Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

• talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )
• AbdulQahaar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Admins,

Problematic behaviour over a KIA soldier article Hi admins, The word "killed" is used as a propaganda tool by terrorists like isis and ttp for muslims soldiers who lost their lives against them. The quran forbids to use word "killed" for muslims who die fighting for a righteous cause. That is why terrorists use word'killed" for opponent muslim soldiers to imply that those fighting them arent muslims. i used word "commanded" based on news reports and the DG ISPR's direct quote which i also have included in the article. I have only edited articles related to one person because in Pakistan that officer embodies our long and painful war against extremist terrorism. I have read his biography and he is the only soldier of the pakistani war on terror on whom a book has been written. that is why i possess much knowledge about him and i thought that wikipedia being the world's largest encyclopedia must have information regarding this Pak army officer who represents our nation's bravery and sacrifice. the user Ademberger80 edited the article and cut more than half of it on valid grounds. had i wanted an edit war i would unreasonably contested him on those points but i didnt. in contrast to it the said user seems bent on including a word in the article which i have repeatedly told him is considered offensive by muslims and pakistanis in this case. the case of rashid minhas is different because he wasnt fighting a war and also wasnt a combatant against those terrorists who claim to be muslim. the word shahadat only is mentioned in a direct quote and killed has been replaced by casuality which is also a neutral word in my opinion.AbdulQahaar (talk)

Maybe this would be an issue in Arabic or Urdu or Farsi, but in English, "killed X" merely means "caused X to die" (without any comment on the righteousness of the cause), and phrases like "embraced shahadat" are meaningless in English.

neutral point of view. Finally, please don't replace simple English phrases with foreign terminology that will be meaningless to most readers. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Nyttend Just for reference, I did convey to the user that using martyr was not allowed on Wikipedia per its POV policy. In reply, the user got into technicalities claiming that the policy only censures (using their words here) the use of the word martyr and not Shaheed or Shadadat and was thus okay to include them. He further claimed that these are Islamic concepts which a non Muslim(indicating me) cannot understand. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, he has even less reason to use the term, since he knows that the term is meaningless to the typical reader of the English Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AbdulQahaar, I know you may not easily understand because of cultural differences, but in primarily English speaking countries, being killed in action (KIA) is a term of respect, and implies that the person died honorably in pursuit of an honorable mission while doing their duty to the greatest extent possible. In English, there is normally only a distinction between KIA and MIA (missing in action) and both are normally honorable terms. At our funerals for our soldiers, we describe them as "killed in action" and we celebrate that they made the ultimate sacrifice. It is not a term of derision. It is a term of honor. I hope that you can understand the cultural differences here. GMG^talk 23:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that for a person to be a casualty does not necessarily require the death of the person. Per Nyttend, in English "kill" is but a word with no real specific meaning beyond "an action that results in the death of another being". I would say that you would have a case if this was the Arabic Wikipedia where shahadat would have cultural significance, but not on the English Wikipedia. Blackmane (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "casualties" includes the wounded and the missing, as well as the dead. One can also "kill" animals, plants, anything else living (

even viruses can be killed); it need not be humans or other beings. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Nor does the word "kill" have any indication on the morality of an action. It's perfectly okay to refer to the police killing a terrorist after he killed other people - what the police did is good, and what the terrorist did is bad. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually here in the Western world we consider trials good and police taking the law into their own hands bad. While it is bad, they are allowed significant latitude but in the United States may not shoot someone who is on the ground (for example) even if the suspect has "killed other people." Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Another point is that Wikipedia is not guided by religious rules, and so whatever the quran forbids is of no relevance here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article doesnt have any non-neutral wording and it isnt offending anyone as well. Cant we just move on from this because i think the present compromise on the said article is ok for everybody. it has been made clear what casuality means in the article (that the person in question lost his life). words martyrdom and shahadat have been removed except for one direct quote by a responsible official with reference. i think this should be good enough for everyone regarding wikipedia policy. as we have found a neutral and non offensive replacement for killed why should we insist on including it when it can do no good. As i said earlier you guys might not know this but word killed has been used as a propaganda tool by terrorists in this regard. (abdulQahaar) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulQahaar (talk • contribs) 14:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Killed" is factual. We don't need to try to kiss up to terrorists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The word killed in considered neutral and has no negative connotation attached to it. Removing the words martyr and shahadat is not compromise on your part, it is following the rules laid down. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• "Killed" is *not* an offensive word, not in the English language or in the English-speaking world - and "Killed in action" is the accepted and correct phrase to use. We will not accept people trying to force religious censorship on the way we English speakers speak our own language and making writing in English less clear. I have reverted you, and if you try to enforce your religious censorship again you are likely to be blocked from editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one wondering whether AbdulQahaar is just NOTHERE? All of their edits, covering the last four months, appear to be very unencyclopedic

Talk:Asfandyar_Bukhari) and quoting him again "I had this discussion from a wikipedia editor before and he understood my point. I hope you also do so. Also please edit the many pages about Indians in which sources arent cited or the word martyr is used. Charity begins at home." (User_talk:Adamgerber80). Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The "I dont know why you are so intent" quotation is from a post by

Talk:Asfandyar Bukhari. I am not sure where the other quotation is from.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• One of the sources used in the article is Dawn (newspaper), a Pakistani English-language newspaper, and its headline reads "Army captain among 29 killed in TTP..." (my emphasis). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• It's been about a week and AbdulQahaar has not yet responded. I propose we close this discussion with a final warning to the editor not to disruptively edit in the future which could attract some form of temporary/indefinite or topic ban the editor to prevent further POV edits on the same/related articles. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, a 'crat from the Urdu Wikipedia has left a kind of character reference for them.

I request the input of the community as to whether this editor should be unblocked. GoldenRing (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: From reading
  WP:CIR concern six months ago). There weren't any issues of incivility or POV pushing, so I think it's safe to lift this community ban now as long as they steer clear of the original topic/article for the time being. Alex Shih (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Withdrawing support based on diffs provided by KrakatoaKatie and Rschen7754. Alex Shih (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would probably feel better about the whole thing if User:Hindustanilanguage could give us an indication of why the block log on ur.wiki looks fairly long and fairly recent. I'm afraid machine translation here is probably less than useless given the awkward English it spits out. GMG^talk 18:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @GreenMeansGo: Thanks for asking this. There was a dispute over a comment made by this user on the WhatsApp Urdu Wikipedia User Group. This concerns the word "Saaen" used reverentially in Sindhi but offensive in Punjabi. An admin blocked the user. My view and that of other admin is 1) the incident doesn't pertain to Wikipedia directly; as such a block could could be placed in the WhatsApp Group and not Urdu Wikipedia. 2) when a word has two different meanings, it's better to ask the user what he actually means. Assuming good faith should be the guiding principle. --Muzammil (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the clarification. No objections here. GMG^talk 19:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Checkuser needed Has a CU confirmed that there is no evidence of recent socking? The user was renamed from Hammadsaeed. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hammadsaeed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see several instances of  Technically indistinguishable anon edits in September. These edits share a similar focus on Sufism, so I'm fairly certain these is BukhariSaeed. They share the same user agent with BukhariSaeed and they are the only edits on that range with that user agent. Katie^talk 16:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• No. I do NOT have ANY faith in the competence User:Hindustanilanguage's -- the Urdu 'crat-- AT ALL. Check out the history of his User talk page for my recent dealings with him. As this involves rev-deleted material, I'm not saying more publicly, though I am willing to provide details privately. Jpgordon (talk · contribs) could also provide some back up here. --Calton | Talk 05:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that my good intentions are grossly misinterpreted. I've interviewed and as well as helped a number of Wikimedians from different languages such as Sindhi, Punjabi, Telugu, Turkish, Wikidata, Ido, Esperanto, Doteli, Maithili, Esperanto, Sanskrit, English, Hindi and Urdu backgrounds. I've helped a number of Wikipedians. I sensed a problematic situation with Calton and wanted to help him as well. Regrettably, however, Calton will now use every available opportunity to tag me as "incompetent", without realizing that the discussion here and elsewhere does not pertain to me but some another user who needs a review in an independent and unbiased manner.  :) --Muzammil (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you WERE incompetent then and your continued failure to recognize the obvious even after it's been pointed out makes you incompetent now. (Editors are advised to check the edit history of his talk page for further details.) --Calton | Talk 16:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how Hindustanilanguage/Muzammil making a mistake means that BukhariSaeed/Hammadsaeed should be denied the standard offer, unless they were collaborating together. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- If he edits constructively. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Inclined to support. We all deserve a second chance and people can change a lot in six months. Otherwise I think
  WP:ROPE applies. Sro23 (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Based on CU evidence, BukhariSaeed has evaded his block within the last six months. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to the above: I would like to quote the CU Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments for the past six months --Muzammil (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC): "I don't get the same interpretation out of that comment; I think he was just saying he disagrees with the revert. Nothing in that comment proves sockpuppetry. Closing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindustanilanguage (talk • contribs) 17:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comment from BU Rob13 that you quote is about one specific IP address reported in October, and it explicitly discusses behavioural evidence, in particular about the meaning of a comment made at a different Wiki (also in October). In contrast, what has been reported in this thread is CU evidence from this Wiki, from September. --bonadea contributions talk 17:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bonadea, for the clarification. I will greatly appreciate if you or some of our other friends disclose the CU evidence link as unblocking or otherwise for the user is largely dependent on it. --Muzammil (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie:, My understanding is that you have already stated in your comment above everything that you can publicly disclose on this. Is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) 04:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tazerdadog, pings don't work unless you sign your posts at the same time with four tildes. Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, remembering to sign is a good thing. Fixing: @KrakatoaKatie: Tazerdadog (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. I'll reiterate that in my opinion, based on the technical and behavioral evidence, he has been evading his block. Katie^talk 14:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per both cu evidence, and because I'm still not sure they "get it". Tazerdadog (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Calton, and per this nonsense [5][6] crosswiki. They seem way too overeager while still showing no understanding of what they have done wrong. --Rschen7754 05:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, because the block evasion disqualifies from
  WP:STANDARDOFFER. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - Per CU. GMG^talk 14:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per this thread, the editor is back. This time the editor opened up an account and made 462 separate edits to one article, which could easily have been made in just a single edit.

Since then, the editor reverted all of the rollbacks made by ValarianB

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed EC status from their account and reverted their EC edits. I don't have any particular views on their block status. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed to Willschmut and CU blocked --

to explain) 18:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Could 2606:6000:5057:F700::/64 be blocked? Judging by the contribs, it's been used solely by a single person for vandalism over the past year. Thanks, Simplexity22 (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to it by a few seconds. GoldenRing (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone close and enact the two sections at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_violations please? I began these to attempt to save one particular editor from ending up blocked and I suspect that will be the end result if these are not enacted soon. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• AuburnPilot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

A discussion is open at the

• Tom Wolfe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone tell me what the hell is going on there? 202.85.7.44 (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah never mind, seems it's been fixed. 202.85.7.44 (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor895 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When an editor is inactive since 2013 (zero edits) but then suddenly shows up to defend an article repeatedly recreated by a sockfarm - see their deleted contribution,

I think I'd consult the CheckUser who acted at User talk:MacauMan888. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let us ping them for safety: @DoRD:. However, we may as well decide that a duck test suffices.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also perhaps worth noting that

Sabrina Ho (何超盈) article that User:Editor895 defended) has been dormant since 2014 until today, when they also added this puffery to another article. A bunch of paid sock farm sleepers is what this is looking like. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Absolutely.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now indeffed by Primefac, making the topic redundant.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Primefac found me on IRC before I saw this. They all appear to be the same, but I wouldn't be surprised if more socks appear out of the woodwork. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to check, DoRD, are you confirming a CU match between Editor895, 333vip333, and the rest of the socks at User talk:MacauMan888? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're almost certainly the same (same ISP, same geolocation, same device) as the accounts noted at User talk:MacauMan888. Primefac and I also noticed Angrylala, cu-blocked on zhwiki for promoting Ho, who may also be connected to these somehow. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, blocked that one as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The recent edits to user talk pages make 333vip333, Editor895, and Editor43043  Confirmed to the larger group. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now somebody is trying to break in my password.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When it rains, it pours, eh? Primefac (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. Unless they have a

quantum computer, they are not likely to succeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Specifically, this is IP 216.25.187.3, not sure whether they are associated with this sockfarm.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the geolocation, I doubt that it's related. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is time for an indefinite block of User:KDS4444.

User:KDS4444 was formerly an OTRS worker, but this privilege was removed on 21 October.

KDS4444 was trying to get people to pay him when they asked for help at OTRS. See this page in User:Sphilbrick's userspace, which is anonymized but includes exchange with <redacted>, which did lead to an article. The agent disclosed that it was paid editing. KDS4444 created the <redacted> article, and disclosed that it was edited for pay.

Reviewing that OTRS list, this one is especially egregious: an exchange with <redacted> who is asking about Wikipedia's trademark policy. Here the agent asks for $300, even though <redacted> hadn't asked for an article. <Redacted> asks whether it was an automated response. The agent persists with the misunderstanding, until finally realizing it was a trademark question.

There are also issues with his paid editing efforts as well - for instance directly creating Stewart Levenson even though he acknowledged in the subsequent SNOW AfD that it was terrible and should not have been moved to mainspace. He is trying a second time with Draft:Stewart Levenson and if you review the Talk page, you will see he is bludgeoning that page, trying to convince two independent editors (and the reviewer who declined the draft) that the topic is indeed notable, taking up volunteer time so that he can be paid.

He has complained several times that disclosing paid editing is not worth it, playing the martyr (eg diff, diff, and recently created Conso International Corporation which looks a lot like undisclosed paid editing, and from which KDS444 recently removed a "notability" tag, placed by a NPPer here.

Today, they moved a draft of another paid article that had been at AfC to mainspace, with an edit note Article has been ready for publication for weeks, have now removed from AfC queue.

From my perspective, it is clear that getting paid is more important to KDS444 than being a good citizen. I am proposing a community ban. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I cannot comment on the suppressed page contents, but I can confirm just one salient fact: "KDS4444's OTRS access was revoked, by the decision of OTRS administrators, after KDS4444 was found to be using OTRS access to the system to solicit customers for payment to edit articles". -
  Mailer Diablo 06:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support site ban. The diffs alone are pretty discouraging but if the OTRS conduct is also true (which I cannot verify), I think there is no question that KDS4444 is not here to improve the project but only to make profit off it. De728631 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, temporary interruption: What are summaries of OTRS tickets, naming real people, doing publicly published on-wiki? I could very easily be wrong - SPhilbrick has always seemed to know what he's doing - but I'm suppressing this page until someone assures me that this is OK, and the people who wrote to OTRS - and who's names are visible - either OK'd having their names published, or don't have the right to privacy I thought they had. Discussion can of course continue, but maybe discuss the deleted OTRS page on a subthread or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Floq I had the same concern and emailed a few people about it back when I first saw it a few weeks ago. Given that a) I too assume that Sphilbrick knows what they doing; b) it was still there and c) nothing has happened and d) KDS444's escalating bad behavior, I have just put the cards on the table for the community to act. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for your concern, Floq, you've got a point there. I'm not an OTRS rules expert, but according to meta:Access to nonpublic information policy, non-public OTRS information may be released when "community members needs to stop damage to the Wikimedia Sites". What was released here does in fact look like damage to Wikipedia as well as to the OTRS "customer" side. De728631 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that, as far as I can tell, the damage was NOT (or was not always) being caused by the people whose names were published. A lot of these were apparently unsolicited offers from KDS4444. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right to have suppressed that. It should never have been posted on-wiki. The identities of who submit tickets should never be disclosed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I have seen some of the background but was astounded to see
  WP:NOTHERE exists than someone who cannot immediately see that an OTRS agent should not accept cash let alone solicit payment. Johnuniq (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support and I was actually going to oppose it initially: the whining is annoying, but we have plenty of editors who whine about things, so its not that big of a deal for me, and OTRS is a meta issue, and it has been addressed. However, this move today combined with the concerns that Jytdog has brought forth make me convinced that KDS4444 is not here actually to comply with our COI guideline and PAID policy, but to try to find every possible way around them in order to make money and advocate for his clients. That is unacceptable and has reached the level of disruption that a community ban is warranted. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reflecting on the OTRS thing since I first learned about what KDS444 was doing there. OTRS is run through meta but it was started by WP editors (I believe that Guy was one of the initiators) and I believe that it is mostly staffed by WP editors and most of the concerns are about WP articles. So even though OTRS is run through meta and his privileges were already removed there, the abuse of OTRS is something that should be addressed here; I feel strongly about that. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS abuse is a meta issue, and has been addressed there. What is an en.wiki issue is that he used global rights (which OTRS technically is even though it confers no actual on-wiki technical abilities) to solicit money in private for paid promotional editing on the English Wikipedia. If he had solicited money from a company to factually correct their existing article, while I'd think it was scummy, I'd be content to leave that as an OTRS issue since it technically would not have violated any local en.wiki policy. The difference is that he actively sought to use global rights to violate en.wiki policy (NOTSPAM), and even after it had been explained to him how the COI process must work, decided that he was too good for it today and went ahead and directly published an article without receiving review. All of that combined is enough for me to be fine with a site ban because it is clear he is only here to promote clients and WikiLawyer about why he should be able to do that. It makes his presence on this site a net-negative. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, absolutely. In the words of Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it". This user is very determined not to understand that the Wikipedia community is not overjoyed with people profiting form the volunteer efforts of others. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per
  WP:NOTHERE. It's clear, based on the information above, that he is only interested in money. Additionally, this is problematic. Nihlus 21:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose' KDS4444 has made over 17,000 edits and created more than 150 pages (almost all as a volunteer) over 9 years of editing. The editor has never been blocked. Before trying a site ban I'd much rather see us try a lesser step and see if it works. In particular, I'm perfectly ok if KDS4444 is banned from moving drafts into mainspace (he should have known better on that one), and from directly editing pages for which he is being paid in mainspace. - Bilby (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And over 9 years they have not learnt how to handle confidential information despite being an OTRS member. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't the one who publicly posted the confidential information here, including identities of people who submitted OTRS tickets. As far as I am aware,the accusations against KDS4444 are not related to a lack of confidentiality, but to inappropriate responses to OTRS requests.

KDS4444 should be banned from OTRS, and has been, for using it the way they did, and that should be a consideration in actions here. But I don't think we should jump straight to a site ban for the OTRS actions, and the on-wiki actions don't seem anywhere near sufficient to warrant a site ban without trying something else first. - Bilby (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And how certain are you that all paid edits have been declared? I strongly suspect they have not. I do not believe that the user is complying with the terms of use. The OTRS issue is not separate fomr this. The OTRS issue is a violation of the terms of use, right there. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without any evidence that there have been other paid edits, and given KDS4444's openness about being a paid editor, I see no reason to believe that there are undisclosed paid edits. Do you have anything to show that this has occured? If there is sufficient evidence of undisclosed paid edits, I'd certainly rethink my position, but none have been raised to date.

OTRS is a problem for meta. Given that we aren't supposed to even know the contents of those emails based on the privacy policy, I'm surprised that we can even discuss it in such detail here. That said, from what has been said I am completely opposed to KDS4444's actions on OTRS. If people feel that it is a concern for us then I'm ok with that. But personally I don't like this jump straight to a full site ban for a problem that occurred elsewhere, without anything else been tried here first or sufficient on-wiki actions to justify it. - Bilby (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bilby, a huge amount has been done about it. So much so that it has become a time sink for many of us. It's even spawned RFCs by Doc James which you are well aw:are of. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing looking at issues raised by KDS4444's editing, and addressing KDS4444's editing with sanctions less than a site ban. Generally I'd expect some direct attempts to sanction an editor before moving to a site ban. Has a partial ban been tried? The block log is empty, so I assume nothing has been tried there.

I would fully support a partial ban before moving to a site ban, but I can't, in good conscious, support jumping to a site ban based on the small number of on-wiki issues being shown here without at least trying a partial ban first. The OTRS issue is different, and I'm open to a community decision that we can site ban someone for actions committed on OTRS, but personally I'd rather see that managed elsewhere. - Bilby (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support - The editor's behavior is completely unconscionable. He soils the entire project by being allowed to continue editing here. I'm not sure why the WMF hasn't globally banned him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite block here. OTRS access already removed. Jonathunder (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- long-running and entrenched issue; volunteer time is best spent elsewhere rather than having to deal with promo articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Probably should have happened earlier. MarnetteD|Talk 00:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't like requesting a siteban for someone who's been a functionary, but this is exceptional — as far as abuse of the system is concerned, there aren't many things worse than using your advanced user rights to try to make money. The solicitation itself is an issue for Meta, but related actions here are an issue for us. I won't say "go away and never come back", but this kind of thing warrants "go away and never come back unless you can persuade the community to change its mind", and that's only going to happen with a lot of evidence for usefulness. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per basically everyone upthread. What a waste of volunteer time, just so he can make a little cash. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. "I have advanced user rights on Wikipedia, I can get your article on there for $____" should result in an automatic ban, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we get a clear statement from an OTRS agent about whether it is accurate that KDS actually said something similar to the above characterization by The Bushranger? I don't want to jump on this without having all the facts, but if something like that was said, that is incompatible with continued editing of the project. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The most I feel comfortable saying at this point is that they have not used that exact phrasing ("I have advanced rights") or anything similar. Primefac (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Echo Pfac.I do not recall about KDS using the exact phrasing, in his solicitations.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It may not be exact words, but it's the clear implication, from how this is presented. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I rather fear I started the ball rolling here without mentioning names. No one has tried more to reason with KDS more than I and Jytdog but it has had little effect. Our conditions are lax in even permitting disclosed paid editing (under the assumption that it will prevent it going underground), but some take this to mean that they can make a deliberate career of it. KDS's main issue is that he is fiercly trying to avoid refunding his clients' money as becomes particularly evident in his persistence to get Stewart Levenson published (although the actual rejection of this article is a lack of notability as clearly set forth by Voceditenore) at Draft talk:Stewart Levenson. My objection to paid editing of any kind (except WIR) is that it is freeloading on the voluntary work of the editors who contribute content and maintain the quality of it. It practically always involves promotion of some kind, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We all know the OP has a bone to pick with anyone who ever recieved/s a cent ever for any edit done on Wikipedia. KDS, be more concerned with being a good "citizen" than getting paid. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • L3X1, I consider this oppose along with the edit summary to be bordering on a personal attack on Jytdog. Jytdog in fact has probably done the most of any editor we have to strike a balance between neutrality and COI/paid editing. They are one of the few editors who actually is willing to work with COI editors in reviewing their requests instead of simply reverting them. Jytdog also in the past has proposed things such as a Guild of paid editors for those paid editors who do follow our policies and guidelines (a proposal I strongly opposed, and still do). While you are free to oppose this sanction and to disagree with Jytdog's views on COI/paid editing, your characterization of them here is not true. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry it came across that way, but based off all the evidence I have seen that "balance" involves making paid editors wish they had a less stressful hobby. I believe article creation for profit and advocacy editing can be a problem, but I think they should be attacked/resolved in a manner that doesn't to me look like borderlin harrassment. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for striking your comment. I do not consider requiring that KDS4444 comply with our policies to be harassment, and I agree with what he was told by Doc James yesterday: You disclosing does not give you a free ride to add promotional material to Wikipedia and use advanced privileges to try to get further money. KDS has not tried to follow our rules on the English Wikipedia. Full stop. He has tried to use the global terms of use a bludgeon to force us to accept articles that are clearly in violation of our local policies and guidelines, and has abused a global right (OTRS) on en.wiki to violate our policies for his personal income. That is why we are talking about site banning him: he has violated local policies while trying to hold us hostage to the bare minimum requirements for even being able to hit the save button. That is disruption that is worthy of a site ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we proposing an infinite block/ban or a limited with auto unblock and the standard conditions. L3X1 (distænt write) 05:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The English Wikipedia does not have infinite sanctions. Site bans are indefinite, but even Betacommand is having his appeal considered. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was what I was implying. Beta's been trying to get unblocked for 5 years. The last one had multiple proposals of various levels attended by a multitude of editors, and even though the appeal is still under consideration, he is still blocked from en.wiki. DrStrauss (the guy, not the account) probably has a good chance of getting an account unblocked (or a new account with Arbcom's approval) because the level of his disruption is limited to deceit and socking. Indulge my crystal ball for a moment: the problem is that when the 6 months roll up, a good number of editors won't be bothered to support KDS's return. "Prove that you've repented" "How will we know that you aren't still taking payment" "unblock=might be trouble, blocked=no trouble" Comments like that and energetic opposition can sink a appeal either by numbers or by preventing consensus. And if KDS is site banned, wouldn't that mean he can't participate in any wiki-project? News, commons, fr.wiki, meta, media etc, right? At least Beta and Strauss can try to show penitence, a sitebanAn indef block will IMO be a damnatio ad beastias for KDS. L3X1 (distænt write) 05:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just thought I would chime in here. This discussion, on the English Wikipedia's AN has absolutely no bearing on any other projects. This is not meta. This is not a global ban discussion. Site ban != global ban. They are free to prove that they can follow rules on other projects to their heart's content. --Majora (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks. I'll strick those parts then. L3X1 (distænt write) 05:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The user is not here to write a decent encyclopedia. They are here to make money for themselves by adding promotional content about their clients. There comes a point when enough is enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Trust has vanished due to the egregious OTRS misconduct. It was also an act of defiance of community norms to move a paid biography of an artist of very dubious notability from draft space to mainspace, bypassing AFC which was established, at least in part, to allow ethical, regulated editing by paid editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Accepting payments for the creation of promotional "articles" and abusing positions of community trust to solicit said services are both completely incompatible with being here to help us build a volunteer curated encyclopedia. MER-C 07:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Actively soliciting for paid work using OTRS is simply appalling behaviour (and yes, it is an en.wiki problem if it is soliciting for paid work on en.wiki). That, coupled with things like moving his own paid drafts (especially of dubious notability) into main space, show that KDS4444's prime motivation is self-enrichment and not building an encyclopedia. I'm happy to admit that I share my friend Kudpung's distaste for most paid editing, but I do recognize it is allowed under disclosure rules, and also that there is a spectrum of paid editing which at one end covers altruistic work like the WIR programme (and things like simple factual updates by company employees seem fine to me too), but what we're looking at here is firmly at the parasite end of the spectrum. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support In addition to the OTRS issue, this alone should warrant community ban - don't use/abuse English Wikipedia publishing, or fellow English Wikipedia editors in disagreements with a client - either to prove something to the client or to waste the time of other editors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't have a problem with paid editing in and of itself. Everyone has to make a living, and if you can generate an income by editing Wikipedia in a manner consistent with its policies, far be it from me to tell you not to. On the other hand, if you're editing in a manner consistent with policy, you're very unlikely to come to the attention of even the most zealous of the paid editing opponents, and if you're attracting such attention, you're doing something wrong. Clearly something is very wrong here, and using OTRS to solicit for paid work is abhorrent; OTRS access is a position of great trust and you are essentially speaking "for Wikipedia". Add to that the deliberate creation of an inappropriate article to prove a point to a client and clearly the bottom line is more important than writing proper, neutral encyclopaedia articles. And for that reason, support: not for paid editing, but for bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if the community decides he should be indefinitely banned, fine, just wondering whether desysopping and editing restrictions would resolve the issue but retain a good editor with 17,000+ edits to en.wiki.fish&karate 14:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Fish and karate, KDS is not an admin, nor do they (currently) have any advanced permissions. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, my bad - I assumed he would be with OTRS access. Never assume! Above comment amended appropriately. fish&karate 14:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]