the purview of the administrators here - we're not gonna rule on which one of you is right. We do, however, have lots to say about behavioral issues. And right now you're inching toward being disruptive. I'm particularly concerned about the fact that you showed up here recently to expose the overarching conspiracy to whitewash the article, and then wrote about it in the media. That's pretty much the definition of "not being here to improve the encyclopedia". So give me a sentence. Explain to me why you should not be blocked immediately for using Wikipedia to further your political agenda and create fodder for your website blog thing? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I was willing to be reasonable until it became clear that the users involved were unwilling to work constructively towards improving the clearly deficient Koch Industries article. In fact, I waited three days following Springee's seeming contrition (and endured yet another personal attack on my talk page) before even beginning to investigate the activity of the users in question.  I'd like three things to happen out of this:


 * 1) For a constructive, collaborative, dialog to begin concerning fixing the articles that have been "whitewashed". I would be willing to participate in the process, but would understand if a decision is made to bring in a group of entirely new editors who have no prior history of editing US politics articles or the articles in dispute.


 * 2) For Wikipedia arbitration proceedings to be initiated against Arthur Rubin and AdventurousSquirrel, who seem to have a multi-year history of systematically objecting to and blocking the prominent inclusion of any negative information on the pages in question (significant evidence that they are "not here to build an encyclopedia").


 * 3) For Wikipedia arbitration proceedings to be begun against Springee, specific to a topic ban on US politics articles. I have no objection to his continuing to edit automotive content on the site, and his misbehavior has been significantly less severe, and occurred over a shorter timeframe, than that of AR and AS. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope UltraExactZZ doesn't mind me commenting here., that's not one sentence, but my suggestions are:
 * Start WP:Wikiproject Koch. There are many other projects that you can use as templates. I doubt that anyone will do this for you, so if you don't take the initiative, you shouldn't complain when it's not done.
 * If you want to start Arbitration proceedings against Arthur Rubin and AdventurousSquirrel, go ahead.  I doubt that anyone will do this for you, so if you don't take the initiative, you shouldn't complain when it's not done.
 * If you want to start Arbitration proceedings against Springee, go ahead. I doubt that anyone will do this for you, so if you don't take the initiative, you shouldn't complain when it's not done. - MrX 14:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries. Those are probably the best options, at this point. Hell, tempted to file the case myself, though I don't imagine Veritas would like how I frame it. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, positively support the boomerang coming down: "springee, the eyes of the Internet community are now on Wikipedia. However this gets resolved will reported in a follow up article." What. The. Hell?  This is as definite a case of WP:NOTHERE as I've seen in a long time; VVUSA plainly doesn't give a damn about the encyclopedia, what he cares about is his personal crusade.  And really, does anyone else have raised hackles about how conversant this newbie is, and how after being here so short a time he's not only got a laundry list of diffs, but claims to have researched the "multi-year history" of multiple editors?  Either he's lying about doing so, or we're dealing with a sockpuppet, but either way I think the account is acting in bad faith.  While I broadly agree with his politics, agents provocateur aren't any prettier just because they're acting on "my" side.   Ravenswing   14:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ravenswing, that statement was in direct response to springee's attempt to get an admin to block me even before this ANI request could be adjudicated (see above). If this ANI request is closed without a "boomerang", I will take my complaints to ArbCom and work diligently to improve the articles in question in a constructive and collaborative manner.  Per your concerns about me not being a "newbie", this is, in fact, my first attempt to edit Wikipedia.  However, I am extremely computer-savvy (sorry, I cannot provide more details) and have owned and run a phpBB bulletin board before; that is how I was able to ramp up so quickly (wiki markup is pretty similar to BBcode).  Finding the diffs just took a bit of searching through the edit histories of the pages in question and using the "wikiblame" tool that is linked from the edit histories. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Wikiproject_Koch created! Please add your name to the list and help me re-frame this nasty dispute into a constructive exercise that can make Wikipedia better. I am particularly eager for the assistance of somebody who has managed a "WikiProject" successfully. If that's you, please reach out! - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

VeritasVincitUSA personal attack and harassment ANI posting and attacking users in media external to Wikipedia and WP:NOTHERE
This ANI relates to the boomerang case associated with a the recently closed ANI filed by VeritasVincitUSA []
 * Since posting this I see that there is a arbitration request related to the above ANI issues [] Springee (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks, slandering editors on Wikipedia and off-Wikipedia In the above ANI, VeritasVincitUSA accused, , and myself of being Koch plants who have conspired to whitewash various articles. This is a violation of WP:NPA, specifically, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." The user (or users as this is in dispute) violated WP:HARASS by slandering the above editors here and in an article on an external media site Daily Kos "We are Kochs" stuff. This was accompanied by the harassing comment, "springee, the eyes of the Internet community are now on Wikipedia. However this gets resolved will reported in a follow up article... Smile, you're famous!" [] Exposing editors of Wikipedia to potential external harassment should be condemned in the strongest possible way. This is absolutely a violation of Off-wiki harassment WP:OWH and strongly suggests that the editor was not here to help build an encyclopedia WP:NOTHERE. The article included links to the user pages of all mentioned editors.

Not here to create an encyclopedia VeritasVincitUSA has violated WP:NOTHERE. The user initially joined as KochTruth and was quickly blocked by an admin, for fear that such a username indicated he was here with a WP:SOAPBOX. The history of his original block is here:KochTruth's talk page. Ricky81682's follow up with the new user name is here [] and []. In the external article the editor stated, "This type of abuse impugns the integrity of Wikipedia and constitutes a clear violation of its Terms of Service. We are calling on the Wikimedia Foundation to do swift justice to Koch Industries and all users involved in its protracted Astroturf campaign!"

Boomerang was discussed in the other ANI. It is not clear why the other ANI was closed before the boomerang case was settled. The following editors favored boomerang.

 "I see nothing but disruption and harassment from VVUSA right now. Perhaps the SPI was in poor faith, but this ANI and several of the responses I have seen from VVUSA incline me to believe that a block is in order."

 "We do, however, have lots to say about behavioral issues. And right now you're inching toward being disruptive. I'm particularly concerned about the fact that you showed up here recently to expose the overarching conspiracy to whitewash the article, and then wrote about it in the media. That's pretty much the definition of "not being here to improve the encyclopedia". So give me a sentence. Explain to me why you should not be blocked immediately for using Wikipedia to further your political agenda and create fodder for your website blog thing?"

 "Absolutely, positively support the boomerang coming down: "springee, the eyes of the Internet community are now on Wikipedia. However this gets resolved will reported in a follow up article." What. The. Hell?  This is as definite a case of WP:NOTHERE as I've seen in a long time; VVUSA plainly doesn't give a damn about the encyclopedia, what he cares about is his personal crusade.  And really, does anyone else have raised hackles about how conversant this newbie is, and how after being here so short a time he's not only got a laundry list of diffs, but claims to have researched the "multi-year history" of multiple editors?  Either he's lying about doing so, or we're dealing with a sockpuppet, but either way I think the account is acting in bad faith.  While I broadly agree with his politics, agents provocateur aren't any prettier just because they're acting on "my" side. No one opposed.

The fact that VeritasVincitUSA came here as "an under cover editor" (Our "undercover agent" tried to post a "Legal and Regulatory Events" section to the Koch Industries article. []) suggests a BIG WP:COIN.


 * I would like to add some additional relevant comments regarding VeritasVincitUSA's behavior which were discussed in an arbitration request initiated by said editor. Both of these statements illustrate the serious nature of the off-wiki comments.
 * Ultraexactzz But the larger concern, I think, is that we have an editor in Kochtruth/VeritasVincitUSA who dove directly into a controversial topic with edits that promote one side of the debate on that controversial topic, apparently to provide material for their work on an anti-Koch Brothers blog. The implications are troubling - how am I supposed to be comfortable blocking a disruptive editor when I know that they will plaster my username all over their blog? The Daily KOS does not have the greatest reputation, and its users might show up at my workplace or something. Point in fact, I very nearly blocked Veritas outright for WP:NOTHERE disruption, but the threat of OUTing and shenanigans gave me pause - enough pause to allow them to post this request.[]
 * MrX I think that VeritasVincitUSA's conduct should also be examined. The DailyKos article could be construed as harrassment, but my larger concern is the possibility that the article was written in order to have chilling effect on our business here.[]

Request indefinite block Given the scale of the personal attacks and slander and the fact that they occurred on another site, the total disregard for the proper Wikipedia methods to address any of VeritasVincitUSA complaints (external slandering is NEVER the correct method) and given the posters short and questionable history I would ask for an indefinite block. Springee (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no conflict of interest, as Springee insinuated, and I have been in full compliance with WP:ROLE as well. I have attempted to reopen the original ANI thread per the instructions provided by the non-admin who closed it, but my request is waiting on the Arbcom clerk to withdraw my request for arbitration.  There was no "personal attack", OUTING, or other violation of Wikipedia policy though, perhaps, Springee is rightly ashamed of his specific behavior.  Springee seems to be desperately trying to change the subject away from the questionable conduct that he, himself, was involved in (which prompted the original ANI thread, and was corroborated by another editor who also experienced "tendentious editing" by Springee in cases where Springee disagreed with the content being posted).  Springee has been on an active campaign to rally support to his cause and get me banned (outside of the ANI process, as evidenced by his posts on other users talk threads) ever since the original ANI was initiated.  That would seem to constitute "Canvassing" and, also, be a violation of Wikipedia policy.  I would therefore ask that this thread also be BOOMERANGed, getting us back to Springee's questionable behavior. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Evidence was presented, in detail, in the original ANI thread. Therefore, there were no "claim[s] which lacks evidence."  In particular, Springee's "tendentious editing" and CANVASSING (including attempts to circumvent and manipulate the ANI process) have either been corroborated by other users or are clearly visible in his "User contributions".  Evidence for other misbehavior was laid out in detail in the original ANI thread. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

VeritasVincitUSA is blocked
I blocked VeritasVincitUSA under both WP:NOTHERE and for serious WP:OUTING problems. The DailyKos article is a serious WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT issue and the editor's choice to ignore the problems with the article in favor of repeating the same arguments is not productive. There were clear red flags with User:Kochtruth and it's not gotten better. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also listed Wikiproject Koch at MFD. It's possible to be a useful project but it may be too polemic as it currently is. The editor has an outlet for their editing that seems more on point with their goals than Wikipedia. No comment on the actual concerns at Talk:Koch Industries but that talk page is a disorganized mess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, the Wiki-truism is upheld that users who put "true" or "truth" (in this case "veritas") in their user names are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and eventually get blocked for falling afoul of various policies, most often WP:NPOV. BMK (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems the Latin version didn't change things much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for addressing this issue. I think its safe to close this one now.  Springee (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Cagwinn NPA
was blocked by after being reported at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for edit warring at the article Celtic languages.

As an uninvolved administrator, I responded to their unblock request on their user talk. I saw nothing in their unblock request that addressed their edit warring behaviour and how they would proceed to avoid such behaviour if they were to be unblocked. Standard community expectations for unblock requests to be granted as per WP:UNBLOCK. I declined their unblock request and left a statement.

Cagwinn responded essentially with what I determine to be a personal attack against myself and another editor. Based upon this editor's past battleground mentality and beheaviour during their block, I am requesting another uninvolved admin review the situation, as I am now involved and the subject of this editor's discontent. Mkdw talk 00:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have informed the user that further use of their talk page for personal attacks will result in a removal of talk page access. It is a user upset with an unblock request being declined, I think we can leave it at that. <b style="color:DarkRed">Chillum</b> 02:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having a look . I came to the same conclusion but always good to have a second opinion. Cheers, Mkdw talk 03:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've revoked their talk page access and slightly extended their block for responding with another personal attack. I understand they're worked up, but it is what it is. Their irrational behavior following the block was not necessary nor was it provoked in any way. Can you imagine what this place would be like if administrators got attacked for doing their jobs?!? S warm   ♠  08:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Bethayres
has repeatedly harassed other editors for seemingly minor (or invented infractions), including claiming that other editors have mental illnesses. They have been warned on multiple occasions; the last of these (a final warning) was reverted with the edit summary of "Get a life and stop being pathetic". Now they have attacked User:FFM784 - a quiet and solidly collaborative editor - and told them to "get lost" for adding Refimprove to Hoosac Tunnel with these edits. A previous ANI discussion resulted in a warning but no change in behavior. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have also tangled with this user, and agree with Pi that there's something "off" here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm the subject of the first diff, and I'd never interacted with before. There's nothing objectionable about 's addition of the tag. Also note that when   raised an issue about the Market–Frankford Line, Bethayres' response was to call him (and others) "morons." Every interaction on this user's talk page is met with hostility. Frankly, I'm reminded very strongly of  (see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826 for the thread which eventually got him banned). There's the same overt and unnecessary hostility toward other users, and the same interest in railway electrification. The Intersect Contribs tool turns up some unlikely overlaps. This isn't dispositive, but it's interesting. To be clear, I think this user's behavior is disruptive enough to merit sanctions on its own. Mackensen (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked this editor for one week and opened an SPI because it's obviously worth checking out. I've also made it clear that should this block not be enough for them to change their behavior, the next one will be indefinite. S warm   ♠  07:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

User:81.109.191.201
This IP adds unreliable source in these articles (Antidote (Travis Scott song), 3500 (song), Rodeo (Travis Scott album)). I've undo his/her edit already like 5 times but the user keeps adding it. Please block him/her of at least give a warning. --Eurofan88 (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked. In the future, please contact the editor yourself before reporting them. Edit summaries are not a substitute for communication. See WP:WARN for how to issue warning messages. It's really easy. S warm   ♠  06:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Help reverting user talk page move
Greetings. moved his user talk page to User:Aviram Jena, possibly in an ill-advised attempt to change his username (he also appeared to have attempted a similar move on Commons). In an attempt to revert the move, I botched it by moving the talk page to his userpage instead. Would an admin please be so kind as to clean this up? I'll also note here that he has made a lot of page moves and uploads of selfies but no actual contributions to mainspace--looks like a classic case of WP:NOTHERE. I previously left a uw-socialnetwork tag but perhaps a sterner warning is in order. Thank you for your time. -- Finngall <font color="#D4A017">talk  07:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've moved the page back and protected it from further moves. Will keep an eye on him. S warm   ♠  08:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Dispute between BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, re: article Proportional representation


A new user, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, is being disruptive on the Proportional representation page, pushing an anti-PR view while ignoring sources. His (I assume he) first edits (16-17 Aug) referred to PR as an electoral system, a beginner error (see first sentence of the article), and that these had no districts (or ridings as he prefers) - all voting systems have districts (if sometimes only one). So I reverted it (on Aug 18) with just a comment assuming it to be frivolous. The changes were re-introduced on 18-19 Aug (partly anonymously) so in seven entries on the article's Talk page (on Aug 20, Aug 23, Aug 24, Aug 25, Aug 26, Aug 27, Aug 28) I tried to explain his errors, some of which are fantastical, reverting his changes four further times (Aug 20, Aug 23, Aug 24, Aug 25). This grudgingly produced some mostly minor corrections but important errors have not been reversed. On Aug 26, wearying, and in the hope of encouraging cooperation, I didn't revert, and instead required him to revert his changes and then integrate them into the article. This was not successful, the serious errors have not been reverted (for example section "Wider benefits to society" remains deleted without a word, closed and open list systems still have no districts, and that remains unsourced). An important sentence in the lead, that MMP "is usually considered a distinct PR method" has been replaced by "is considered a mixed system, which is a distinct voting system", a wrong, pointless statement which misrepresents the sources. This unnecessary and confusing use of "mixed systems" has caused confusion in the past (last autumn, see e.g. Talk Archive 3 - search for tier), and for this reason the term was replaced by me on Dec 11 by "two tier systems", sourced, and entirely uncontroversial. This has now affected the structure of the article (Sep 1), a renamed section "Mixed Electoral Systems" (capitalized) is no longer part of "PR electoral systems" - misleading and confusing - and "List of countries using proportional representation" is now unhelpfully "List of countries using proportional representation or mixed systems". On the Talk page his tone and arguments are not indicative of good faith, throwing my arguments back at me. For example, that I should respect WP:VERIFY, or, when I attempted to invoke WP:BRD, warning me against re-inserting "the same flawed text" and that I should post to the talk page before making any further changes. But I'm not making any changes, I'm only reverting him. When I pointed out that MOS deprecates small sub-sections he replied that they help readers. He changed the Talk section name to read that it is he reverting me, which of course he isn't.

I don't have the time or energy to continue composing reasoned criticisms of his changes, and no one else is keeping an active watch on the page, so I would like the user blocked from the page. Then I can revert a final time and add some words to the "Link between constituent and representative" section to emphasize that this is an FPTP (first past the post) advantage, his original concern.

(Full disclosure: I have rewritten most of this article (down to "History"), basically in two chunks on Aug 2 2014 and Dec 11 2014), and have since been trying to preserve the article from the usual decay, from which it has suffered much in its past. Only the section "Party list PR", which User:Ontario has changed, not for the better, remained from before Aug 2014, not because it was good but because I haven't found the energy/enthusiasm to research and re-write it; neither, of course, has any one else). --BalCoder (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest you trim it down more - it is rife with "original research", parenthetical observation, and in a few cases actual misstatements. It does not cover "vote weight proportional to the number of voters" (found in some labour unions),  seats reserved for specific groups, and a large number of other systems competing with the traditional "first past the post" system so widely found.    Take out all the editorial opinion and work with what remains, and be open to understanding that there are many different flavors of "proportional representation" indeed. Collect (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Collect: Once User Ontario's "original research" and misstatements have been dealt with, if you add a few words to the talk page identifying the other instances, and providing sources demonstrating the relevance to PR of your other points, I'll be happy to make the changes. --BalCoder (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

BalCoder has acted contrary to WP's Civility policy. Firstly, it states in bold red letters at the top of this page "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page". This was not done by BalCoder. I was notified instead by User:EdJohnston. Secondly, while I attempted to have a civilized discussion with the user about a topic, BalCoder continued to engage in personal insults, intentional rudeness, and belittling behaviour. Specifically, BalCoder has used uncivil tone/language such as "like it or not", "many of your edits are careless", "this is hair raisingly wrong", "most [of your changes] are wrong, confused or confusing, or contain wild claims", and "You finally seem to be getting a grasp on what PR is". I informed the user of the rudeness. However, no apology was given, and no uncivil comments were stricken out. Thirdly, the major point of contention is Balcoder's opinion that mixed (voting) systems do not exist. I have provided a plethora of sources that explain the voting system categories are: PR systems, mixed systems, and plurality systems. In fact, these categories already existed in the WP article prior to my edits. Additionally, most of the sources that I used to substantiate this fact were also already present in the article, which already identified these different types of voting systems. I simply ensured that, for clarity, the same terms were consistently used throughout the article. Even in the above complaint, BalCoder has admitted to previously altering the original text "mixed system" to "two-tier system" several months prior to my contributions. This was only done in one section of the article, causing unnecessary confusion for readers. Yet BalCoder egregiously characterizes the existence of mixed systems are my unsourced opinion. In truth, not only has the existence of mixed systems been thoroughly sourced, it has been sourced by many other editors prior to my contributions to the WP article!

Lastly, BalCoder has made several objectively incorrect assertions such as "Ontario has recently chosen MMP; that will not have been because it is not a PR system but because it is" in order promote an anti-plurality voting system agenda. To be clear, Ontario uses FPTP, has never used MMP, and voted against MMP in a referendum in 2007. When I pointed this out to BalCoder, no acknowledgement of being wrong was ever made. I encouraged BalCoder to conduct research to substantiate the assertions he/she made, and post sourced contributions. Unfortunately, BalCoder did not post any sourced research to our discussion. Instead, I had to wade through a combination of sentence fragments, personal insults, and unsourced and often specious personal opinions in order to attempt, in good faith, to conduct a civilized discussion. As thanks for my abundant patience, this user has filed a complaint about me without having the common courtesy (as required) to inform me! I request BalCoder to be blocked from the Proportional Representation article to prevent further vandalism, and for his/her account to be suspended due to incivility, personal attacks, and harassment. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Recovered from archive, not yet any comment by an administrator. --BalCoder (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring, forum like commentary, and threats
has been edit-warring for quite some time over a 'disputed' tag at Sabancı Central Mosque. The user does not like the fact that the mosque sits on top of a confiscated Armenian cemetery, and he questioned the sources for the claim. Other users at the talk page did not find the sources problematic and suggested he make a request at WP:RSN. However, his persistent edit-warring, and battleground conduct, make it impossible to work with the user.

More importantly, the user has been making forum-like rant consisting of more than 10,000 characters at the Armenian Genocide talk page. In his comment, he said: "So shut up please. You can't say something you have no serious information about it. Shut up and freak off. Ignorant peasant sheeps. You are fooling by your freaking "lords" you are their freaking slaves freaking morons." Upon reverting this forum-like entry, the user threatens me on my talk page, calling me a vandal and other sort of threats, then reverts me and other users repeatedly. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't threat anybody, that's easy to see here the same page you cited: [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karak1lc1k (talk • contribs) 01:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If I were you I'd write up Adana Armenian Cemetery. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But first things first, Étienne Dolet. I do not see why that editor doesn't have the right to pop that tag on that page--that they go to RSN would be a good idea but is no formal requirement. In other words, you're edit warring too, and you're wrong, in my opinion. Also, you suggest that there's a wealth of commentary on the talk page, with some history, but there isn't: it's you and . That doesn't mean the editor isn't right, but it means that you do not have very solid ground for claiming disruption. I'm about to go look at the other edits, but it is important to establish that your sketch of affairs is...well, a sketch. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL. Adana Armenian Cemetery...checked. As for the disruption over the tag, it's a 'disputed' tag over RS reasoning which makes it entirely dubious. His reasoning for as to why these sources do not constitute RS is troubling as well (i.e. "you know Turkish sources does not accept such statement" or the "I am from Adana, and I know the area, there was no cemetery there"). This kind of reasoning, coupled with the fact that he doesn't want to listen to the whole WP:RSN suggestion by two users, makes me think the disputed tag is there for no other reason other than the presumption that he simply does not like whats found in the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I would have to say my interaction with user:Karak1lc1k has been less than amicable; after issuing a warning for edit warring, Karak1lc1k changes my section warning to, "A pathetic Anti-Turkist's pathetic Anti-Turkism struggle".
 * Any dialogue with Karak1lc1k is filled with racist accusations/childish personal attacks~("Shh. Are you a patrol user? No. So take care of only your business. Don't distort the history. Mr. anti-Turkist "omniscient"(!) (hell yeah omniscient).", "Learn it first, or I mean, live it first, or at least try to learn Turkish, at least boy, at least, before pretending "adulthood" (aka patronizing).", "You are only a system historian, I am the realistic historian. You are a small, little boy..."). It is quite clear that Karak1lc1k suffers from battleground mentality and is not here to build an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can see that. But it can't be based on a little bit of edit warring over a tag and an iffy talk page consensus, and a threat that's really no threat at all. If y'all step back, think this over for a bit, and compile a list with diffs that add up to an argument, that would be a much more exciting and potentially fruitful ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * [ec with ED] OK. That rant, that was ridiculous, and it was righteously reverted by and . Don't do that again, Karak1lc1k: that sort of stuff can get you blocked (Wikipedia is not a forum), and the partisan rant part means others editors are less likely to take you seriously. As for the supposed threat--well, meh. That's not much. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My only, single thing to say after all; you Europeans never respect any Turkish sources on even Turkish-related articles, what if it was only a propaganda log? For example, we can't say "there is a genocide" by looking a pdf source saying "there is a genocide", even if it's a "respected" newspaper or a comission etc., we can't know the comission's words biased or not biased, you can not force Turks to recognize it with that way. Turkey offered several times for a mutual documentary comission establishment, with academicians, but for example how ridicilus is that the EU comission recognized it with no clarification of the subject. You can not force it with Wikipedia-tic sources. I really don't understand... You Europeans IMO, always taking European or Indo-Perso-European sources about especially historical controversial things... Maybe I raged but it's because of I saw sooo many biased lies about Turks in Wikipedia, I see a dirty propaganda continuing upon us, Europe still sees us as an enemy, that's so funny really, if you take Turks to enemy position, you will be win the Turks' hostility, I don't talk only with my words now, whole Turks, not only nationalists, whole Turks think like that. I mean whole Turkic peoples with saying whole Turks not only Turkey Turks. I already said I didn't threat anybody, but if you see it like that, IDC and it's really funny for me. So you can see this message like that: "He threats us with the hostility of all Turks", see as whatever you want, the brain is yours, and yes I accept that, maybe I didn't have enough information about the Wikipedia rules, but as I said, I was outraged. You'll see, the Armenian lie propaganda will rot. Even the Turkish Armenians (likke Etyen Mahçupyan and so many others) are aware of it. Everybody can add "sources", but "sources" what they desire. Why you don't say them "racist" etc (not for only so-called Armenian genocide)? For example you easily can say yes there is an Indo-European language family, same goes for Ural-Altaic language family, but you really reluctant to trust Turkish sources, now I am asking, are you most of European editors, are you racists? I think yes, you are bunch of anti-Turkist racists... Anyway, I suggest you to research it more deeply, with the sources of two sides, you are biased that's my all criticisms's reason (Yes you can get my words like "threat" here also, I just suggest, but you see it like "threat", this shows everything about the issue). Thanks. Thanks for everything. KARA (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2015
 * That is one long single thing. I'm going to block you for edit warring/forum violations on Talk:Armenian Genocide, since you seem to be unable to stop, and then I'll see if NOTHERE doesn't apply. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Karak1's single biggest edit is this unverified chunk. His other contributions are very much limited to talk page conversation and useless flagging like this. POV edits include this tag bombing session. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the time/date stamp gets a little mixed up toward the end of the night due to different time zones...did Karak1lc1k repost this before or after s/he was blocked? (If the latter, a longer block might be in order.)  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 04:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * He uses talk pages like forum. Very aggressive, nationalistic rants, non-constructive comments and battleground behavior. Some diffs from other talk pages:, , , . He always abuses talk page rules. --175.193.242.240 (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also he's very similar to this guy Long-term_abuse/Tirgil34. --175.193.242.240 (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Prolific Croatian puppet master
What do we do about an editor who, apparently, can change IPs and create accounts at will? This editor makes what appear on first blush to be good-faith edits, primarily to Bianca Ryan and peripherals and Tiffany Evans and peripherals, but who has used multiple IPs and accounts to introduce (and edit war over) original research and create articles that clearly fail GNG. Within minutes after the puppet master was, s/he via the second account that the edits were problematic wrt an encyclopedia and has made the conscious choice to continue treating WP as if it is a fan site. Bianca Ryan is already protected; I hope there's something else we can do. — ATinySliver / ATalkPage  21:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What's worked in the past for me is watch-listing and protecting the main target articles, in combination with quick blocks and reversion of the user's edits. Keep some data (off-line) as to their usual "tells" and IPs used. Well-formulated brief reports at WP:SPI get quick results in blocking the socks. Many of these sockmasters keep it up for years (so great patience and perseverance is needed on your part), but almost all of them eventually give up, especially if they can see that essentially all of their edits are being undone. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. — ATinySliver / ATalkPage &#128406; 20:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Harassment case involving Hijiri88
During a recent proposal to topic ban the user Hijiri88, I posted a message noting some of his behavioral problems. I did this despite my concerns that Hijiri would retaliate by stalking me to other articles, which is what he did the previous time I commented about him on the administrators' noticeboard. The previous time I did that, Hijiri followed me to my good article nomination of the article "Iwane Matsui" in order to make false and offensive statements claiming that I don't "know how to properly/critically read even good English-language sources". Hijiri had never shown any interest in commenting on good article reviews up to that point, and naturally good article reviews should not be used as platforms to attack other users. Though Hijiri's concerns were found to have no merit, he stalked me to several other articles I had edited as well.

Soon after my last comment Hijiri again began stalking me, following me to the article History of Japan, which I had just recently successfully brought to good article status. He posted an offensive comment on the already complete good article review, which was quickly reverted by user Calvin999 as being obvious harassment. User AlbinoFerret concurred that the edits constituted harassment. Since then Hijiri has been posting numerous off-topic personal attacks on me on the talk page of the article History of Japan, such as when he accuses me of "back-handed, self-promoting quest for bragging rights" or when he falsely accuses me of "lying to the GA reviewer". However, I had brought that article to good level status before Hijiri had shown any interest in editing it. When user TH1980 politely asked Hijiri to stop making personal attacks, for that alone Hijiri responded by accusing TH1980 of being a troll. Hijiri also canvassed the exact same users for support who he was criticized by an admin for canvassing just the previous week.

The admins were recently asked by another user to look into Hijiri's "foul language used within notes accompanying some of the edits" and this issue still needs to be addressed. Hijiri added the date "around 1570" from a map in the article with the edit summary "No intelligent person could think the previous caption was remotely appropriate". He copyedits the article with edits summaries like "English motherbleeper do you speak it".

Finally, Hijiri has now followed me to the featured article candidacy of the article Iwane Matsui, though Hijiri had shown no interest before in commenting on featured article reviews. He falsely accuses me of page ownership and misquoting sources relating to an article that has nothing to do with Iwane Matsui. Featured article reviews also should not be used as platforms to make off-topic attacks on other users.

Therefore I am proposing that Hijiri be page banned from the articles Iwane Matsui and History of Japan. Hijiri had never shown any interest in either of these articles before I commented about him on the administrators' noticeboard, and his main interest in them does not appear to extend much beyond making attacks on me. I will note furthermore that this makes the seventh time this year alone that a similar sort of ban has been proposed against Hijiri on the administrators' noticeboard as a result of non-collaborative editing.

Support as nominator.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

'''During a recent proposal to topic ban the user Hijiri88, I posted a message noting some of his behavioral problems. I did this despite my concerns that Hijiri would retaliate by stalking me to other articles, which is what he did the previous time I commented about him on the administrators' noticeboard.'''

Blatant admission of violating AGF, if ever there was one. As demonstrated below, CurtisNaito has followed me to a whole lot more articles than I "followed" him to. Additionally, the previous time I "stalked" him was a direct response to his using his many poorly-reviewed GAs as a justification for trying to push other users, including myself, out of the project.

Hijiri had never shown any interest in commenting on good article reviews up to that point, and naturally good article reviews should not be used as platforms to attack other users.

Yes, and until User:Not-a-real-user requested that I be site-banned for not having uploaded as featured pictures as he had, when it was clear to all objective observers that 90% of Not-a-real-user's pictures were copyvios, and the FP process had let them through by accident, I never showed any interest in commenting on FP reviews. But when Not-a-real-user posted his next copyright-violating picture for FP review after the above affront, I pointed out on the review page that the picture probably violated copyright, since copyrighted text was clearly legible in it. Not-a-real-user responded by saying "I don't think the text is copyrighted", and collapsed my comments saying that he had addressed all of my concerns.

'''Soon after my last comment Hijiri again began stalking me, following me to the article History of Japan, which I had just recently successfully brought to good article status. He posted an offensive comment on the already complete good article review, which was quickly reverted by user Calvin999 as being obvious harassment.'''

No. While the ANI thread was open and I was effectively unable to get involved in anything that might cause problems, you completely overhauled (read: ruined) an article in my area of interest that I had edited years before you joined Wikipedia, and pushed it through the GA process while I was still too busy. When the ANI thread was posted for closure, I decided to be bold and point out the problems with the article and the fact that it should never have passed GA review. Every objective observer on the talk page agreed with me on this point.

Since then Hijiri has been posting numerous off-topic personal attacks on me on the talk page of the article History of Japan, such as when he accuses me of "back-handed, self-promoting quest for bragging rights" or when he falsely accuses me of "lying to the GA reviewer".

Neither of these were either off-topic, or personal attacks. The first is a misrepresentation of what I said. I actually accused CurtisNaito of requesting that I be TBANned because I had not nominated a bunch of articles for GA status -- the "back-handed, self-promoting quest for bragging rights" was not something I accused CurtisNaito of doing, but rather something CurtisNaito indicated several times I should be doing, and I was simply pointing out that I am not as interested in it as he clearly is. As for the second: CurtisNaito made frequent accusations that my questioning the article's GA status was pointy harassment, and I pointed out that the article's problems were by-and-large introduced by CurtisNaito and he was now using the GA review as an excuse to edit-war (an indisputable fact). The simple fact is that the GA review was a mummer's farce -- CurtisNaito claiming the article was worthy of being promoted to GA status while hiding the obvious sourcing problems was a lie.

However, I had brought that article to good level status before Hijiri had shown any interest in editing it.

No, CurtisNaito made a very, very bad rewrite of the article, and pushed it through GA review without ever bringing up the obvious sourcing problems. Half a dozen other users (only two of whom I debateably "canvassed") agreed with me on this point, and no one disagreed. As far as I can tell, all the GAs CurtisNaito is presently bragging about on his user page suffer the same problems, and they only passed GA because a single user who either was incapable of checking the sources or didn't bother to had failed to do so before unilaterally declaring the article to be a "good" article.

When user TH1980 politely asked Hijiri to stop making personal attacks, for that alone Hijiri responded by accusing TH1980 of being a troll.

Why have the majority of TH1980's edits since May been to articles and Wikipedia namespace threads involving me? Why has TH1980 always taken whichever side opposes me in every single case? Why have so many of them been posted on article talk pages, but focused entirely on how bad TH1980 considers my behaviour to be. Has TH1980 even read any of the discussion on that talk page? Nothing he has written there indicates he has. Seriously, give me even a shred of evidence that TH1980's behaviour towards me has been something other than trolling.

Hijiri also canvassed the exact same users for support who he was criticized by an admin for canvassing just the previous week.

This is an outright LIE, and I want Curtis to take it back. User:Drmies was referring to an unfortunately-worded posting on the WikiProject Japan talk page, not an invitation to an already-involved user to comment on the same problem he had already been involved in for two years. User:Nishidani has been helping me deal with CurtisNaito's bad sourcing almost as long as User:Phoenix7777, and longer even than User:Sturmgewehr88. All of these users have recognized the same consistent problems with CurtisNaito's edits in the past, so me informing them that the same thing is happening again is only "canvassing" under the broadest possible definition. This has nothing whatsoever to do with what Drmies called me out for in the unrelated recent discussion.

The admins were recently asked by another user to look into Hijiri's "foul language used within notes accompanying some of the edits" and this issue still needs to be addressed.

Not going to take the WP:BAIT here. Just let it be known that the "foul language" took place in February, and so no one in the recent ANI thread even mentioned it until now.

Hijiri added the date "around 1570" from a map in the article with the edit summary "No intelligent person could think the previous caption was remotely appropriate".

Which part of this is "foul language", exactly?

He copyedits the article with edits summaries like "English motherbleeper do you speak it".

I'm guessing CurtisNaito has never seen Pulp Fiction, or at least the famous clip. I was inserting a humorous pop culture reference, with the foul language removed, into a non-controversial grammatical correction. If CurtisNaito was offended by the joke, I apologize, but I hardly think the kind of joke that 99% of Wikipedia editors would find completely inoffensive should be a reason for sanctioning an editor who "should have known better" when he clearly could not have "known better" when ... 99% of Wikipedia editors would find the joke completely inoffensive.

'''Finally, Hijiri has now followed me to the featured article candidacy of the article Iwane Matsui, though Hijiri had shown no interest before in commenting on featured article reviews. He falsely accuses me of page ownership and misquoting sources relating to an article that has nothing to do with Iwane Matsui. Featured article reviews also should not be used as platforms to make off-topic attacks on other users.'''

My concerns raised at the original GA review, which CurtisNaito somewhat dismissively looked down his nose on before hiding them from view the time, have yet to be addressed. The article still relies almost exclusively on obscure sources written in Japanese by non-specialists with an agenda; the article should not be made a featured article until someone has made some effort to check the sources. Whether I "followed" CurtisNaito to the FA review is irrelevant. And for what it's worth, I actually didn't even follow CurtisNaito to the FA review in question. I have been involved in two completely independent and highly-confusing disputes involving User:Curly Turkey over the past two weeks. In a vain effort to figure out exactly what had happened between the latter user and three other users (User: SMcCandlish, Nishidani and User:Signedzzz) with whom I usually agree and whom I have found very amenable, I looked through the contribs of all these users; I noticed CT's numerous posts on the FA review and edits to the article and, thinking it a rather bizarre coincidence, took a look. I noticed that my concerns raised at the original GA review had yet to be addressed, and so decided to voice my concern. But all of that is beside the point.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the issue I had with Curly Turkey appears to be water under the bridge; the fact that I raised one in passing a few weeks ago isn't evidentiary of anything to do with the present matter, that I can see.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Yes, I think seven warnings are sufficient for sanctions to be applied, and these sanctions are very mild.TH1980 (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This user has already been very disruptive, and continues to act in a way we can't tolerate. That is not limited to a special field, but a general problem. I suggest a last, strong warning to make clear that he has either to change his ways or to go away. The proposed sanctions seem too mild. I propose an additional siteban of 3 months length.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How would a site ban solve anything that a topic ban wouldn't? Sounds WP:PUNITIVE to me. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The nature of the proposed ban seems to me very strange. I am myself not particularly aware of many similar bans in other cases, from only two articles, as seems to me to be proposed here. Also, if the concern is possible stalking, well, stalking can continue to other articles, and, when real stalking happens, often does continue to other articles. That would make the current proposal one which might have to be revisited again with another article or two added in the near future if the stalking were real and were continued to other articles later. On that basis, independent of whether I believe sanctions are appropriate here, I think that further consideration of what specific sanctions would be best to propose might not be a bad idea. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If "stalking" is indeed the verdict, is the solution normally a site ban? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In my own limited experience, interaction bans and/or discretionary sanctions are generally tried first. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but IBans and Hijiri dont work as evident over the last half year or so. AlbinoFerret  23:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is Hijiri violating an IBan? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not in this case, but there is one with catflap that he constantly is on the boards for breaking. AlbinoFerret  23:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was usually Hijiri doing the reporting.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 04:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not going to take AlbinoFerret's WP:BAIT either, but if we are going to bring up completely unrelated past noticeboard discussions involving me and IBans, what about this one? The historical record would seem to indicate that, if we are going to assume that history repeats itself in such a predictable way, an IBan between me and CurtisNaito would result in CurtisNaito laying a trap for me, dropping off the site for two months, and then immediately resurfacing when I fall into his trap; I get blocked for 24 hours because a gullible admin believes CurtisNaito's cock-and-bull story, and as soon as my block expires I request the IBan be lifted; CurtisNaito's disruptive behaviour winds up backfiring to the effect that he receives a one-way IBan and a TBan so broad as to effectively ban him from every article either he or I have ever edited. Of course, I'm not saying this will -- or even should -- happen. I'm just pointing out the absurd one-sidedness and historical blindness of AlbinoFerret's (repeated) contributions to these discussions. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur with Curly Turkey. Site bans tend to just make people come back under new names and behave worse, having a bone to pick. A remedy that focuses on steering away from problem behavior while salvaging the account tends to change behavior, albeit usually slowly and a bit at a time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Note there does seem to be agreement at History of Japan that the GA review was inadequate and that the article should be demoted. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is BS. CurtisNaito has shown repeatedly that he doesn't understand our core content policies. I have looked at some articles he has edited, and noticed the same problems cropping up over and over again. Pointing out constantly recurring problems with the same user is not "harassment", or even a personal attack. But in most cases, he followed me to the article, not the other way around, so claiming that I am "harassing" him is ridiculous. Curly Turkey, User:Nishidani and User:Sturmgewehr88 have been engaged in the exact same kind of "harassment" or CurtisNaito as I have, consistently pointing out that he has been showing the same problems over and over again, so why is he requesting that I alone be driven off the project? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, an obvious reason CurtisNaito wouldn't target me is that I haven't had any war of words with him. That still leaves open the question of the other editors. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You do know that, six months down the line, CurtisNaito is going to link to the above and claim, without naming or pinging you, that "another user has pointed out that Hijiri88 engages in 'wars of words'", don't you? </tongue-in-cheek> That's pretty much what 80% of his TLDR OP post in this thread, and the last one, consisted of. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I sympathize. It can be very difficult to get the community to do anything about SYNTH and other sourcing problems, especially if the editor in question is good at deflection/ducking, misuse of ostensibly reliable sources to seem to say what they don't, and circular IDHT stuff. The skilled ones can use the frequency of your well-reasoned complaints about their behavior to make you seem like you're the one being the problem. I haven't figured out what to do about this myself yet, other than growing a long beard of patience and slowly outsourcing them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - CurtisNaito is known for his terrible sourcing; half of what he writes is either WP:SYNTH or not supported by his sources, and he sometimes uses unreliable sources to boot. He shows WP:IDHT behavior on talk pages and edit wars on articles while gaming 3RR.
 * Hijiri88, on the other hand, has been simply correcting CurtisNaito. Playing the devil's advocate, let's say Hijiri was "stalking" him. He noticed the sourcing issues and checked his contributions for other problems with this user's edits. This is no different than when a vandal (I'm not saying CurtisNaito is a vandal, just using a well-known example) makes a disruptive edit and we check their contributions for more vandalism. There is no policy or guideline that says this is a bad thing. This whole proposal is just an outburst because CurtisNaito doesn't like that someone is actively keeping him from making bad edits, and Hijiri hasn't even been the only editor to call him out for his editing issues.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 22:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree—if you find something objectionable in a number of articles attributable to a particular editor, the responsible thing to do is to find out how extensive the problems by tracking down other articles and verifying if there are problems there. That doesn't preclude "stalking", but does not in itself constitute stalking, either. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont think its stalking, its retaliation for posting a comment against Hijiri in the last section he had here. AlbinoFerret  23:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I can testify that disputes between the editors long predate that, and that the issues at the article in question are not trivial. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The dispute between me and CurtisNaito began when I AFDed an article he had written, with no concern for who had written it (here). About seven months later he reverted my edit to an article and argued extensively on the talk page for inclusion of a large amount of OR and SYNTH (here). Eight months after that, he reverted me again on another article, and argued extensively on the talk page for inclusion of factually inaccurate and SYNTH-based information in the article (here). A further six months later, I AFDed another article that was rampant with SYNTH, OR and generally bad mojo, and CurtisNaito showed up and defended the SYNTH, OR and bad mojo (here). The result of that AFD was inconclusive, but I and a few other users removed most of the SYNTH and OR pending verification; seven months later, CurtisNaito showed up on the article and started reinserting it and creating a massive hubbub on the talk page in order to defend his edits (here). He posted on several noticeboards about this, attempting to drive me out of a discussion he had followed me to (here and here -- which saw input by both AlbinoFerret and John Carter, who were in the minority taking CurtisNaito's side, have both previously hounded me on other ANI threads and talk pages, notably Talk:Kenji Miyazawa). At this point, I finally took it upon myself to look into what other articles CurtisNaito had inserted poorly-sourced OR/SYNTH/bad mojo into; I posted on Talk:Battle of Nanking about a dubious quotation (a triply-translated, Wikipedia editor's original translation of a Japanese translation of a probable Chinese original) and on Talk:Iwane Matsui/GA1 about the article relying almost exclusively on dubious sources that the reviewer admitted he was unable to read. Recently, CurtisNaito completely overhauled History of Japan, an article I had edited years before he registered his account, and which is the main hub-summary article for the area that accounts for likely 99% of all my article edits. His overhaul arguably made the article worse, as he added blatantly non-factual information (the Kaifūsō is an anthology of Chinese poetry, not Japanese, to cite one example) and misrepresented his sources in dozens of places. He pushed his rewrite through GA review, with Calvin999, a user who has never edited any Japanese history articles ever, but does apparently have a friendly relationship with CurtisNaito, passing it without any examination of the sources whatsoever. Every user who has commented on the talk page since has agreed that this was a failure of the GA review process. What's more, CurtisNaito's rewrite also cited an obscure, fringe source written by a non-specialist, which CurtisNaito had read a year earlier during the Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture process -- an AFD he had followed me too. Claiming that my removing a source I told him not to cite almost a year earlier is "stalking" is laughable in its anachronism.
 * That's seven articles; one that started the dispute when, before I had ever heard of CurtisNaito, I AFDed an article CurtisNaito started and apparently got him angry at me; three more that CurtisNaito followed me to and inserted OR/SYNTH/misquoting of sources/using fringe, unreliable sources, two more articles (after the first four, mind you) where I pointed out that CurtisNaito was doing the same thing (OR/SYNTH/misquoting of sources/using fringe, unreliable sources), and one where CurtisNaito completely ruined an article I had worked on years earlier, and was almost immediately opposed by virtually everyone else who regularly edits the article. Where exactly was the wiki-stalking, again?
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't buy the "retaliation" angle, either, even aside from the fact that these two "go back" before that dispute. What often happens is a dispute triggers editors to look into each other's editing, and one detects a pattern that shouldn't be there, and investigates further.  It's contribs-stalking, but this is permissible, and it doesn't constitute harassment if it's not motivated by and characterized by ad hominem behavior.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC) PS:While ther were some ad hominem comments, there's clearly not a  in that direction, and Hijiri88 is concerned about the content.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would simply note that several of the comments linked to are in keeping With Hijiri88's regularly displayed tendency to engage in grossly unacceptable insults of pretty much everyone who ever disagrees with him, which has been regularly demonstrated by him in the links provided to other discussions in the numerous previous discussions regarding him on this page, as well as his similar grossly unacceptable conduct in the discussions themselves. There is a very clear inability on his part to even remotely adhere to basic standards of civility, seemingly with pretty much anyone who ever disagrees with him, and I have to believe that some sort of preventative measure is called for, as he demonstrably does not have the capacity or perhaps interest in adhering to conduct guidelines. Under the circumstances, I would myself probably favour discretionary sanctions on him particularly regarding violations of WP:NPA as the optimal solution here, based on the numerous conduct issues which he has regularly displayed. John Carter (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Its the noticeboard version of Groundhogs day. AlbinoFerret  02:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's a side-effect of me regularly interacting with users who bring content disputes to ANI. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand fully, but keep learning the hard way that the AN* crowd will happily hammer you for verbal transgressions no matter what their motivation or rationale, while parties doing unconstructive things to the content will be given free-reign for a long time as long as they play the "civil-PoV" game well. In the immortal words of Admiral Akbar, "It's a trap!"  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The poor sourcing and, frankly, blatantly counterfactual statements in the article are what drew me to it. If Hijiri88 has indeed checked over CurtisNaito's other editing, then that is commendable, and necessary. Hijiri's only fault has been to attempt to reason with the user at great length when it has long since been apparent that such efforts are wasted. Presented with the clearest evidence, CurtisNaito is never able to admit any fault - perhaps, even, because he is unable to comprehend his errors. In addition to this, he takes every opportunity to insinuate that all of the problems in the article have been introduced by others. This report is just the latest example of his epic disregard for the Law of Holes. zzz (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I forgot to add WP:CIR as one of his issues.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 04:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment For those that want to make this about content, your on the wrong noticeboard. This isnt a content issue but a behaviour issue, thats what AN/I is for. While the article may have flaws, the timing of Hijiri88's appearance, right after CurtisNaito supported sanctions against him is damning. The incivility also is an issue, civility is required. Its like giving someone who has reverted 6 times a pass because there were flaws in the addition they reverted.  AlbinoFerret  02:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * the timing of Hijiri88's appearance, right after CurtisNaito supported sanctions against him is damning.: No, the timing coincides with the GA promotion that occurred on 25 August. Hijiri's entire focus is on Japan-related articles, and History of Japan is one of the most prominent articles in WP:JAPAN with 343 pagewatchers. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * since this noticeboard is about behavoir, why don't we WP:BOOMERANG and WP:TROUT CurtisNaito for opening this report after edit warring with me, Hijiri, and Nishidani? Not to mention the facts that, as pointed out by Signedzzz, he never sees anything wrong with what he's doing, has a continuous difficulty in properly representing sources, and (I'm under the impression) got a buddy to get his overhaul of this article GA status, which should be revoked anyway due to the condition its references are in.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 04:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret, if you think ANI is for discussion of user behaviour rather than article content, why are you not criticizing CurtisNaito for repeatedly bringing content disputes to ANI? Additionally, your claim of the timing being damning is funny, given that I directly stated that the only reason I can't appeal the article's poor GA review myself is because I am trying to keep a low profile. That's also why I didn't say anything in Drmies' AN thread about me (which I did notice while it was open, even though I received no notification). My attempts to keep a low profile have been met with unceasing personal attacks and threats, and a new ANI thread opened on me over a content dispute. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Because, once again, you are attempting to try to distract people from the grossly unacceptable conduct with which you regularly pepper virtually every discussion you have been involved with recently? I would welcome the input of and others on this point, but at this point I believe your inability to seemingly ever engage in reasonable conduct with persons with whom you disagree, which is once again rather blatantly demonstrated in your conduct on this thread itself, is probably the more regular problem here. At this point, I would think, maybe, the best proposal would be to place Hijiri under discretionary sanctions particularly including blocks of escalating length for such incivility, and, should such gross incivility take place two or three times regarding the same individual or topic, some sort of topic ban from the page or pages involved, or, if necessary, an i-ban. I would be very interested in seeing what other individuals who have been involved in the recent discussions regarding Hijiri's conduct think of that matter, including  and  think of enacting some such proposal. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, what "grossly unacceptable conduct"? You bring this up every time I get in a content dispute with another ANI-happy user, but no one has presented any evidence of me violating any rules of conduct here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, pinging Beyond My Ken is a blatant violation of WP:CANVAS. Beyond My Ken recently spear-headed an unsuccessful campaign to get me site-banned, based on a content dispute that (by his own admission) he had not examined in any detail. Why would one assume that he would be interested in examining this content dispute in detail? Everyone involved in the dispute agrees with me; you are just trying to get me off Wikipedia by any means necessary at this point. Numerous users from all ends of the spectrum, from User:Stalwart111 to User:Sturmgewehr88, have requested that you stop this pointless harassment campaign of me; why are you still at it after six months!? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, can someone confirm that our purpose here is to write an encyclopedia? I find the comments by and  extremely strange. It is totally clear to me that this is really a content dispute, and the incivility arose as a direct result of the long dispute. I am not an expert on the topic, but if one looks at the Talk:History of Japan page, it is clear even to the meanest intelligence (I refer to my own) that there are serious problems with sourcing, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and general inaccuracy. Hijiri88 has been incivil in certain instances, but these arise due to exasperation at WP:IDHT rather than anything else. I see a lot of well-argued, and often correct points raised by Hijiri88 there. Many other people also raise the same points. Too often, I feel, outside editors ignore the content issue (because they are not experts), and do not put in the time to research a bit, and see what exactly is going on here. It would of course be good for Hijiri88 to tone down their comments, but I find the WP:CIVILity argument bogus here. I also counsel  to read WP:BLUDGEON and not reply to every comment. It just increases chance of WP:TLDR. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Kingsindian. But I think it would be very useful to review the frankly incredible number of recent disputes regarding Hijiri with any number of people in the ANI archives. Hijiri seems completely incapable of recognizing that his often gratuitious insults, along with his sometimes rather obvious paranoia, has caused and continues to cause others to basically lose patience with his conduct. One of the most obvious in this instance is the frankly completely Useless allegation that the complaints of others is a " cock-and-bull story", "Outright LIE" regarding his "unfortunately-worded" obvious thread of retirement on the WikiProject Japan talk page, in an outright violation of Canvassing rules, and others. If and when the other editors I have pinged. This includes two, Drmies and BMK, who have clearly expressed exasperation with the long-term conduct issues Hijiri raises, and another one of whom, Dennis, reviewed the most recent thread regarding this matter thoroughly, although he did not draw a conclusion about it for understandable reasons. I suppose I should add that the sanctions I propose above would probably not necessarily be applied for extremely questionable conduct on noticeboards. But, starting at least to my memory with his collapsing a talk page comment by Catflap08 with an accusation that Catflap08 saying it was made by a "jackass," which he later struck but did not remove and added the word "Idiot," gross incivility has been one of the more predictable characteristics of Hijiri of late. John Carter (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * After reading the sections before and this one I truly believe WP:TLDR is the goal. Its a variation of WP:CHUNK. AlbinoFerret  15:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Kingsindian (re: not replying to every comment) Understood. I actually held my tongue through what turned out to be an extended lunch break at work today in which I could have responded. But the failure (inability, in a few cases) of Curly Turkey, Sturmgewehr88 and a coupla others to address some of the elephants in the room was so frustrating for me that I couldn't hold it any longer. I'll try to keep further comments here to a minimum. But could you please caution John Carter for continuously requesting that I be sanctioned for using the word "idiot", once, over half a year ago? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hijiri,I find it extremely difficult to believe any reasonable person would draw the conclusion you obviously draw above, that your use of both "jackass" and "idiot" is the sole reason for me and others having grown thoroughly disgusted with your attempts to whitewash all your numerous mistakes. Thank you for once again indicating that you seem to have extreme difficulty acknowledging how your conduct, including your obvious threat to retire if you didn't get your own way at the WikiProject Japan talk page, your rather strange excuse to get your block lifted by Drmies earlier, and your numerous other exhausting examples of lack of self-awareness. I am sorry that you apparently find it impossible to believe that you can ever be seriously wrong, and your attempt to minimize the examples which I alluded to above to simply saying that you misused the word "idiot" once is yet another example of your seemingly out of control habit of spin control at all costs. I believe there is reasonable cause to belief your "antics" may well have exhausted the patience of many members of the community already. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem with this report is it is short on actual diffs of Hijiri88 and high on drama links. That is irritating because it causes more work on the part of anyone that is actually interested in facts.  Not much has changed since the last dramah-fest with Hijiri88, but I did check a few diffs, read the talk page on Kombucha (which is listed as part of the ban in this discussion), where I didn't really a problem.  Editing articles isn't all peaches and cream, folks, sometimes you have to expect to argue a bit.  In History of Japan, his argument about Jared Diamond is unquestionably bludgeoning.  Start a poll, RFC, go to WP:RS, but at some point, you make your point then walk away.  You don't beat everyone over the head with your argument until they pass out from exhaustion.  You're no dummy, you already know you were bludgeoning.  Your name is listed 71 times on that talk page for cripes sake.  So tell me, is 71 normal?  I've already learned (as have other admin) that polls don't work.  You're smart, have good ideas, but you can be a jerk just a little too often, which is particularly noticeable since you are beating the page to death with your signature.  Tell me, what is the solution here? Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read the whole talk discussion (I don't blame you for not doing so, mind you) you would see that it is not just about the Diamond issue. The article has numerous, still-unsolved problems. I may have edited the page more than most (partly because I tend to edit my own comments after posting them), but CurtisNaito, Curly Turkey and Nishidani have done the same. If you ask any of the other users who have had to deal with CurtisNaito on this talk page or any other mentioned above, you would see that the problem lies not with me. He just ignores what you say and keeps (a) reverting back to his preferred version of the article while carefully staying within 3RR, (b) repeating the same garden path, non-sequitur arguments, and (c) when it turns out he was indisputably wrong on the substance he just pretends he was not saying what he very clearly was. The talk pages of Emperor Jimmu and Korean influence on Japanese culture both have thousands upon thousands of words in their archives primarily because of me and several other users trying for weeks on end to get through to CurtisNaito -- talk pages like Kombucha, on the other hand, on which I have disagreements with other users, don't tend to stretch out for so long because other users, even if I disagree with them on content, tend to be rational and either willing to admit when they were wrong or capable of demonstrating to me in a coherent manner why I was wrong. Seriously, ask User:Sturmgewehr88, User:Nishidani, User:Curly Turkey, User:Phoenix7777 and User:Ubikwit, almost none of whom I agree with a majority of the time but all of whom can vouch for who is really at fault here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a major reason why talk page discussions with Hijiri go on so long is that Hijiri only spends 50% of his time or less actually talking about issues relevant to article content and the rest of the time making off-topic criticisms. In the current featured article review for Iwane Matsui, he has written numerous pages of text attacking me as a user and speculating about sources which he admits that he hasn't read and knows nothing about. The only two occasions on which Hijiri showed any interest in commenting on good article reviews or featured article reviews was directly after the two occasions on which I posted about him on the administrators' noticeboard. Therefore, he appears to be using the talk page of these articles to attack me personally rather than suggest valid improvements to article content.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I did read much of it, but it isn't a matter of wrong or right (WP:BLUDGEON doesn't differentiate). It is about knowing when to back off, knowing how to be pithy.  I'm not blind to the acts of others, but one thing at time: The fact is, you are overengaging, are you not?  I actually think you often make great arguments, you just don't put the stick down soon enough, and yes, you push the envelope of civility too often.  I'm pretty lenient when it comes to singular issues, but you do have a sharp tongue and air it regularly, do you not?  I'm trying to get you to see, admit and propose your own solution here, it's a bit of rope really, as the community is getting tired. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Having just been punished, without the issue I raised being resolved even slightly, I would advise Hijiri88 take Dennis Brown's advice. It's a Bad Thing, in my view, that the facts take a backseat to unctuous wording and verbal compression, but they certainly seem to on our beloved noticeboards. You can have all the proof in the world, but if you can't squeeze it into a three-point bullet list, you're apparently a Disruptive Editor. [sigh] That's about all I have to say on that matter, lest I be pilloried further. I agree that in the issue raised here, the complainant has unclean hands, and Hajiri88 appears to be in the right on sourcing, etc. There's nothing "damning" about showing up at GA. 'I wish people would let me do the wrong thing in peace' is not a legitimate harassment complaint. I agree with the gist of the complaints of John Carter et al., about insulting language.  Some of it's pretty bad, but not all of this evidence is a "smoking gun". The GA review criticism here is indelicate, but seems to be on-point. This one was unnecessarily snippy, but it's addressing editing behavior like citing sources for what they don't really say, and engaging in OR, and relying on obviously biased, questionably reliable sources. So, valid point, but the wording could have been tailored better to focus on the editing pattern and the content it produces instead of alleged abilities of the editor.  I agree the "troll" comment here was unjustified; Hijiri was obviously thrashing at that point. If the community thinks a WP:ACDS action would be warranted, make it a short-term one. Hijiri88 just needs to learn to couch criticism of editing patterns in terms that focus on the edits not the editor (which is an art, and one I've apparently not mastered myself yet). But the underlying concerns Hijiri88 is raising look legit to me, at least up to a point (and I'm not a Japan-focused editor; I have no dog in that fight). Far too often, the 'boards and their admins seem to care more about policing language that the encyclopedia being accurate. Don't just DS Hijiri88 and close this, but address the problems that have him so up-in-arms to begin with. PS: Hijiri88, please use   (proper, modern HTML), not " " from HTML 3 or whenever that was still valid; the latter breaks the syntax highlighting gadget.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that much of what Hijiri88 says has merit, else I would have simply blocked him right off the bat. A block may still be part of the solution, although it isn't my first choice. It isn't enough to be right, you still have to get along around here. I'm a simple man, I'm not into complicated sanctions, just workable solutions.  This is why I asked  for a solution above.  It wasn't rhetorical, I'm sincerely asking him to forget about everyone else's faults for a moment (and as you point out, no one is perfectly innocent but their actions haven't risen to this level yet), and just look at his own actions, tell me the problem, suggest a solution, and I will take it under consideration.  I'm not after a pound of flesh, I'm after a way to make these constant ANI filings go away.  Some have more merit than others, but there is some meat on the bone in this one.  Something is going to happen and happen soon.  I'm offering him the opportunity to have a say, if he can be reasonable.  It is purely optional, of course. Otherwise, I'm apt to simply act unilaterally, and I'm confident a consensus would back me after the fact.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Uncivil comments
A large part of the problem is lack of civility. As we all know civility is required regardless of the situation, page, or content we are discussing. Hijiri88 has made uncivil comments. I propose a simple 48hr block and a warning not to make uncivil comments. Here are the diffs of these comments shown here in the above section and elsewhere.massive fustercluck"back-handed, self-promoting quest for bragging rights."calling another editor a Trollcohorts pulling him through crap"Are you insane?""You should be blocked""don't think I won't notice""Stop following me already, hypocrite!""Why can't you get it through your thick skull""you bloody buffoon" AlbinoFerret  20:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Most of the diffs and quotes here predate the section above. This section is not directly tied to the sections above but is about a long term problem. AlbinoFerret 03:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, "You can count on me seeing to your receiving harsh repercussions for this in the near future", "someone block this jackass", "Catflap's constant disruption will not be missed", "You don't want to go out and do the research on the modern Kokuchukai in order to clean up this article because you're afraid it MIGHT contradict you", "posts like this might come back to bite you in the lower back.", "grow the hell up", "learn to speak frickin' English", "Are you really too stupid to understand my plain English explanations?", "Who are you, and which other accounts have you used?" (unsigned comment by CurtisNaito)


 * As I mentioned above, there is no doubt at all that there have been cases where was incivil. A fair number of the diffs above are on drama boards and user talk pages, which I discount largely (not totally). On article talk pages, let's take the most "damning" evidence: "you bloody buffoon". Firstly, I hope we can agree that article content is the important thing here. Please look at the page history here, starting from May 3. What happened was that Hijiri88 reverted a bad edit by, who then proceeded to edit war over it diff, diff, then added another bad edit, again edit warring over it diff. CurtisNaito, then reverts Hijiri88, and proceeds to edit war over it. Then Nishidani, as they always do, comes through with impeccable sources which set the matter straight.  still tries to add their edit, which Nishidani again corrects with good sources. Now, I find myself totally unable to conclude that the worst behaviour here was the comment "you bloody buffoon", which I don't even understand (is it some pop culture reference?). I find the edit-warring and general worsening of wikipedia content MUCH more disturbing. But this kind of story is missed if one only looks at exasperated comments on talk pages. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 21:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that Hijiri angrily reverted Nishidani's additions to the article (describing one of Nishidani's sources as "a piece of garbage"). When asked why he did that, Hijiri admitted that he did it because he had mistakenly assumed that I was the one who had added them to the article. It's as issue of assuming bad faith. Hijiri opposed my additions to the article, not because the sourcing was bad, but because I was the one who added them.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be more than just an issue of assuming bad faith, it would be an issue of both assuming bad faith and apparently refusing to even bother to check if his assumption were accurate. Bad faith taken to such ridiculous, possibly paranoic?, extremes is I think a serious cause for concern, although, if he did apologize for it later, which he seems to have done, it probably shouldn't be considered too significant on its own. That however still leaves questions regarding the angry nature of his comments, which is perhaps another minor point, but being angry at the wrong people for things they didn't do is not exactly something one wants to do too often, if ever. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it was assuming bad faith (or insufficient competence). The "piece of garbage" comment was actually Miller's opinion of another source (Ian Hideo Levy). In any case, I view it as a reaction to the earlier edit warring, not justifiable, but understandable. The repeated edit-warring was a clear violation of essay WP:BRD and (more to the point) policy WP:BURDEN/WP:ONUS, to keep adding disputed (it seems that it was either incorrect or misleading) content when it is challenged. The proper way to proceed is to discuss on the talk page and get consensus, which was not present. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 22:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Please make comments in the discussion area provided AlbinoFerret  01:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment as the proposer I of course support. As John Carter above mentioned I forgot this ABF Bait comment. AlbinoFerret 20:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per proposer.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (moved from above section as per request on my user talk page) You seem to be overlooking the rather obvious assumption of bad faith which is one of Hijiri88's more obvious characteristics lately, up to and including his clear indication above that your own comment in the thread was an attempt to WP:BAIT him. This assumption of bad faith on his part for, pretty much, everybody who ever disagrees with him, is a major ongoing problem, and I have no reason to believe such a limited sanction would do any good, unless it were made clear that any further attempts at derogation such as the one against you I mentioned earlier will no longer be tolerated. This tendency toward paranoia on his part has been noted before, and perhaps it is beyond the scope of sanctions to be able to address it, but I cannot believe that not addressing it will not bring us back here rather shortly with yet more complaints against him. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose at least tentatively as premature. I have yet to seen Hijiri88 respond to Dennis Brown's request regarding what Hijiri88 thinks is the best way to proceed here, and, actually, am rather surprised by the delay. Also, as indicated by me in my comment above, I have no reason to think that the sanction proposed will be necessarily sufficient. Lastly, it might make sense to retitle this subsection to "Proposal" or something like that, to make it obvious what the nature of the requested comments is. 20:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * John, the sanction is just a cool down a final warning as he has made at lease one comment lately, and the warning is important. He can either listen to the community and change, or take up the rope. (added final warning later) AlbinoFerret 20:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COOLDOWN, we don't do "cool down" blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But it could still be argued as being a sanction and a "final warning" at the same time. Having said that, I would prefer a more explicit final warning than the one which this would at best weakly imply, but I am waiting to see how Hijiri responds to Dennis's comment above first. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @NinjaRobotPirate Perhaps not my best choice of words, but I do agree with John Carter above that its also a final warning and and deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior. This incivility has gone on long enough. AlbinoFerret  01:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose the rationale that "A large part of the problem is lack of civility."—there's no consensus on that; and if the block is meant as a warning, then a talk page warning would suffice rather than a permanent blotch on his block log that people can throw in his face years down the line. If there's to be a block then provide evidence that the block would improve the situation. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thats why we have this section, to see if there is consensus. For he incivility those comments show, a minor 48hr block is a gift. AlbinoFerret  00:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it has not been determined that if there's a disruption, the disruption is incivility. Curtis Naito proposed something for "non-collaborative editing" and stalking—any incivility is a side issue.  We're here to improve the situation, no to pass out "gifts" of 48hr-blocks—and putting it that way sure makes it seem like the motivation is WP:PUNITIVE.  Honestly, going through your comments in this case, it looks like you're bending over backwards to GOTCHA Hijiri. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it isnt punitive, its to deter the continuation of present, disruptive behaviour. There isnt any GOTCHA, but this has been going on to long. Something needs to be done to stop the continuing disruption. AlbinoFerret  02:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Meaning "the disruption" is "incivility". No, we don't agree that's the case, but it is the easiest target for the block-happy.  The onus is on you to show how building the encyclopædia will be improved with this block—otherwise the block itself is a disruption. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "The disruption" is purely CurtisNaito misusing sources and edit warring.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 02:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And enablers too willing to block for incidental "incivility". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have already given my views above. I would suggest to Hijiri88 to read WP:GLUE, which is a good essay about WP:AGF. I know little about Japan, but my main suggestion is to understand that you don't have to convince everyone. If you reach an impasse after 2-3 tries, use RfC or WP:3O (for example) to break it, don't argue forever. It is a bad idea to mix conduct and content issues on the article talk page. Focus on content. Use WP:ANI for conduct, or just forget about it. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 22:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I suppose we could try this, unless someone has a better idea.TH1980 (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * a better idea would be to give this 48 hour block to CurtisNaito. The best idea would be to find something to keep CurtisNaito from misusing sources and edit warring.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 02:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per proposer.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that Cebr's hands are not clean wrt Hijiri; his !vote should be interpreted in that light. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it should not be interpreted in any light and you should not make assumptions.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Because you're an ANI regular and just happened to stop by? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. Exactly.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we know you're not a regular, and we know you have a recent beef with Hijiri, so there's really only one way to interpret "Yep. Exactly.". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You know nothing about how often I visit this board.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is proof you visit this board, with 195 edits according to X's tools, and according to the interaction analyser you dont edit the same articles other than 3 with one off edits days and months apart and no interaction on the talk pages of those articles. Curly Turkey on the other hand edits lots and lots of the same articles and talk pages Hijiri88 does with their edits coming minutes apart. AlbinoFerret  05:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless you have some sort of evidence that I would conspire with Hijiri I suggest you strike that last comment. That Cebr has a very recent beef with Hijiri is undeniable—on the record—and you'll find scant evidence of my "collaborating" with Hijiri.  As it stands, AlbinoFerret, the innuendo in this statement looks like more evidence that you're trying your darndest to GOTCHA somebody. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, worse! Looking at those 195 edits, they're mostly to discussions involving Cebr1979, not evidence that he's an ANI regular who just casually stopped by.  Wanna strike the rest of that comment now?  Otherwise you look like you're just stirring the pot (or worse: distorting the record). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like no such thing. I do frequent this board, regardless of what my edits have been when I've chosen to make some (though that's none of your business and I don't owe you -or anyone else- an explanation as to what pages I visit or when or why).Cebr1979 (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That last sentence only shows your involved. AlbinoFerret  05:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Involved in Hijiri's dispute with CurtisNaito? No, it shows no such thing.  CurtisNaito and I have played nicely with each other, haven't we? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You see that "you"? The "you" was directed at AlbinoFerret.  And it's everybody's business when you !vote to block an editor you have a known recent dispute with—especially one who !voted to have you blocked. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You said above that you looked at my edit history for this page. That means you have seen what my most recent edits here were and when I made them. That means you've already found all the proof you need to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I do frequent this board and that it has nothing to do with Hijiri. You need to stop with your false accusations. Anyone else can look up what you looked up and see the exact same thing.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's see who you can convince. Enough of us have watched what happened. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything (nor do I need to).Cebr1979 (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, you're here for the drama. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not wanting other users to come along and move my comments around does not make me "here for the drama." You moving my comments around, however, does make it seem like you're here to cause drama. I weighed in on something I chose to weigh in on which is something I am entitled to do. You clearly don't like that and you are entitled to your feelings.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll just keep a note of this for the next time you "just happen" to stop by one of these discussions. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are certainly free to do so.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, AlbinoFerret's own hands are not clean in this matter either. I challenged a highly disruptive edit he made to Talk:Kenji Miyazawa back in April, and since then he has shown up in every noticeboard discussion involving me, always throwing his support behind heavy sanctions against me. Unlike Cebr1979, AlbinoFerret is an ANI regular, but he wasn't at the time this started, and it's not like he posts in every ANI thread -- unless it involves me. And this would explain why he is distorting the historical record here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My posts may not predate every section you have had here, but they predate the close of the RFC you call a "disruptive post" where you ABF and to this day misrepresent what happened. No one comments on every section here to my knowledge. Distorting the historical record? That post is a perfect example of why you are here on AN/I. AlbinoFerret  15:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This !vote should not be considered seriously because of this user's known behavior and past interactions with multiple users.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 02:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose If ANI cannot handle a problem, it should not impose simplistic non-solutions. Shooting one side might stop the bickering, but it fails to help the encyclopedia. I think some of the questions raised have been claims that certain editors fast-track GAs in order to boost their GA count, and that serious errors of content due to misunderstanding of sources has occurred, and that the editor concerned never engages in a discussion about those issues, instead deflecting them by talking about something else. I do not know if the claims are correct, but waving them away because people don't have the patience or skill to investigate is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to check the dates on the diffs of the incivility, most of them predate the section above. This is a long term problem and not just the product of a content disagreement. AlbinoFerret  03:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The "long-term problem" is not incivility—the incivility is incidental. Remove the incivility and the problem remains, whether Hijiri or Chris Naito happens to be the source.  Treating the symptoms with a flamethrower won't fix anything. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually a lot of them art to other people, including . AlbinoFerret  06:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So you've simply ignored what I said. You're only making it clearer and clearer that you're on a "civility" witchunt and aren't interested in actual solutions to actual problems.  More people are realizing this and someday it's going to boomerang on you. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - "incivility" isn't the problem here, CurtisNaito and his disruptive editing is, and I refuse to support any proposal that punishes Hijiri for something trivial and let's CurtisNaito off scotch free. If anyone is deserving of a block, it's the latter (but I don't think that would solve anything).  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 02:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a follow-up on my last post. Sanctions should be applied here for disruptive editing.Ahiroy (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * this proposal isn't about sanctions for disruptive editing for both users, this is about sanctions for incivil comments for one user (the one who wasn't making disruptive edits to the article).  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 05:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Block both Hijiri88 and CurtisNaito for 48 hrs
Okay, I seem to have misunderstood Kingsindian's advice.

I think that under normal circumstances, a short block (24 or 48 hours both seem reasonable) would normally be a good solution for my own less-than-civil behaviour. I also sympathize with any impartial observer who came across this ANI thread, saw diffs of me using the word "motherbleeper" in an edit summary and "bloody buffoon" on a talk page and assumed the fault lay with me. However in this case, virtually all outside observers have pointed out that my incivility was a result of severe provocation and goading from CurtisNaito and a couple of his friends. I worry that if I receive a block and CurtisNaito &co are not sanctioned or otherwise warned, the result will be yet more talk page disruption, with CurtisNaito et al actively trying to push others over the profanity line to get another block.

A solution I would be amenable to would be a short block for me for my recent incivility (diffs from February do not count, as a mutual IBAN was already put in place for those), and CurtisNaito receives a block of equal length for persistent IDHT talk page disruption and attempting to game the system. I agree that my behaviour has been less than stellar and should probably be sanctioned in some way: this solution would do so, without actively incentivizing further disruption on the part of the other party to this dispute.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to revert back, but the wording of the above proposal was altered by another user. I had added a link to a textbook personal attack against me by one of CurtisNaito's regular collaborators -- one explicitly condoned by CurtisNaito -- to show that the lack of civility has not been a one-sided affair. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Hijiri, let me be blunt. You seem to persist in trying to basically do everything in your power to, as much as possible, blame other people for your misconduct. That is not sufficient here. Nor is the fact that your actions seem to bring you here on seemingly a weekly basis. I am aware that you are to some extent the target of opposition, and, by your regularly indulging in conduct which is in almost every case worse than that of anyone else involved, you seem to also be determined to make it much easier for them to criticize you. This proposal does nothing so far as I can see to address your regular conduct problems, and, in fact, seems to once again be attempting to deflect as much blame for your own willful actions on others. You are responsible for your actions, not others. If I were to see from you reason to believe that you were actively willing to consider your behavior, and all the problematic elements of your behavior in recent months, I might support this, but, so far as I can see, you seem to be continuing your regular "he started it", rather juvenile, pattern of attempting to blame others for your actions.
 * By saying this, I am not saying anything one way or another about whether you are or should be the only one sanctioned. I am not convinced of that at all. However, I see nothing in the above which really indicates to me that you are really willing to address the degree and regularity of your own conduct problems. And, yes, the fact that you rather arrogantly use the word "accept" above indicates once again, perhaps erroneously, that you somehow seem to hold yourself in a privileged position in terms of policies and guidelines, and violation of same. That seems to me to be the fundamental issue here, and I see nothing from you to date addressing that concern, or, even, really recognizing it.
 * Also, as AlbinoFerret says above, 48 hours probably is less than sufficient for your conduct in an of itself. I might be willing to entertain it if I saw some real indication that you have a clue about the amount and regularity of your own misconduct, but I don't, much to my disappointment. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - For starters, I don't think a user should negotiate his own block, especially when he is diverting much of the blame from himself. If anything, this block should last a week. I won't comment on whether just Hijiri or both users will be blocked, but if there was some actual effort to improve on conduct than there would not even have to be any blocks given.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that this is Hijiri88's response to Dennis Brown's earlier request that Hijiri88 explain how he would handle this situation. However, I also note that Dennis seemed to ask in that question what Hijiri would do to ensure that events such as his regular appearances at ANI would be avoided, and, sadly, there doesn't seem to be any indication in this that Hijiri would actually do anything, which is probably not sufficient under the circumstances. Hijiri's basic cluelessness in regard to the frequency and gross unacceptability of his recent conduct is to my eyes unfortunately an extremely good indication that Hijiri is not competent to judge this situation at all, and that any remedial action taken would have to such that takes into account the fact that Hijiri, apparently, has little if any reservations about his actions, in any of his recent threads here and elsewhere, and apparently no clue that they are grossly out of line with our conduct guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. AlbinoFerret  23:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No idea what a block of a week would achieve which a block of 48 hours wouldn't. A longer block is plainly a punitive measure. Anyway, I don't support any blocks, since nothing will be achieved. As I mentioned above, in my opinion, the edit-warring was as much (if not more) disruptive than any incivility Hijiri88 exhibited, so I do not see what is wrong with Hijiri88 citing that behaviour in their response, while also accepting their own incivility. Actually, I am not exactly sure what wants. Unless they propose some concrete measure which Hijiri88 should fulfill, I simply see the above as a request to grovel in some publicly acceptable way. I don't think that achieves anything since editors have pride.


 * My own proposal would be to somehow encourage/force Hijiri to use more WP:DR methods than endless argument on talk pages, which inevitably ends with them losing their temper. I don't know how to enforce that: it would not be desirable to legislate such things anyway. A rough suggestion is: no more than 2 replies on a particular point overall, and no more than 2 replies per day. Open an RfC/use RSN boards/WP:3O etc. if there is still an impasse. Of course, the normal WP:ONUS/WP:BURDEN/WP:BRD apply. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 01:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - at this point a block is just WP:PUNITIVE and wouldn't help at all. Although Hijiri should learn to hold his tongue, this wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for the continuous disruptive editing on articles and talk pages by CurtisNaito.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 03:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Ban or probation for CurtisNaito
The real problem here is CurtisNaito's misuse of sources, either WP:SYNTH or misrepresenting them, plus WP:CIR, edit warring, multiple attempts to game the system, and WP:IDHT on talk pages. Rather than passing out blocks I propose that CurtisNaito is put on some kind of probation, where if he violates the above-linked policies and guidelines within a certain period he then recieves blocks. I would say three months minimum. If he can use sources correctly, avoid edit wars, and learn to communicate and take responsibility for his actions, then the probation will be lifted and he can go on his merry way.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 03:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - as proposer.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 03:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This does not help and in fact harms the situation. I agree with above, that none of the other editors involved in this rise to the level of blocks/bans. I hope he looks into this entire section in the near future.  AlbinoFerret  03:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * and how exacly does this harm the situation? If you belive that incivility is more deserving of a block/ban than half of what CurtisNaito has done and continues to do, then either you haven't actually looked into this issue and/or your priorities need to be straightened out. We can build an encyclopedia with talk pages full of incivility; we can't build an encyclopedia with articles full of SYNTH, OR, and edit wars. And any blocks for anyone involved is simply punitive. The point of blocks/bans is to reform and deter disruptive editors, and a block isn't helpful in this case.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 04:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Building an encyclopedia requires civility. You already know my opinions on the rules applying to everyone WP:NOTABOVE because you have edited my essay. Regardless of if someone is great at content, breaking civility rules cant be ignored. By doing so you embolden the rule breaker by making them feel untouchable. So we are back again, and again, and again. This needs to end, not by blocking or banning because of content, but because of behaviour. So far that only applies to one person in this wide section on this page. AlbinoFerret  04:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree to a point, however you are wrong that this only applies to Hijiri. The edit warring, gaming, and IDHT/CIR by CurtisNaito is also a behavioral issue, and then you have these content issues that are constantly caused by him.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ 会話) 04:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) How exactly is repeatedly initiating edit wars, refusing to use the talk page to discuss changes, repeatedly violating consensus, and bringing content disputes to ANI when one doesn't get on's way "civil" and not deserving of some form of sanction? You claim my "incivility" is a constant, recurring problem, and therefore deserving of sanctions above CurtisNaito's violations, but the only instances of me being uncivil that you and John Carter (who has also been brought to task for haranguing me and disrupting talk page discussions in the last six months) have been able to dig up that weren't brought on by extreme frustration with CurtisNaito and TH1980's own rather deplorable lack of talk page etiquette took place seven months ago under similarly frustrating circumstances with plenty of incivility on the part of all parties. John Carter (check my first interaction with him for references to Daisaku Ikeda and DRN) and CurtisNaito (re: Drmies never called me out for inviting talk page input from Nishidani) have outright lied about me -- how is anything I have sone more worthy of sanctions than this? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret's obsessive focus on a narrow definition of civility and contempt for context and the idea of working towards real solutions is contributing nothing but drama and is disruptive. Check out how this accuses Hijiri of "retaliation ... for [CurtisNaito] posting a comment against Hijiri" when Hijiri showed up at one of the most-watched pages in WP:JAPAN just after it was promoted to GA—then when I pointed out Cebr1979's very recent beef against Hijiri, AlbinoFerret tries to distort the record by implying (a) that Cebr's 195 edits to ANI were some sort of proof that he was a regular here who just happened to stop by; and (b) that Hijiri and I are in cahoots because we both happened to have edited one of WP:JAPAN's most-watched pages recently.  This behaviour is difficult to accept as good faith—but even if it's simple incompetence, it's disruptive.  If a regular at ANI is simply incapable of dealing with the context of an incident then they have no business being here. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - At this point I think both users should be warned and this discussion should be closed. It's clear that outside editors are aware with this case. If more issues arise we will be right back here and appropriate measures will be swiftly put into place. As of right now, however, if you, Sturmgeweher really want a "probation" than you can monitor their behavior and register an AN/I when you see something wrong. Anything else would just be punitive.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * very well, but I promise we will be right back here at ANI in the near future unless indef blocks get handed out (which they won't).  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 04:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well to be completely honest, I agree that were just going to be right back here soon. I'm appealing more to the political side of Wikipedia right now, since not many editors seem to actually want to resolve this right now. Indef blocks seem really extreme, but the others will get it right if (or when) one of these users cause even more damage. I wish I could ease your worry, but you'll just have to be diligent to protect articles from harm.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Entirely separate from my proposal that Curtis and I receive a short two-way block, the community is clearly exhausted with the former's constant violations of content policies, talking other users out of their normal, friendly personalities with tens of thousands of words of IDHT non-sequiturs, unapologetic edit-warring and gaming of the system from the former, and a more long-term solution is always welcome. No user who has ever had to deal with CurtisNaito on a talk page would oppose some such proposal to deal with root of the problem, as Nishidani, Phoenix7777, Curly Turkey and Signedzzz can attest. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and note that Hijiri88 is in no position to talk about the exhaustion of the community, considering. BMK (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Move war regarding Baahubali
There is a move war going on. The article was stable at Production of Baahubali for several months before the move war sent it to places like Baahubali (film series) and Baahubali. It should probably be moved back there and locked until a proper move discussion can take place. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I have notified the users who have "moved" the content, either by actual move or redirect, but I may have missed some. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to expand beyond just production details (something like Kill Bill) so I thought to move it. But it can't be a sseries" with just two entries. Kailash29792 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Production of Baahubali was moved to Baahubali (film series) without prior discussion by . I moved it back to Production of Baahubali on the basis that discussion was warranted, and if the editor felt that the contents of the article had exceeded production details, then the contents should be trimmed instead of changing the scope of the article. I left the user a talk page note to that effect. then moved it to Baahubali citing Kill Bill as the precedent, which is an article that presents an overview of the 2 film Kill Bill series. That's the last I was aware of the article moves. I was fine with it being at Production of Baahubali, and there is precedent for this format at Production of Watchmen, for instance. I would support moving it back until a move discussion can take place. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Slight error there . The article was listed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. When you move a page it uses whatever was in the speedy deletion as an edit summary. See this for another example. I thought it was a genuine G6. My apologies if this was not an uncontroversial move. I have moved it back and protected it from further moves. I am now of to the Village Pump to see if the edit summary can be fixed to include the G6 link. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If my comment came across as criticism, it was not intended. I was only going by what the logs say. "12:19, September 8, 2015 CambridgeBayWeather (talk | contribs | block) moved page Production of Baahubali to Baahubali (It is expanding beyond production details. may become something like Kill Bill." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem there . It is due to the poor (default) edit summary. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And I just gave an warning for edit warring. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good candidate for a discussion at Requested moves if there is still a question of this article being at Production of Baahubali. Liz  <font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">Read! Talk! 22:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As someone who is not an expert on films, having read the article it seems quite clear to me that it is about the production. I therefore concur with those who maintain that the title should be Production of Baahubali. I note that there has been no attempt to discuss the move on the talk page where in my opinion such an important move should obvioulsly be discussed first. That said, the quality of English in parts is very low and the article needs heavily copyediting for grammar, prose, and style. I have made just a few minor corrections on the fly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's move protected and there's a move discussion at Talk:Production_of_Baahubali. I think this can be closed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Editor edit warring to push age limit ratings on article
Today, was created (and subsequently reported to WP:UAA, as it represents Pan European Game Information). Shortly after creation, it began attempting to add age limit ratings to video game articles Battlefield 4 and The Saboteur. These edits were reverted, based on template breaking on a discussion held quite some time ago at Template_talk:Infobox_video_game/Archive_11. The editor apparently abandoned User:PegiOfficial and began conducting the same edits under a newly created account,. Despite bringing the noted discussion to this editor's attention, and despite having been reverted multiple times now, he continues to add age limit ratings from PEGI to articles. I'm not going to perform any more reversions on this. Another set of eyes please. Both accounts have been informed of this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Of note; User:PegiOfficial has been blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * PegiOfficial softblocked. AManCalledJohn welcomed and notified about edit warring. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion was for removing ratings from the infobox template. Its really not a content decision or should be used as precedent en-masse for every videogame article. That is a decision for the talk-page of the individual articles. That was a terrible close given the strength of the arguments on either side however. Clearly age ratings *are* encyclopedic and there was evidence presented of people specifically looking for that information. I mean one of the arguments against it was 'we are not here as a guide to help people choose games for their children'... I mean really, wtf sort of rationale is that? Its an encyclopedia which contains information for people to use in any manner they see fit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no stance on whether the information should be included or not, but the template discussion was about more than the template. As noted in the discussion, a rating system is acting as a guide, and not relevant unless there's secondary sources to support a reason for its inclusion. I was going off of that, not seeing a reason to disagree with it. Don't care either way, but edit warring in an attempt to force his organization's ratings into articles, especially when he has refused discussion, is not welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You didnt actually *start* a discussion. You reverted him, pointed him at an old infobox discussion and then smacked him with templates and brought it to ANI. Textbook biting the newbie. If you didnt have a stance on if the information should be included or not you should not have engaged in an edit war with him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Hammersoft, the places that this rating information was being added was either appended within the arguments of the infobox (not necessarily breaking it, but still not useful) or by itself above the TOC. And speaking for the VG project, it is not that we don't allow any mention of content ratings, but like the Film project, it becomes too much hassle for little necessary return to include all the possible ratings worldwide that a title could have; if a game's rating has discussion (as was the case for Left 4 Dead 2 for example where it prompted changes in Australia's content rating system), that's fine in the article body. That's not where this user was adding it, nor for the games listed are, to the best of my knowledge, the ratings are subject of discussion. I do think this might be a tad bitey based on a few revisions, but the lack of response by the user to these comments is not helpful either. --M<font size="-3">ASEM (t) 16:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I reject that it is being bitey. Contrary to Only's claims, I did attempt to initiate discussion with the user on both accounts from which he was attempting to add this information. The only templates I supposedly "smacked" him with were uw-coi-username on User talk:PegiOfficial, which is pretty much required before any action would be taken at WP:UAA, and ANI-notice at both talk pages, which is required when a person brings an issue to this board involving other editors. The editor was clearly acting in a way to directly support the organization he is associated with, and was refusing to engage in discussion despite my multiple efforts to do so. I brought this discussion here so that other eyes could review the situation and give input. If this is being bitey, then so be it. I will act in this manner again, as it is perfectly in line with best practices here unless someone can demonstrate how this violated best practices. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Between the two accounts, there are a total of 6 (visible) contributions, 3 on each. Tagging the Pegi one for username issues is fine, that's appropriate per policy, but as to what their intentions are to bring them to ANI at this point seems bitey. If they continued for another cycle of these types of edits, yeah, there's a problem. Also consider: do we have any indication that PegiOfficial was actually a person from PEGI including this stuff? --M<font size="-3">ASEM (t) 16:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, if it was bitey what should I have done instead? Attempted conversation again, when conversation had already twice been ignored? Continued to revert? Not say anything else and just let the user continue? The user was ignoring conversation, and continuing to edit war in support of his organization. Every edit these two accounts made were (a) effectively the same and (b) referenced PEGI. WP:UAA treats such evidence as clear enough to warrant blocking if warnings have been made (which was made by me), and User:PegiOfficial was properly blocked as a username violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not that "PegiOfficial" isn't a bad username (it fails username policy immediately), it's just that it seems like this is a presumption this person works for PEGI just because of the user name, and if they aren't, that's even more reason that that account should have been blocked. We also don't have direct SPI affirmation that AManCalledJohn is PegiOfficial, though certainly smells like a WP:DUCK. But lets assume they are, and even in that case, we've not hit 3RR yet on these. They are far from being disruptive, and if they are new to Wikipedia (and in the case that the person pulled PegiOfficial not realizing the username policy, even moreso to them that they are likely new here) then these look like newbie edits and the last thing to bite them for. Warn them about edit warring, yes. ANI on the PegiOfficial due to username, yes. But ANI on this behavior seems aggressive. --M<font size="-3">ASEM (t) 18:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't. The edits were the same and it was blatantly obvious the editor was (a) ignoring conversation, (b) acting on behalf of his company and (c) willing to continue edit warring to their preferred version. DUCK certainly applies, and we don't need an SPI case (which is already badly backlogged with open cases dating back to July) to recognize that this edit and that edit, both using the same edit summary "agelimit", both using visual editor, coming from two accounts created within half an hour of each other, are very likely one and the same person. Even the blocking admin of User:PegiOfficial noted they are the same person . There is no alternative to what I did that seems viable. Maybe I could have placed uw-ewsoft on their talk pages, but I'm sure I would have been accused of more smacking him with templates (shaking my head). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Unjustified Redirect Without Discussion, Threats of (Sanctions and Block) Without Discussion
Article Awans of Pakistan was redirected on 2nd September, 2015  to Awan (tribe) by User:Sitush. I undid his revision stating on my edit summary to redirect only after discussion. I left a message on his talk page to discuss the matter before redirecting using a redirect discussion or by proposing a merger, here. He placed a false allegation on me for using ‘fake references’ and also threatened me that he would keep a look on my contributions here.

However, he redirected again on 3rd September, 2015 without discussion and then I had to leave another message on his talk page to User talk:Sitush where I explained that how the redirect is unjustified and he must discuss and I am even willing to help out his article as he so requested me. At the second revert I again stated in my edit summary not to redirect without discussion. He wrote a brief note on the Talk:Awans of Pakistan but I clarified his false statement to which he did not reply back. I am sure he failed to get the point and fall short of words as he redirected the 3rd time on the same day still without discussing. Then he threatened me for sanctions on my talk page User talk:Pixarh.

I know that I can't get dispute resolution without talk page discussion (and since the article had been redirected so had the talk page), so I followed the recommended process of Wikipedia and made Request for Discussion at the talk page of the redirect article and left a talk back message at his user page. (Here I explained each and every detail of how his redirect is unjustified to which he had to answer).

The editor is deliberately not discussing the reason for his redirect and pointing to Wiki policies I am already aware of. He has not answered a single question posed at the Talk:Awan (tribe). To top it up, he has threatened me for a block. What should I do? He is not willing to undo his redirect and I do not want to get involved in sanctions which is why I still have not reverted his invalid redirect disruptive editing?

Personal attacks/Accusations

 * Personal attack by threatening me for block and wikihounding my contributions here and here
 * I was accused of here using 'fake references, copy pasting from his article, etc'.

POV editing

 * He removed references and content: . For instance, he removed sources like this but they have been explained to the talk page of the article and all his edit summaries fail.
 * His 3 constant redirects without discussion even after requests., ,

Suggested course of action

 * I require admin intervention and take action.
 * Editing restrictions or a ban should be imposed.
 * Should only be permitted to revert edits after consensus on talk page.
 * Ban from editing all articles I have created. I do not want to interact with such disruptive editor.

Pixarh (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We do not need two articles on the same subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That is the entire point. The article do not duplicate each other both in terms of content and content. Awans of Pakistan is about the Muslim Awans who reside in Pakistan whereas Awan (tribe) is about a rural community with no origin. Please read this difference already explained. Also, the behaviour of the said editor is not justified in either case. Hence, need for justice required here. Pixarh (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sigh, Yet again, please read my edit summaries for the various removals I made before deciding to redirect. Then read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. Finally, read WP:IDHT because you do not seem to be getting this at all. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) Agreed about Superman, but the Awans of Pakistan appears to be a subtopic/split from Awan (tribe), which covers more than just Pakistan. While a merger could be contemplated, forcing replacement with a redirect against objections does not appear to be appropriate. That said, "Ban from editing all articles I have created" isn't appropriate either, per WP:OWN. A revert restriction should be limited to the narrow topic area (Awans), and temporary, if ANI went that route. Yes, Sitush disagrees with Pixarh's sourcing, but that's a talk page matter not a WP:REVTALK matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem not to know what you are talking about, SMcCandlish. The Awans of Pakistan article has no reliable sources, so there is nothing to merge. I said as much, if you bother actually checking the history, the talk page etc. I do know what I'm talking about and if you want to prolong the agony of having to deal with this sort of atrocious mess then you'd better be willing to get involved in it because I'll be gone and there are very few other people with the interest and the experience. People like you are supposed to be able to spot the good guys, not make things worse for them. And I have no idea what you mean about Superman. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the article in question, I have to suggest that Sitush is correct - the sourcing is atrocious, and in no way compliant with Wikipedia policy. In fact some of it appears to be simply bogus - citing Encyclopaedia Britannica articles which simply don't exist for instance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I too agree with Andy's evaluation. Did you take a look at the edit-summaries Sitush left at Awans of Pakistan and try to understand, or ask about, the specific objections instead of repeatedly reverting to a version that was poorly sourced and misrepresented the cited sources? Abecedare (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Awan (tribe) already has the maintenance tag and "lacks verification". It is a disputed article even its talk page. It s editors are already dodging the ball in each other's court as they lack authentic information. ....Th other article Awans of Pakistan offers wide information. both articles belong to Pakistani portal so Indian editors who lack information should not interfere in portal of pakistani-related articles. Markangle11 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. I can't deal with ^^ this level of incompetence and nationalism etc at the moment due to my meds. If I hang around, I will say something I will be made to regret. Let me know what happens. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to get the idea that anything you add to Wikipedia must be the subject of significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Reporting an editor to this board for upholding the rules of the Encyclopedia is unlikely to get you anything other than a whack with a boomerang. Philg88 ♦talk 17:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I saw Sitush removing reliable sources from the article and providing his POV in the edit summaries. Did you read mine? I stated to "redirect after discussion" that's all and 'twice'. However, he repeatedly reverted and redirected without discussion.

Evidence For everyone:The removed sources were reliable e.g. when he removed this he said "Rose is not a reliable source)". Well, I wonder why then would have a page for this writer Horace Arthur Rose. Wikipedia also has an article for the mentioned book A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province. Wikipedia has already established the reliability of the writer whom Sitush calls "not a reliable source" as well as that particular mentioned book otherwise Wikipedia would never have articles on either of the two. Only someone without knowledge or research would call the soruces unreliable and he would definitely not be the one 'upholding the rules of the Encyclopedia.'  Pixarh (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The existence of an article on something doesn't make it a reliable source. And can you explain why you think a link to a non-existent article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica is a valid source for anything? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See earlier discussion at WP:RSN about Rose:1 and 2. And see this essay, which I had urged Sitush to write just to avoid this situation of having to continuously re-explain what modern scholarship has to say about these century-old sources.
 * In any case, this is not a discussion for the ANI board. I would suggest that you familairize yourself with the relevant wikipedia policies, and the relevant scholarly literature before you contribute further in this area that is already subject community imposed sanctions for reasons well-demonstrated in this ANI report. Abecedare (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Encyclopedia Britannica source removed states the geographical location of the Awan Muslims amongst other people. "The main written language is Urdu, followed by English. The major ethnic groups are the Jat, Rajput, Arain, Gujar, and Awan. The caste system is gradually becoming blurred as a result of increasing social mobility, intercaste marriages, and changing public opinion."  Pixarh (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How does that source support the words (can't even call it a claim), Most historians claim that the Awans of Pakistan that it was appended to? Or the complete sentence, Most historians claim that the Awans of Pakistan are the progeny of Ali Ibn Abi Talib through Qutb Shah, also known as Mir Qutb Haider. that the EB citation was adding legitimacy to? Let me be clear since you don't seem to be heeded the feedback you have received above: if you continue to misrepresent sources and edit disruptively, you will be blocked or banned from the subject area. Abecedare (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Please revoke talk page access
Please revoke talk page access at User talk:Codedlox. Some rev deleting would help as well.- MrX 21:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . - MrX 21:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So I assume it wasn't true what they said about you, ? I love my admin glasses. I only wish I had oversight glasses, so I could get an even deeper insight into humanity. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ha! I just knew someone was going to go there. No, I prefer mine living.- MrX 22:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Burst of unj
This single-purpose account has been already dragged to this noticeboard. Currently, they disrupt Articles for deletion/Nilüfer Demir by commenting every vote and repeating the same argument for the tenth time despite multiple warnings. It is time for them to be blocked or at least to be topic-banned from that page. Whatever they had to say, they already said.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly rather bizarre behaviour- a bit OCD- but not particularly disruptive. As long as the !votes are easilly identifiable, that's the thing. Fortuna    Imperatrix Mundi  14:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban I disagree that their behavior in the AfDs hasn't been disruptive (thanks to their incessant comments, the pages are a mess), and would be interested to know under which account(s) they've previously edited here. Not blockworthy yet IMO, but they're getting close.  Mini  apolis  15:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm moving somewhat against my will to a similar conclusion: now that they've been (however well-intentioned) refactoring others' TP comments. Fortuna    Imperatrix Mundi  15:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban. I agree a very limited topic ban from this AfD is in order. They're clearly bludgeoning the process, and they're somewhat obsessed with making sure the vote count is accurate to the point of refactoring the comments of other editors: . I tried explaining that the vote count doesn't really matter, but they're just not getting it. Additionally, they've attempted to vote in the discussion three times. In related discussions, they've attempted to reassign the votes of others, claiming their rationale better supports something different than what they've voted: . This is already an AfD with an above average number of votes on a highly visible subject. Continued involvement by this editor is only making it harder to reach consensus and then parse what that consensus is. They've said their piece, and I thank them for that, but it's time to step away. If the editor cannot make that decision themselves, then a topic ban is the solution we have left. ~ RobTalk 15:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a topic ban is necessary. It should be used as a last resort and after repeated administrative action has failed to correct the behavior; Burst of unj hasn't even been blocked before . I agree that this user has edit warred, I think that his edits to Articles for deletion/Nilüfer Demir can be seen as disruptive per WP:LISTEN, but I do not agree that his edits to Articles for deletion/Nilüfer Demir have been uncivil towards anyone (the only edit that I saw that was aimed at another editor and somewhat uncivil is this). I think that a block for 24 hours for edit warring and WP:DISRUPT is justified .  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Redacted some of my statements above per discussion below.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That wasn't very uncivil in any case; and the 3RR report is probably timed-out by now. Fortuna    Imperatrix Mundi  15:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Why block from the entire project when a very limited ban on editing a single page suffices? Topic bans are typically considered a higher "tier" than a block due to their long-lasting nature and wide scope, but the proposed ban here is on a single discussion that will close within the next few days. In this case, the ban from editing this single page is less restrictive than a block of any duration. ~ RobTalk 15:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict) Hi, Rob - you make a very valid argument. You are correct; there's no "requirements" that must be met before a ban can be discussed and enforced by the community. If the ban is limited to Articles for deletion/Nilüfer Demir, I'd support it.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He's been rambling about facedown eyes and surf dragging on the Alan Kurdi Talk Page, too. I don't pretend to know what he's trying to say, but it feels like veiled mudslinging. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:08, September 12, 2015 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban Refactoring other users comments and other clear examples of WP:BLUDGEON. Its very WP:POINTY. AlbinoFerret  16:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban on Articles for deletion/Nilüfer Demir per the discussion and my responses above. Sorry, I realized that I didn't cast my official vote into the box :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not support topic ban - what i striked out was a vote from another discussion (that is being counted as BabbaQ's vote because someone's previous comment was not signed). 178.232.241.112 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC) This is the only edit of this IP, and considering the content, is clearly Burst of unj editing while logged out, probably by mistake. BMK (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not support topic ban - what i striked out was a vote from another discussion (that is being counted as BabbaQ's vote because someone's previous comment was not signed). I voted above, so that vote needs to be striked. Thank you. Burst of unj (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a waste of time - This issue will kill itself off in like 3 days. Until then, he's being disruptive (...kinda? I guess?) on a single page that's not even in article space. I checked the page, for what it's worth, and had no trouble at all finding everyone's comments and arguments. I see nothing here that particularly requires a solution. --Ashenai (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The eye obsession persists at Alan Kurdi's article space. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:00, September 12, 2015 (UTC)


 * Huh. Interesting! Although not (yet?) particularly disruptive there. And clearly, a topic ban from Articles for deletion/Nilüfer Demir would not help with that. --Ashenai (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, a topic ban would be around anything to do with Alan Kurdi and related articles, Nilüfer Demir being one. That latter article will most likely be kept, and given his continued disruptive actions on the Kurdi article after the close, he will most likely continue this pattern. A topic ban is the least we should consider. <FONT COLOR="#000000">freshacconci</FONT><FONT COLOR="#B22222"> talk</FONT><FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F"> to me</FONT> 18:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban It's been on multiple pages including Alan Kurdi where he continues to be disruptive an POV push. He changes other editors' comments, and the endless responding to every comment is beyond a nuisance. A topic ban is enough; if he continues on to other articles in the same manner, a block would be necessary. Hardly a waste of time, BTW. This comment took me about 30 seconds to write. <FONT COLOR="#000000">freshacconci</FONT><FONT COLOR="#B22222"> talk</FONT><FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F"> to me</FONT> 18:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Case in point: within five minutes of me !voting to keep at an AFD, his response came in as expected. I am treating him as a troll at this point and won't be feeding him. <FONT COLOR="#000000">freshacconci</FONT><FONT COLOR="#B22222"> talk</FONT><FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F"> to me</FONT> 18:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's about a clear an admission of trollful obstinance I've seen since an actual Norwegian troll wagged his finger in my goat's face and went "Nyah, I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you! You can't legally bite me!". But that was just a myth. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:30, September 12, 2015 (UTC)


 * Support T-ban of all AfD discussions related to Alan Kurdi. I would also Support extending the T-ban to all AfD's if the editor expands his area of interest. No comment as to behaviour in other areas. -- Orduin  Discuss 19:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban A topic ban that is of all articles and talk pages and AfD's relating to Alan Kurdi. I agree absolutely with Freshacconci.  I spent well over an hour yesterday just dealing with edits on the Alan Kurdi article made by the editor under discussion, time 'made necessary' due to his or her undo's and reverts and other edits as I was working on it.  His is a disruptive POV push. Boscaswell (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support a block on the basis of WP:CIR. Competence is required. --81.141.240.246 (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)