Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

2015 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination pages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015.

For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Personal attacks alleged

(Retitled to "Personal attacks alleged" from non-neutral "Personal attacks by QuackGuru". See wp:talknew. --doncram 13:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC))

QuackGuru has engaged in personal attacks. In violation of AGF and misrepresenting me and my edits. Contrary to warning diff he continues to post links to a closed WP:AN/I section that was closed no consensus in an effort to discredit me. The attacks are not on point, but personal, not directed to the topic, but me. This has no place on the talk pages of WP articles.

• His latest including a link to the closed WP:AN/I section in the edits comments. diff diff
• Previous linking of the section closed WP:AN/I in edit comments. diff
• He even uses a user page to hold the information so he can easily paste it. diff
• He has placed the link in comments on an admin's user page, and the edit is a pure attack.diff
• He has placed the link in the comments and the attack on a request for page protection that I made. diff

Edit March 10, 2015 (added 5 more diff's below)

• So not to get lost in the long discussion. QuackGuru on this page made another more serious harassing post towards me on my disability here. This is an ongoing pattern.
• Another link to the section in comments to discredit me diff
• Another link to the section in comments to discredit me diff
• Another link to the section in comments to discredit me diff
• Links to the old AN/I section and misrepresents the nature of it to discredit me. diff (note: 4 difs added by AlbinoFerret in this dif and this dif today Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC))

This has to stop, There are serious violations of WP:EQ including misrepresenting, AGF, and making the discussion on the other editor and not the topic and WP:HARASS for the persistently trying to discredit me over old and resolved WP:AN/I sections. Asking him to stop has done no good. Smearing another editor should not be done. AlbinoFerret 03:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So the first dif is "User:AlbinoFerret claims "You have not discussed one edit in the 19k characters you inserted."[1] But I did discuss sources User:AlbinoFerret deleted.[2] The response was "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[3] That is not a specific objection for excluding relevant information. User:AlbinoFerret is not here to improve this page IMO. how is deleting numerous reliable sources improving this page? QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)"

I am not seeing anything ANI worthy there. Sorry Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru, thanks for pointing out I had the wrong diff. I have struck out the wrong one and placed the correct one. AlbinoFerret 03:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• This comment "WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless" by User:AlbinoFerret makes me wonder if a topic ban WP:Boomerang would be useful though. See how consensus is that WHO is one of the best medical sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Bringing concerns to a noticeboard is what they are for [4]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That discussion already happened in the WP:AN/I QuackGuru keeps linking to and is now 5 months old. It is a content disagreement, and this focus of this section isnt on content, but the persistent personal attacks by QuackGuru. The noticeboard is only one place out of many, and it was the noticeboard for page protection, not a place to level personal attacks or discuss editors. AlbinoFerret 03:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Can someone please point out the personal attack? I do not immediately see the insult being directed. I think we are nearing 150 days of daily edit warring at this article so I recognize the tension. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree BR, I don't see WP:NPA here. I do see unhelpful behaviour, not unidirectionally, including WP:IDHT, WP:Battleground and WP:NOTHERE. I fully understand AF's furstration at QG's massive undiscussed edits on a controversial topic, usually I find with reasonable content in them but lots of dross that doesn't add to the article as well. I also understand QG's frustration with AF undoing what is a large amount of work. But QG is persistently trying to discredit AF over old and resolved ANI threads. I don't know what can be done to reduce the tension at the e-cigarette family of Articles but I think some form of sanctions need to be handed out to those making it harder for productive collaboration to happen. SPACKlick (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think sanctions might be the way to go here since there are multiple problem editors. Many editors left and unwatched the article as it became toxic. Considering how often e-cigs have come up at WP:RSN where decent medical sources always seemed to be challenged by the same group of editors, I'm concerned there may be significant POVs running the discussion. The more problematic POV seems to be being critical specifically of sources that are critical of e-cigs. There are behavior issues tied to how editors are dealing with content, so it doesn't seem like it's easily addressed here at ANI where people will say it's just a content dispute and ignore the behavior problems within it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry While it is not classically defined WP:NPA it is WP:HARASS and the two are very close. AlbinoFerret 14:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• QuackGuru, it would be better to please keep this diff collection on your own computer, not Wikipedia. Thank you. Otherwise, I don't see harassment here, and certainly not personal attacks. I agree with Doc James there's nothing for admins to do. Bishonen | talk 16:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen So, its ok to smear another editor by bringing up old AN/I sections, even those that were closed with no consensus of wrongdoing. Even on article talk pages and others in an attempt to discredit and smear another editor? AlbinoFerret 18:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Bringing up what you have stated before is not a smear. Possibly a topic ban of User:AlbinoFerret would improve things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I do think you may be right, that at least a temporary (perhaps 3 month) TBAN from electronic cigarette articles would be good for AlbinoFerret's equilibrium. This is an issue where advocates are running well ahead of the evidence, and this is necessarily a source of friction and controversy. The Wikipedia articles are a classic case of WP:TRUTH. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with considering a temp TBAN. I had a discussion with AF on my talk page awhile back [5] about them being too locked-in to the topic and not being able to step back. Looking at the current situation I do think it would be helpful to both AF and the topic if they had a break. The previous ANI on AF specifically said there was no consensus at the time on an action, but that is very different from saying there wasn't a behavior problem. I think AF definitely has the potential to approach things more evenly (this conversation did give me some hope), but they really need to step out of their single topic and get experience in less contentious topics since their posting history looks like a WP:SPA right now.Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not a WP:SPA, I edit other pages and have other interests. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James, The whole other section was a smear campaign, started by you. All based on content disputes. Had it resulted in a finding against me, perhaps it could be used here. But it didnt, and talk pages of articles are not the place to try and bring up dirt on another editor. AlbinoFerret 21:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Some of what Albino says is valid, in that this is the proper forum for bringing the list of diffs - not article Talk pages or admin Talk pages. Deploying the list in that way is harassment-y and I think QG should be warned to address behavior issues in appropriate venues going forward. However I don't agree with anything else Albino has written. (particularly his claim that it was not valid to link to the ANI section concerning a topic ban against him; we all know that many ANIs lose focus and become sprawling, uncloseable messes, as that one did. There was plenty of solid feedback on Albino's behavior in that ANI, however, and linking to it is OK.) Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• it appears that QuackGuru has not taken down the page tracking Albino's behavior yet, despite being advised to do so by an admin, which is not good. QG, it is fine to build such a list but you have to deploy it and then get rid of it. You may have not been ready to use it but your hand is forced now. So - either just delete it, or post it here with a request for admin or community action against Albino, and then delete it. But either way, it should go. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Bishonen, I put a hat on it for now. Is this good enough for now or do you still prefer I blank the page. I'm not done with it. This will go to arbcom if admins don't do anything soon. QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Quackguru see WP:POLEMIC - it is OK to compile a list of behaviors in your userspace but you must use it timely. That is why i said that your hand has been forced, and you have to use it and lose it, or just lose it. It seems like you have enough there to request the community to topic-ban, and this is the place to do that. The last one could have potentially succeeded but it was lost in that totally sprawling ANI. But i will get out of the way and let bish answer. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Quackguru, for you to blank it yourself would be an acceptable compromise, from where I stand, between the hat and putting a speedy tag on it. Blanking isn't a problem, is it? The material would still be at your fingertips via the history. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC).

A short time ago I did blank the page. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Block for QuackGuru

QuackGuru has a long history of blocks and banns log including a past block for personal attacks and harassment. He appears to be a WP:SPA that focuses on controversial medical articles. Past short banns and blocks have done no good. I proposed a indefinite block or alternately a one year block. He has engaged in harassment WP:HARASS again. His actions to remove some of the harassment dont go far enough, the edit summaries are still there as well as the attacks on talk pages. AlbinoFerret 13:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret proposed the same thing before and that went nowhere fast. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#Block_or_Ban. A return WP:BOOMERANG will resolve the issue at hand. QuackGuru (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I endorse an immediate block for QuackGuru for this edit. I note that QuackGuru regards me as WP:INVOLVED per this section of his talk page. It lists a collection of dubious statements and untrue allegations against me, and has done since December 2014 in violation of WP:POLEMIC. If QG has issues with me I request that they address them in the proper way. While I do not accept that I am INVOLVED here, I do request that another admin make the block. --John (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru has no right to comment on AlbinoFerret's private life whatsoever, let alone assume he's lying about things QuackGuru can't know anything about. I've warned him. Bishonen | talk 19:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC).

How many warnings will QG get for harassment? AlbinoFerret 13:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the same amount of WP:ROPE you've been given to continue your obvious advocacy. BMK (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Obvious advocacy? You are incorrect. That is a baseless false charge. AlbinoFerret 15:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Really, a "baseless false charge"? If that is so, it is one that is accepted as true by a goodly number of very experienced editors who voted in support of a topic ban for you. Your advocacy isn't in the least covert, it is, as several have commented, easily recognizable. BMK (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to count the total number of past warnings against QuackGuru, so I'll simply list the notices given recently:

• 16 December 2014: A notice by admin Adjwilley was given for ignoring administrative advice and attacking an administrator
• 3 January 2015: A notice by admin Rjanag was given for plagiarism
• 3 February 2015: A warning by admin Shii was issued for edit warring
• 5 February 2015: A warning by admin Kww was issued to QuackGuru for attacking User:Middle 8 in bad faith

I suppose one could give QuackGuru another warning and remind him not to ignore administrative advice or attack editors, as has been done many times in the past, but I don't think such an approach would be helpful to the community (or the administrators). This editor was blocked many years ago for canvassing via email and making misleading accusations, and it appears that with every successive administrative warning, his disruptive behavior continues to worsen and escalate. -A1candidate 16:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition I think that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:QuackGuru may give light into QuackGuru's activities on electronic cigarette in the recent past. It has not gotten any better. Arguing round in circles trying to get a press release used for medical content, making 20000 character edits in private with no notice or discussion on the talk page. AlbinoFerret 16:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that QuackGuru's ownership of articles is highly detrimental to the consensus building process and I note that he had been previously warned (and blocked) for making edits without first seeking consensus but am not surprised that he continues to ignore all administrative warnings. -A1candidate 16:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You folks have a nice little circle going on here, a walled garden of mutually supportive comments, mostly between SPAs with the same objective in mind. Only problem is, every comment just makes the groups' general lack of objectivity even more obvious. BMK (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not an SPA, and I suggest you strike out that comment. -A1candidate 13:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Since I'm just back from a sepsis-enforced break I don't want to step in and make what would be a controversial block, especially in a situation where an uninvolved admin decided to just warn you for it, but Quack, that was unnecessary and under different circumstances (and if I'd beaten Bish here,) I probably would've blocked you. If you do something similar in the future, I probably will. You do a lot of important content work, but there's really no reason to make such a comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support immediate block - This recent comment by QuackGuru was clearly targeted against an editor's personal life. The edit summary was highly inappropriate, inexplicably cruel and plain disgusting. Given that the comment was made on the administrators' noticeboard where editors should be particularly mindful of their own behavior, and that QuackGuru had been previously warned and blocked for long-standing patterns of personal harrassment and disruptive editing (see block log and recent warnings), I think a much longer block might be necessary. We are not dealing with a new or inexperienced editor, but a disruptive, long-term editor (account created in 2006) who knows enough about Wikipedia's guidelines and policies but continues to ignore them ad infinitum. A1candidate 13:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support per A1candidate. That comment from QG was beyond the pale. Considering his long list of blocks for the same type of behavior, I would hope such a block would be longer than a day or two. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • A1 and WV please pay attention - above an admin has already said they took action for that comment. That incident is done. A1 I understand you both would love to get rid of QG b/c he fights quackery but. In any case this attempt to pile on and override an admin is as unseemly as QG's remark. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC) (amended per Winkelvi's objection below. my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC))
    • There's nothing wrong with QG fighting quackery, except that he does it while violating a series of well-established behaviorial guidelines. His attempt to enforce a topic ban on me does not give me much hope that he will ever change his behavior. -A1candidate 22:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Jytdog, HOW CAN YOU EQUATE A SLUR with a call to sanction a slur?! It's entirely appropriate to debate whether a stronger sanction is warranted given the repugnance of what QuackGuru said; it is nauseatingly out of bounds. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Middle 8 I'll answer although the question seems more rhetorical than actually looking for an answer. I agree the comment was out of bounds - I was the one who hatted it. I also agree it was foul. I disagree with calling what he did a "slur" as he didn't insult AF based on his disability - instead he called AF a liar. It was a low blow, stupid, personal attack based on nothing; very bad judgement on multiple levels, especially in this context. I do see whipping up hysteria over a stupid comment, and trying to use that to gain momentum for a block, in the midst of a very badly framed case, as cynical and manipulative. So yeah, as unseemly as QG's remark, on a different vector. You may recall that I voted in favor of your RfC/U, even though it too was malformed. I think QG is very vulnerable to topic or even site banning based on a very clear record of bad behavior. he functions as kind of a "beserker" on fringe topics where you have alt med or other kinds of POV-pushers opposing sound MEDRS usage, and he goes right up to the line all the time, and over it, not infrequently. Just like he does at the e-cigs articles. I don't like to edit where he is working and leave ... but when he shows up things are pretty far gone already. Anyway, if you look at how this thread started, the case against QG is even more badly formed than your RfC/U, and that one failed too. (I said so way above, before you joined the discussion here) This one does not cut it. I am baffled as to why someone hasn't framed a clear case against him already. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Jytdog, yes, rhetorical. You see it as bad and I see it as terrible. Calling someone a liar about their disability is for sure a slur ("an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation"), and it was gratuitous, dickish and cruel (see my comment below to Ched). We'll have to agree to disagree on the import/properness of A1C highlighting it here; my view is that it's not just about this case: given the well-known context of QG's long and checkered history, it's unacceptable, mean-spirited. In any context on WP it's an 8/10 on the NPA scale (where 9 is the N-word and 10 is falsely calling someone a pedophile). A line was crossed. One just doesn't do that to people.... especially in a situation where collegiality is expected. I agree with your other comments, and if/when a stronger case is brought, I am pretty sure that said diff will feature. I may bring it to Jimbo's attention anyway. One does not screw with someone over their disability, including accusing them of lying about it ("disability policing" is corrosive); disability is hard enough as it is. Revolting. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 20:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC) edited20:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    • "I understand you both would love to get rid of QG b/c he fights quackery" Jytdog, what the "eff" are you talking about? I haven't encountered QC before seeing this AN/I (that I'm aware of) so I have no idea what kind of "quackery" he fights (I'm not even sure what that means). Your accusation is out of line, but certainly not as out of line as QC's comments about AF. He has a long block log that testifies to his history of bullying and harassment. Your comments imply he's performing a necessary service to Wikipedia that we should all be grateful for. The truth is, Wikipedia is a WP:CHOICE and would do just fine without any of us. AGF and NPA, however, is not a choice -- it is required. In my opinion, your attempts to dismiss what he said by trying to assign ulterior motives to those who are supporting a block based on those comments are disgusting to me personally. I hope we never have to connect in WP again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Winkelvi my apologies for lumping you with A1. That was sloppy of me and I apologize. I struck above accordingly. Again, my apologies. We actually have crossed paths briefly. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Fine, I accept the apology, Jytdog. For the record, the crossing of paths comment was in reference to QG. I appreciate you striking the comments that included me, however, I still am not okay with your defense of QG and the reasons for said defense. It seems there is a suggestion that QC's contributions should outweigh the fact he questioned and mocked someone's disability status. Not acceptable, in my view. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks that is gracious of you. i think you are still misunderstanding my perspective - pls see my comment to middle8 above. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (oy, forgot a crucial "mis". additional note. i do agree that the remark was disgusting. really i do. Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC))
• Support - I completely agree with weeding out quackery, but there are enough people willing to do it without QuackGuru's uncooperative, bullying style of editing. It looks like he's had plenty warnings and chances to improve his behaviour, but he clearly has no intention of doing so.--37.201.58.102 (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support block per John -- Set aside the other complaints; John is right that accusing someone of lying about their disability deserves an immediate block. It's a gratuitous slur, and worse than a lot of people probably realize: "disability policing" is real and corrosive. This cuts deep in ways that perhaps only people affected by disability can fully grasp. While QuackGuru may not have been aware of "disability policing", he damn well should have known his accusation was afoul of NPA, especially with a long block log and eight years of editing. Still, our standards should reflect growing disability awareness. Some may dismiss my comments as cynical since I've clashed with QuackGuru, but I find this triggering and it transcends WP politics. I apologize to Bishonen (who declined John's suggestion to block) and others for suggesting below that merely warning QG shows softness and callousness, and am hatting my (largely) hot and ABF comments just below. Still, John is right and we shouldn't tolerate such attacks. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 23:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

collapsing excessively hot and ABF comments made in reaction to personal attack
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
*Great -- now Wikipedia is going all callous about NPA and slurs based on disability. Apparently NPA means nothing as long as the attacker is well-liked, the attackee is not, and the attack is on a relatively invisible, disadvantaged group. Quackguru just insinuated an editor was lying about having a disability. Are you people that tone-deaf? If ANY editor had said what QG said about race or sexual orientation or gender, they'd be blocked or banned in a heartbeat. The only thing worse is outright stereotyping. Disability rights, as a movement, isn't taken seriously compared to other rights movements; we see this everywhere, great job Wikipedia. If SOME of the other editors here had said what QG said -- especially to a "favored" editor -- they'd be at least blocked, even though QG has a longer block log than the large majority of editors whose conduct comes up for review. And should know better, has edited for over 8 years.[6] WP's double standard on NPA is now de facto policy, as is the "ends justify the means" attitude. As if the antidote for "civil POV pushing" is incivility, no matter how offensive it gets. Yes, I've been on the other side of content disputes with QuackGuru but this goes way deeper than that because it's about disability. I have direct experience with it (in multiple ways; it's intense, exhausting, takes away opportunities every day -- it is what it is but at least show some respect). And I've seen how damaging it is when self-appointed "disability police" challenge others' disabilities. Being disabled is hard enough without all the cluelessness and bullshit people lay on you. Nauseating hypocrisy: a warning is all that's given [7] despite the magnitude of NPA violation, and in spite of the block log and years of editing. (And as usual, QG removes the warning right away [8][9].) At least User:John gets it; [10] from your comments, most of the rest of you admins don't. OK, enough. The double standard is sickening, and the tone-deafness to disability just makes me numb with rage. Great job, people. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC) copy-edited 13:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Striking; my intent with hatting was to strike the whole thing, but now that I'm striking so as to be exactly clear about my intentions, I'll leave one part.01:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. QG partakes in low-level and/or borderline transgressions on a regular basis, then occasionally, often when he thinks he can get away with it he ups the ante and completely oversteps the mark. The fact that QG went and made that comment kind of vindicates AF's original claims that QG was personally attacking him. QG thought things were going his way and that a WP:BOOMERANG was heading towards AF so he chanced his luck with more blatant attacks. Looks like he'll probably get away with it as well. I'm not going to recommend anything is done with QG, I'll leave that up to less involved editors but I do know from experience that QG is an impossible editor to work with and that he is not interested in consensus, never has been, probably never will be. People say he fights quackery, but there are plenty of editors that fight quackery that do not have long block logs for personal attacks, harassment, disruptive editing, edit warring, etc. Unfortunately many of these editors, whom I have a reasonable degree of respect for, seem to support QG.Levelledout (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW comment. QG has been around for a long time. I think there's a huge "WP:IDHT" issue with them, but I don't think it's deliberate. Anything related to "disabilities" is a very sensitive topic, and with good reason. Yes, QG is very tendentious by nature, and it can be very exasperating. Personally I had a few very long conversations with QG long ago, and I came to one conclusion: I don't think there's an ounce of intent to hurt anyone in his efforts here. Yes, .. he tends to go through things here with blinders on - but I don't think there's any intent to do harm in him. If you told QG "you hurt my feelings", he would spend hours digging up diffs and links to prove that he didn't. QG is doing his best to help the project, but I doubt is has ever crossed his mind to NPA/attack anyone. Just IMO. — Ched :  ?  16:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I too, tried to have a conversation with QG long ago. That apparently did not work out, and he eventually acknowledged the futility of such an approach by stating in the edit summary that he was "not interested" to listen. His most recent attempt to enforce a topic ban on me right after I opposed his attempt to ban AF is disingenuous, to say the least. -A1candidate 16:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I do understand your frustrations, and I wish I had an answer for you - but I can't think of one. There's a huge resistance to anything "fringe" related on wikipedia. The project secures itself in fact. Until you can actually prove that the earth is round - it will remain flat. That's just the nature of the beast. The best I can offer is this: don't tilt at windmills, recognize brick walls when you see them - and don't beat your head on them, and take comfort in your own beliefs - even if other's don't share them. — Ched :  ?  17:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments there Ched, I probably shouldn't have brought intent into it since its the conduct issues that ultimately matter.Levelledout (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Ched - I too had the impression that QG was fundamentally benign for some time until I saw his mean side. For example, WP:DICK, mocking other editors: Mallexikon: "I think you clarified this very nicely.'; Quackguru: "I think I clarified this very nicely.". He's also held a grudge toward me that started after I co-signed an RfC on him (which was concurrently brought with a thread at AN). Since then it's been POKE and BATTLEGROUND (below) despite multiple olive branches attempts [11][12][13][14] (which he just deletes from his user talk).

• Wikistalking: 10 petty examples [15]
• GAME-y/KETTLE accusations: characterizing edits I made as bad when he did the same thing [16]
• Repeated, baiting, disingenuous "questions" about COI despite an explanation right in my signature line (Middle 8 (contribs • COI)) and multiple good-faith answers: (asked | answered twice); (asked); (asked | answered).

The above is not innocent. But it doesn't matter; NPA and CIVIL are to be applied only selectively, apparently.

So, no, I don't accept that QG's slur against AlbinoFerret was anything other than an attempt to mock and discredit them. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 18:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (struck sentence 02:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes suppression of legitimate discussion regarding QG's conduct on their talk page to avoid detection is yet another issue, I have an example of that: "archive - drama over". Edit: Another, better example, of plain deletion this time: diffLevelledout (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose here (for now) and take to ArbCom instead. Given that QG's behavior is so heavily tied to other editors and their actions in the topic, his behavior would seem better evaluated at ArbCom instead along with the suite of e-cig issues. The case below this seems to be much more standalone, but QG's actions are so intertwined with other editor's actions and mired in controversial topics it would seem a more methodical look by ArbCom would be more appropriate than a knee-jerk reaction here. People end up dealing with a lot of crap when dealing with fringe or advocacy type editors, so some of that does need to be disentangled in the topic. That being said, I do think QG can go too far sometimes. We don't afford people with disabilities any special privileges over anyone else here, and talking about AF's situation is going to be tough no matter what. WP:NOTTHERAPY has been brought up in that regard, but that's really as far as any conversation about disability should have gone. Since action has already been taken with regard to QG's comment on whether AF is disabled or not, are more systemic look at behavior at the article and with users is needed to really discuss the appropriateness of a block. I don't see that here at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

He has been previously banned by Arbcom for similar behavioral issues and POV-pushing patterns. The Committee concluded that there was no apparent progress in QG's approach to editing. That was back in 2011. We are now in 2015, but has anything improved after four years of leniency and good faith assumptions? -A1candidate 18:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Chastising QG for a lack of progress in an area where essentially no progress has been made is a little one-sided, though. If everyone that attempted to warp our articles in favor of pseudoscience was simultaneously and indefinitely banned, wouldn't that do far more good?—Kww(talk) 20:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That would do far more good if you take into account QG's repeated attempts to claim that mummified tattoo marks "conform to acupuncture points". How is that not a blatant act of pseudoscience advocacy against prior consensus? -A1candidate 22:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Levelledout .. understood. I think perhaps given the scope of all of this, that it is beyond what Ani is tasked to do Perhaps the WP:RFAR route is the best option. — Ched :  ?  19:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose ArbCom action should be undertaken. There has been much contentious editing from all sides. Blocking isn't going to resolve the issues. Jim1138 (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The question of why this has not been elevated long before this... Jim1138 (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I said it above and I will say it again here. I think a good, PAG-based (not emotion/rhetoric-based) case could be pretty easily made, with about a couple hours of work finding difs. This case, is not that case, and thinking about a closer looking at !votes above, it does not appear that there is PAG-based consensus for a block here. In my view, the notion of punting his case to arbcom is just that - punting. The same work would have to go into it then, to make the case, so why not just do it here? (Arbcom cases don't happen by magic - diffs have to be brought, etc) So withdraw the mess above, and start a new, clean, well-formed thread, if it really matters to any of the supporters. (AlbinoFerret is the one who brought this: I believe he is the only who can withdraw it) Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

So you agree that there is reason to block him but it needs to have a pretty bow on it. AlbinoFerret 12:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret your reply is of a piece with your general lack of alignment with, and understanding of, how WP works. The community doesn't take action based on emotion, and we don't edit or resolve content disputes, based on what somebody likes or doesn't like. This isn't facebook. We have policies and guidelines that express the community's consensus on things, and we strive to edit based on them, behave based on them, and resolve disputes through reasoned discussion based on them. Reasoned and discerning WP:CONSENSUS is the very heart of this place. Hand-wavy "he's a dick" complaints don't go anywhere, and don't deserve to go anywhere - they don't provide a basis for rational discussion of the issues.Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with Doc James and Jytdog. And I'm not asserting Quackguru has done nothing wrong! But yes, this is whipping up hysteria over a stupid comment. Cloudjpk (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

A stupid comment? It was an attack. A low blow, and it follows attempts to discredit and harass me elsewhere. I should be surprised that anyone could come up with a defence of his actions, especially the one here on this page. You and the two editors you mention want a slap on a wrist, but only for an editor who edits with you, and who's edits you agree with. Had this been a first time, perhaps but we are way past first time as shown by QuackGuru's extensive history of harassment, edit warring, and other violations. AlbinoFerret 12:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Has been warned [17] And has acknowledged. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can get as annoyed as the next person with QG, but this does not merit a block (at least not one more than 24 hours); a warning (if anything) would suffice. Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Any derogatory comments about a person's health, or accusations that a person is lying about their health, is contrary to Wikipedia policy. As such, a block of some sort is clearly warranted - though I would find a lengthy one to be draconian, a moderate one is likely in order here. Collect (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I am heavily involved in the topic at hand having spent a long time editing the e-cigarette article pretty heavily and having clashed with QG and AF. I think in the case of both editors the battleground that e-cig has become has brought out a negative side to their WP editing, in AF it's leaning towards ADVOCACY and leaning towards SPA as it becomes more and more a focus of attention, in QG this is found in WP:OWN and IDHT. The regularity with which QG makes edits without discussion on the Talk pages of e-cig articles, even though he knows that any edit on that page is likely to be contentious, makes it clear he's not looking for consensus but the article as he sees it. I also see competence issues in many of QG's edits which could do with a bit of copy editing for structure and repetition before they go live. A topic ban, in the short term, may make things better. I certainly think the page cannot improve with QG there. But the root problem is that e-cig, and the daughter articles, are battlegrounds where a lot of people are shouting, and nobody's [well not quite nobody] listening. I don't know whether ArbCom can do something to help in this matter but while banning QG from the page will reduce the amount of problems there it won't solve the root. SPACKlick (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block or send to ArbCom. QuackGuru continues to make personal attacks, despite being warned as recently as a few days ago. In this edit of a couple of days ago QG attacks the conduct of several editors including myself and demands that answers be provided to them. WP:PERSONAL is quite clear that this is not allowed and that article talk pages are not the place for conduct accusations and smears. However, the worst thing about QG's conduct is the that they are not interested in consensus. Building 20k edits (about 1/3 of the article size) in relative privacy and then dumping them into articles without notification let alone discussion is consistent with this. Attempting to discuss matters with QG on their user talk page generally results in them suppressing the discussion by archiving or deleting it (or parts of it that they don't like), e.g. [diff1] [diff2]. QG of course has a very long block log and has also had been sanctioned by ArbCom in the past so has been given numerous chances to improve their conduct and shows little signs of doing so. I considered whether to make this post at all given that I am a highly involved editor. However this doesn't seem to be an issue for other editors, some of which have supported QG. As I have indicated I would have no issues with ArbCom taking a look at the wider picture.Levelledout (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • really baffling to me. The first dif you provide is just a Talk discussion (QG arguing against the bizarre claim that MEDRS says only reviews can be used and excludes statements by major health organizations); the 2nd is fine (per TPG it is OK to delete others' comments from your own Talk page) as is the 4th (people can archive their talk pages as they wish). The Arbcom diff is old history (that should be brought up in any carefully brought case and has already been mentioned above). I really don't understand why folks are not framing a clear case showing violations of behavioral policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))

The case against QG is rather clear cut in my opinion Jytdog and I respectfully disagree with you. Yes the first diff is an article talk discussion, that's my point. Content is irrelevant here as is whether QG is right or wrong about any content claims he makes. QG makes conduct allegations on the article talk page such as accusing editors of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Some of the language they use is just plain rude and actually borders on a breach of WP:CIVIL. Whether or not QG is technically allowed to delete individual comments from their talk page is hardly the point. Remember that they do not own their user talk page and that part of its purpose is for legitimate discussion of their conduct. I have only ever had two discussions (as far as I can recall) with QG on their talk page and on both of those occasions they have either deleted or archived the discussion or parts of it in order to prevent it from continuing. I was fully aware that the ArbCom diff had been mentioned, doesn't mean that it isn't relevant to the point I was making.Levelledout (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Summary: QuackGuru made an extremely stupid remark that he should never have made, he was roundly chastised for it repeatedly by parties from all sides, and an admin warned him not to do it again on pain of being blocked. The End.

  The rest of this is just advocacy-driven hysteria, obvious e-cig advocates and fringe science advocates trying to take out one of their opposite numbers in a content dispute, in retaliation for the suggestion of a topic ban for one of them. (That suggestion of a topic ban, incidentally, came before QG's remark or this sub0section, which AlbinoFerret shoved in here above the topic-ban section, out of chronological order, so that people reading the thread would get to it first -- an extremely good example of the kind of WP:BATTLEFIELD tactics being carried on by the e-cig advocates. [See his edit here). No admin is going to override the original admin's warning with a block, that would be, in effect, double jeopardy, so this entire section is just useless and should be closed by an uninvolved party. BMK (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, not everyone who !voted "support" is a e-cig advocate or a fringe science advocate, obviously, but the campaign to ban QG and the hysteria surrounding his remark is indeed the work of those advocates. No collusion is implied concerning the actions of those advocates - I'm certain there's no need for them to discuss between themselves taking out one of their primary antagonists. AlbinoFerret started the ball rolling, and his colleagues joined in. BMK (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The original complaint was made by Albino Ferret against QuackGuru alleging personal attacks. Therefore that's what was being discussed at the top of the thread and would seem the natural place to put the Proposed Block for QuackGuru. To claim that the thread not being in exact chronological order is going to affect the way that people vote is well, ridiculous. People might see one or the other first but it doesn't matter. Also, you argued particularly passionately that the proposal for AF was not driven mainly by involved editors and yet apparently QG's block proposal is an "advocacy-driven hysteria" "campaign". Strange.Levelledout (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Each of your responses in this section and the one below adds to the clear conclusion that you are not the neutral party you claim to be. BMK (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

OK well that is a baseless accusation that uses weasel words (I'm not the neutral party I claim to be because... just because). It's one way of neglecting to respond to reasoned argument of course, but not one that I appreciate or that I will be engaging with.Levelledout (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Any open-minded uninvolved editor will see precisely what I mean, despite your Wikilawyering. BMK (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret

User:AlbinoFerret is making a lot of comments and edits to e-cig related pages. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/AlbinoFerret&offset=&limit=500&target=AlbinoFerret See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:AlbinoFerret for previous behaviour issues. AlbinoFerret tried to hide Environmental impact section from a reliable source from the page. He eventually tried to delete some of the text.[18][19][20][21][22] AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] AlbinoFerret claims "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[31] But AlbinoFerret has not given a specific reason to exclude relevant information about safety. WP:COMPETENCE is not the issue IMO. AlbinoFerret has turned the e-cig pages into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. AlbinoFerret is not the only problematic editor at these pages. Some of the e-cig enthusiasts are not here to improve the e-cig pages. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#E-cig_editors for background information on this. Something needs to be done to prevent this from happening over and over again. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Those were edits in a content dispute. Some of them over 2 months old. This is not about content, but your actions on talk pages. AlbinoFerret 21:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is also about you deleting relevant content you find offensive. AlbinoFerret has a repeated pattern of trying to delete pertinent information about safety. AlbinoFerret is unable to formulate a logical reason for excluding the text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That is a misstatement. There are valid reasons why the content was removed all covered under talk page sections.Here is a huge one. But this isnt a content dispute, this is a discussion of harassment that happened because you decided to smear me on talk pages. As for WP:BATTLEGROUND, I think you have done enough with building over 19000 character in edits in secret for a month, not discussing any of it on the talk pages, and then adding it, and reverting it back in. On such a contentious article, that should never have happened WP:CAUTIOUS In fact looking at the pages history, you are still planning more because of recient additions, but none of them have been brought to the talk page. AlbinoFerret 22:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Albino you are digging your hole deeper by making spurious complaints. per the userpage guideline WP:UPYES it is totally fine to draft article content in userspace. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Its not spurious, but the basis of WP, Consensus. But there is no consensus in building 19000 character edits in private, and making one 16k edit at once. There was no discussion on the addition, no post on the talk pages directing the other editors to it to look over. This has been done before on the main e-cig page. Granted there is nothing wrong with building edits on a sandbox, but a edit that is 1/3rd the size of the page should have been discussed. WP:CAUTIOUS AlbinoFerret 22:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

QG, you should request some specific action that you would like the community to take - make a proposal and let folks react. You have been around long enough to know that just saying "something must be done" (passive voice) will get you no where fast. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think an indef topic ban is most appropriate rather than a short-term topic ban. It is clear that User:AlbinoFerret is not here to improve the e-cig pages. QuackGuru (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Really, and what evidence exactly do you present in support of that? Other than the fact that you have disagreements with AF over content which is neither here nor there, I can't see that you've stated any whatsoever.Levelledout (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• support indef topic ban AlbinoFerret is not here and is WP:TENDENTIOUS. And this has been going on for a long time. And I see no reason to believe it will improve. Many chances have been given and few have been taken. It's time for this to stop. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support I would support a one year topic ban. Hopefully in that time evidence will become more clear and the topic less controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Doc James. BMK (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support one year topic ban for Albinoferret. There are many issues here and AF is disrupting any genuine attempts to improve the articles, so much that it is bordering on WP:SPA. AF has previously done good work on other articles and I believe AF's and everyone else's time could be spent much better. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This is nothing more than a content dispute. With diff's gathered over months showing a content dispute. All of which have talk page sections dealing with the content link1 link2 link3. The only thing this will accomplish is silence a active editor from the article that disagrees with some content, that press releases diff should not be used for medical content or problems with the sources. In fact one post above me, Doc James, lists a reason for banning me is that "Hopefully in that time evidence will become more clear and the topic less controversial.". AlbinoFerret 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Albino "the evidence" that Doc James is referring to, is medical evidence about risks of e-cigs. I know that a huge focus of yours, has been reducing the amount of what you call "speculation" in the article... but what is, in fact, statements about the unfolding medical consensus on risks. What he meant is that when the science is more solid and the scientific debate settles, there will be less controversy, and that in a year you should have even weaker grounds on which to be disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is speculation. From the Chang, H. (2014). "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes" source, the topic of the section you linked to "No studies specifically evaluated the environmental impacts of e-cigarette manufacturing; issues related to use of resources, assembly, nicotine source, tobacco cultivation and global production". Unfolding evidence? More like a lot of opinions to me, not based on anything, and the lone "review" of its kind. Because apparently it didnt review any studies as it says none exist. Its given its own section? Huge WP:WEIGHT issue here. Being the only source of its kind, what it reviewed is, basically nothing. This is a perfect example of a content dispute, and diffs 157-161 in QuackGurus post above, which are about three months old. AlbinoFerret13:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say that the fact that you wrote the above, is a perfect example of your persistence in objecting, repeatedly and over a long period of time, to the inclusion of reasonable and well sourced content about health risks being added to the articles, by editors who are very experienced in dealing with health matters in WP. That you bring this up again, even here and now, is exactly why I support the topic ban. You know, I looked and looked, but I couldn't find a diff for this, but didn't you write somewhere that you care about this so much because your wife really needed to quit smoking and tried and tried and couldn't, and it was e-cigs that finally helped her do it? If I have that wrong, I apologize. Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say to that, that everyone is entitled to their opinions. But consensus is how WP is edited. Others have reasons to include this in the article, where it has stayed for the last three months or so. That does not mean I dont think its a WP:WEIGHT issue. It means that its included even though I think it has a weight issue. What you dont have is actions pointing to advocacy. You have a difference of opinion on content. AlbinoFerret 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think DocJames can likely speak for himself but anyway Jytdog, the "unfolding medical consensus" is basically that the short term risks are pretty low and that the long term risks should theoretically also be low. The only "speculation" is exactly how low the long-term risks are. If you are saying that in a years time it will be proven that e-cigarettes are more harmful, well that is just basically crystal-ball stuff. We shouldn't really be discussing content here, but since it seems to be being used as evidence so it seems somewhat necessary. Just demonstrates that this is a content dispute really.Levelledout (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

nope you are missing the point; this is about Albino's behavior. i won't belabor this. Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support in my view the prior proposal to topic ban AlbinoFerret (which I supported) would have succeeded, except it turned into a sprawling mess and was closed out of hopelessness. This one is squarely focused. AlbinoFerret is a WP:SPA who wages an WP:ADVOCACY campaign favorable to e-cigs, and has been relentless in opposing the addition of well-sourced content about health risks. That pattern is clear from difs above and in the prior ANI. I do not intend this to be cruel, but he has said he is housebound and edits WP to keep himself sane (which I am very sympathetic toward) but still, WP:NOTTHERAPY - and especially not when, combined with advocacy, his editing is disruptive. (I had said this to him directly before.) He is the paradigm of disruptive advocacy on this article. WP is vast - let Albino edit elsewhere and not disrupt this topic any more. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I am far from a SPA, I am a member of WikiProject Citation cleanup and also edit Bitcoin. As for WP:NOTTHERAPY, sane as in keeping active, you can only watch so many daytime talk shows or soap operas. AlbinoFerret 00:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

hatting personalization of the discussion. Out of bounds and distracting from focus of Albino's behavior Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:AlbinoFerret say his motivation is to to help bring what is known about tobacco harm reduction to the article and hopefully someone will find it useful and lessen the damage they are doing to themselves. That is contrary to the mass deletion of reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Your leaving out the part "My motivation is to help bring what is known about tobacco harm reduction to the article". Bringing out what is known about something is (through reliable sources), I hope, the goal of every WP editor. AlbinoFerret 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC) User:Jytdog, User:AlbinoFerret claims he is disabled but he previously said I know, but I am working as an election judge in early voting so I cant do as much as normal, I normally work out of my house so I am at the computer all day. I will be putting my position in later today. Does anyone really think he is disabled? QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC) I do get out every so often, and helping short term as a election judge is something I try to do. You would be surprised at the number of disabled people who work as election judges. I would be happy to send to an uninvolved admin a letter from Social security stating I am disabled. AlbinoFerret 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per Jytdog. I don't have a strong opinion about the duration, but a year seems about right. Bishonen | talk 00:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC).

Changed my mind about the duration, per Kevin Gorman below. I support an indefinite ban with the option to appeal after a year. Bishonen | talk 13:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

• Oppose The situation has to be understood in the context of the protracted, bitter content dispute that is e-cigarette articles. It has already been said several times that topic-banning AF would help. Yes it would help, it would help those editors that have been in a content dispute with AF for months on end. I think almost everybody who has supported this proposal so far is either moderately or highly involved in the said content dispute. I think that AF has raised some genuine issues here, did in fact originally raise some genuine issues on the article talk page with QG going about things in a covert way and dumping 20k edits into articles without so much as notification. QG attacked AF on the article page which according to WP:PERSONAL is not allowed. For this to be turned back round on AF is very harsh and unjust I think. It also seems to be almost entirely without substance.Levelledout (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Considering that 57% of your edits (257/450 - with 233 to Talk:Electronic cigarette???) are to articles or talk pages about electronic cigarettes, it seems not impossible that you are a SPA as well, perhaps one with a COI. BMK (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Since when is a roughly 50/50 (haven't been bothered to check the exact amount) split between e-cig and other articles considered a single purpose account? What about editors that edit medical articles far more than I actually edit e-cig articles? Or is that perfectly OK I take it? Your COI accusation is spurious, groundless and you have no right to make it. Helps deflect some attention and blame though I suppose.Levelledout (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

So, you don't think that 57% of your edits going to one very specific subject – electronic cigarettes – and 43% going to a variety of other topics is an pretty good indication that you're here primarily to edit about that one subject? I would beg to differ, I think it's a damn good marker. It's not like your 57% is going to some broad area, like military history, or New York City or films, it's going to electronic cigarettes.

Like Bishonen, whose comment is just below this, I don't believe that any of my edits has been to articles on that subject (but I could be wrong, with over 150,000 edits you do lose track of a few in the course of almost 10 years), but I know advocacy when I see it ... and I've got pretty good radar for SPAs and socks as well. 16:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've already told you what I think so I'll leave it at that for now. I'm not sure what you having made 150,000 edits and being on Wikipedia for 10 years has got to do with anything either.Levelledout (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You "think" almost everyone who has supported the topic ban is involved in the content dispute? Please don't hazard tendentious guesses about things that could be checked with a little research. Here, I'll help you with one item: I for my part have barely heard of e-cigarettes. I'm supporting the topic ban because I can recognize advocacy, at least when it's as obvious as this. Bishonen | talk 12:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC).

I did not do an in depth analysis before I posted of course, nor can you reasonably expect me to before every post. But I do know that of the posters above QuackGuru (the proposer of the ban) and Doc James are highly involved and Cloudjpk, CFCF and Jytdog have all contributed to e-cig articles and have tended to be on the opposing side of the content dispute to Albino Ferret.Levelledout (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, actually, we can expect you to do some due diligence before you make claims about other editors' motivations. BMK (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said clearly enough for you to understand I knew with a reasonable degree of certainty that 5/7 editors were involved all along. I thought it was probably 6/7, hence "almost all" which was an approximation. Nobody was mentioned personally and it turned out to be 5/7. Big deal. Can we move on from this nonsense now please?Levelledout (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's "nonsense", it your nonsense, not mine. Are all the supporting editors below also sworn enemies of AlbinoFerret? If not, doesn't that change your !vote, since it was based on the supposed involvement of the supporting editors? And since you're on the other side of the debate as an SPA, should we discount your !vote as you would like us to discount those editors above who you say are involved?

No, what was nonsense was your initial comment, which appears to me to have been disingenuous. BMK (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Despite the fact that you obviously do not accept this, I am entitled to my original opinion. I stand by it and with all due respect, do not care what you think.Levelledout (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The editors who want AF banned mostly seem to be involved in a content dispute with him, and some of them look to be pushing their own point of view pretty hard. I had a look at everyone's block logs and QuackGuru seems to be a serious problem editor. Instead of being turned into a witch hunt against AF I think this should return to the question of what needs to be done about QuackGuru and those who support him.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @InfiniteBratwurst: So, you took your 56 edits and your vast 9 weeks of Wikipedia experience and went looking into other editor's block logs in order to come here, !vote oppose, and poison some wells with the dirty little secrets you uncovered there? (How does an editor with 56 edits find out about block logs, anyway? I was here for quite a while before I heard about them.) You complain that the editors supporting the topic ban are involved in a content dispute with AF, but you don't mention that the article you have edited the most. with more than double the edits of the next-most article, is Safety of electronic cigarettes, that its talk page is the one you've edited the most, the seoncd-most being Talk:Electronic cigarette -- but I assume you'll tell us that, unlike the other editors commenting here, you are uninvolved, you are totally neutral, and your vote is in no way influenced by your personal views. Everyone else's is, of course, but not yours. BMK (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @BMK: WP:DBAD — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfiniteBratwurst (talk • contribs) 11:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Wow!!!! 9 weeks here, less than 60 edits, and you cite an obscure essay from Meta. The closing admin should note with pride what an extremely knowledgeable newbie InfiniteBratwurst is!!!! BMK (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I didn't cite anything. I idly wondered if there was a WP:DICK, because you're being one, and guess what I found? Now maybe you could stop with the childish sneering and personal attacks, and try saying something constructive.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Oh, I think pointing out your very interesting, if short, history is quite constructive indeed. BMK (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
            • User:Beyond My Ken, InfiniteBratwurst is actually CheesyAppleFlake. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:CheesyAppleFlake. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
              • I can't wait to see you prove that.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
                • QuackGuru if there is a case to be made, please make it at WP:SPI and post here. Otherwise please don't add distraction. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
                  • • Yup once you have SPI confirmation you can discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
            • BMK, you've been around since 2009 (aren't you an admin, and weren't you an Arb?) At any rate why are you still this rankly clueless about commenting on content not contributors? Is NPA just deprecated? You've done this before [32] -- what is your problem? You know very well that some editors make CLEANSTART accounts and that is their business. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
              • @Middle8. Wrong on every count. I've had an account here since June 2005, started editing shortly before that as an IP (see this for the thumbnail of my history). I've never been an admin (perish the thought!), don't want to be an admin, will almost uncertainly never be an admin, and would be an absolutely lousy admin if someone forced me to do it. And, of course, I've never been an Arbitrator. I have no idea who you are thinking of, but it ain't me.

                Comment on content, not contributors? Sure, in general, great concept, but this is the place where the community examines behavior, and not just the behavior of the subject of the thread. If someone pops up to comment with an editing history that looks very much like they're a SPA, or have a COI, edit with a distinct POV to push, are someone's sock, or were canvassed on- or off-Wiki to participate, those are facts that need to be brought forward, because they can (and should!) mitigate the value of that user's comment. It's completely valid to point that stuff out, and as long as people continue to take advantage of Wikipedia to promote whatever it is they're promoting, whether or not they're paid for it, I'm going to keep pointing it out. BMK (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

              • BTW WP:CLEANSTART may be one of the most abused Wikipedia policies around. Any user who is making a clean start should be obligated to say so when questioned with good reason about their editing, and to report to a CU of their choice the name of their previous account to be checked to be sure they aren't evading a block or are a sockpuppet of a banned editor. A clean start should never be a license for serial misbehavior, which is what I'm afraid it most probably is utilized for. BMK (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Whatever good AlbinoFerret does tending the electronic cigarette articles is outweighed by the persistent puffing-up of e-cigs as safer than apple pie. Since September 2014, AF has made 2000 talk page comments at the three e-cig articles, and 250 comments here at ANI—it's time to look for other topics. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Please provide the diffs where I said they are safe as apple pie or any place where I said they were completely safe. As for edit counts, anyone who looks at the logs knows I rarely make complete edits, I always correct them or add to them, on average taking 4 edits to make a comment. I have tried to preview more, but total edits show nothing. AlbinoFerret 15:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Send to ArbCom - This has been going on from time to time for months. This is the sort of content dispute compounded by conduct issues (tendentious editing) for which a full evidentiary hearing by ArbCom works better than letting the loudest editors at a noticeboard establish consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon i hear you that this may end up at Arbcom but that is a step of last resort. The way this place is set up we are meant to handle what we can at lower levels. I think there is a reasonable case for a topic ban for Albino - this is not about "loudest" but rather based on a clear focus on the behavior of one user. Focus (hard to maintain here, I know) is essential. Please reconsider. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support (Disclosure: AF has supported sanctions against me in another ongoing RFc. But I have supported a topic ban for AF on this topic on several previous occassions). The problem here is that many of the editors on this article are here to advocate for electronic cigarettes rather than being here to build an encyclopedia. I think AF is basically a good guy, but it is not healthy for the encyclopedia to have editors who spend 8 or more hours a day focused on making sure that a single article projects a specific POV. I'll add that I would support a similar topic ban for any editor for whom edits to electronic cigarette articles comprise more than 60% of their total edits over the last 3 months. Its not personal, its just that this article has attracted too many editors who are there to promote a specific POV. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per the reasons stated by Levelledout. This is part content dispute and part piling on by those with a particular POV. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Not involved in the articles themselves or the content dispute aside from commenting on a few posts brought to WP:RSN. I wouldn't suggest any longer than a year for a ban though as it's generally better to give people a chance. The idea that this is just a content dispute so the behavior issues should be ignored is extremely disingenuous. There are also involved editors here who oppose the ban on grounds of it being a "content dispute", but behavior problems are behavior problems whether there is a content dispute or not. It's apparent there is a problem here with AF considering how much they focus on the topic. One could argue whether they fit the criteria of an WP:SPA or not with brief edits in a couple other articles, but there is definitely advocacy apparent here. Uninvolved editors here are seeing that problem, so I'd highly suggest weighing that when determining community consensus. I do agree with Robert McClenon that the topic will probably need to be considered at ArbCom at some point, but this is one user that keeps coming up and seems like it could be handled here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Very weak support There are probably enough behavioral problems amongst many editors that an arbitration case would be the best way to settle this. Otherwise, I think a topic ban is an acceptable bandaid, though I'd argue for a shorter duration, like 6 months, and revisit a more long term solution if the behavior resumes. AniMate 20:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban of one year for Albino Ferret from discussing the subject of Electronic cigarettes on any page in the English Wikipedia. The reason is largely the one given by Bishonen (overly intense advocacy). Possibly one or more other users will need a topic ban too. Cardamon (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of 3 months (preferred) or 1 year from articles on electronic cigarettes, broadly construed, but not indefinite. AF shows some signs of wanting to edit other articles, let's see some evidence of constructive contributions outside this topic area. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is clearly a content dispute with both sides unwilling to reach a compromise. The "evidence" presented by QuackGuru isn't very strong. One could also take Bishonen's argument of WP:ADVOCACY and apply it to QuackGuru, since his recent contributions suggest that he has been engaging in a campaign unfavorable to e-cigarettes. As far as I can tell, none of the diffs violate any of Wikipedia's policies. I do see a strong case for banning QuackGuru though: This comment by QG is clearly targeted against AF's personal life, and the edit summary is not just inappropriate, but also inexplicably cruel and disgusting. -A1candidate 11:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

!vote above doesn't deal with Albino's behavior but rather attempts to focus on QG's- classic rhetorical move. This is a proposal about Albino's long term disruptive behavior as evidenced in the prior ANI (which lost focus) and additional diffs above. Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

None of the diffs presented violate any of WP's policies, as far as I can tell. -A1candidate 13:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

again hatting squabble between 2 main antagonists here Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, this is not clearly a content dispute as A1candidate suggests. A1candidate is repeatedly making blanket reverts of reputable organizations and reviews.[33][34] This disruption of blanket reverts by A1candidate should not be allowed to continue. A1candidate, I recommend you take a voluntary short-term topic ban from the page. A1candidate, are you going to continue make blanket reverts? QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC) One might want to look at the size of the edits (18,711 characters) trying to edit in sources that were the topic of a (still ongoing) RFC. That at the time was almost 1/2 the size of the existing page. The comments on the edits were directing people to the talk pages. This wasnt blanket removal, this was a few editors (QuackGuru, CFCF, and Cloudjpk) trying to force a mammoth edit on the page during a discussion of the sources used. Looking at the history makes it all the more clear. This is purely a content dispute. Where one side wants to discuss things, and others just want to get it in. AlbinoFerret 18:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Remember the talk page discussion? I wrote "User:AlbinoFerret, you were asked "Are there issues with the sources or the summary of said sources?" So far you have not specifically explained which new sources are a concern to justify your blanket revert and there is a clear consensus for the the positions of the organisations."[35] You repeatedly deleted a number of sources including reviews without any logical reason. User:AlbinoFerret, do you agree you are going to stop making blanket reverts? QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC) @QuackGuru, please stop making these baseless accusations against me. I'm surprised that you would want to enforce a "voluntary short-term topic ban" on me, given that I have made minimal contributions to this the article so I am not sure what that would achieve. -A1candidate 18:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC) @QuackGuru, This is a constant problem, WP:IDHT. I answered you why I thought a press release was not usable. link and that sources that are WP:Tertiary should not be used for medical content. These sources (the subject of your second set of diffs) were already on a sister page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Where they are appropriate, this isnt removing content and blocking, but a discussion on the location WP:ONUS. This is a fine point of WP, and I dont think you get. Your link to a blanket revert is part of the mammoth edit I posted on a reply ago, You made an almost 20000 character edit to a controversial page with no discussion, after planning it for almost a month in a sandbox without discussing it at any time. Again taking WP:Tertiary sources from the sister page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Where they have never been removed. If you look in the edit comments, you will see I quoted WP:CAUTIOUS and noted that no discussions have happened. There is even a talk page section started by me on the topic. AlbinoFerret 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban having reviewed this whole mess over the last half hour. My only 'involvement' with e-cigarettes was thinking someone's looked hilarious at Wikimedia DC's GLAM bootcamp. As is generally the case with tbans, Albino would still be able to raise the situation before arbcom if desired. I don't think a time limit has a purpose since plenty of people just take an editing vacation until their tban expires and come back just as problematic as they were before, but AF could appeal it in the future after spending time productively contributing elsewhere on WP. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Good point. I agree, indef with the option to appeal is better. Bishonen | talk 13:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

• Could you show me a single diff (as presented by QuackGuru) that actually violated an established guideline? -A1candidate 13:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• See WP:BATTLE for a start. My own view is that both editors should be topic banned. You, yourself, could stand to read and reflect upon WP:IDHT. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because two people are involved in a battle doesn't make both of them are aggressors. I do not see any single edit by AF violating a policy or guideline. -A1candidate 14:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose witchhunts and general attempts to silence opponenets. Someone needs to stand up to this nonsense.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

distraction; not focused on Albino's behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))

How is resisting the POV-pushing by QuackGuru a form of advocacy? Please explain. -A1candidate 14:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of at least a year. I am uninvolved with the topic. To the best of my recollection, I have never edited anything to do with electronic cigarettes, but I can recognize disruptive behavior in support of a POV when I see it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not convinced there have been any policy violations, or BF editing, or PAs that would constitute firm measures for behavioral issues. I see disagreement, and certainly hope disagreement or an opposing view doesn't warrant a block or ban these days. Atsme☯^Consult 23:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

the difs for long term behavioral issues are clear. I do understand, Atsme, why you be sympathetic to someone opposing the application of MEDRS, since you would support having positive content on the cancer-fighting powers of amygdalin in WP, using sources like naturalnews, per this. You, at least have been doing that only on Talk, and have not been editing warring over it for months now, as Albino has. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The only warring originates with you Jytdog, as demonstrated by your behavior here and now with a PA against me for expressing an opinion where I'm supposed to be expressing an opinion. Unfortunately, your biotech POV is imposed on editors wherever you go. Please try to understand WP:FRINGE is a guideline, not a policy. Atsme☯^Consult 13:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support for the same reasons as the last forty-'leven times this topic-ban proposal has come up. Closing admin should pay careful attention to whether some of these !votes are from SPAs or near-SPAs and are possibly voting on subject matter as opposed to behavior. Zad68 03:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support, perhaps a month, then another chance on a short leash. Per this and others, does not (or will not) understand MEDRS; should by now. Not the only disruptive party but disruptive nonetheless. (Note also QuackGuru's repugnant slur against AF, where he accused AF of lying about their disability. Should be an instant block for that, lengthened by aggravating circumstances: block log, experience). Oppose> - Looks mainly like a content dispute to me, with the conduct issues on both sides -- no way can just one side of the e-cig wars could be accused of WP:OWN and WP:TE. And lest process trump content, from what I can see the dangers are being exaggerated unduly and relative to conventional cigarettes by QuackGuru et. al., and AlbinoFerret and others are correct in trying to limit this POV-pushing. No, I don't like some of AlbinoFerret's exaggerations and misunderstandings of policy here (re which e.g. Jytdog has commented). But However, I see that at least two of the editors calling for a topic ban (and among the quickest to do so) are also heavily involved in the impasse/polarization in this topic area. All the kettles need to simmer down; suggest 1RR/week for all concerned or something like that. Mentorship/probation for AlbinoFerret on the stuff mentioned (especially MEDRS and WP:OPPONENT) when they come back. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 15:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC) changed !vote, added a bit 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Middle 8 this thread is focused on AlbinoFerrets' behavior. Things like this end up at Arbcom when the community fails to manage them. The most common way the community fails is that it loses focus when discussing complex issues or disputes. (you have seen that happen, as when you brought an RfC/U against Quackguru). There is no doubt that AlbinoFerret has been a key participant in the longterm battleground. Many, many diffs showing that. The community can handle disputes like this, if it focuses. If you want to start a thread on some other individual involved, please do so. But please do not distract from the issue at hand. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, Jytdog. (And it's interesting how many of the editors who contributed so tenaciously to the loss of focus in the QG RfC are suddenly so able to stay focused on AF, yet lose focus when it comes to QG. One would almost think there was systemic bias afoot.) Looking at the merits: Which diffs? Going from QG's thread-starter, the two links to ANI threads are weak [36][37] Re QG's other diffs: Just because AF removes stuff QG added is not prima facie evidence of misconduct -- far from it; I see a lot of UNDUE. AF's removing the WMA however is not good. And I see a pattern of OWN in both QG and AF, worse in QG. Is that it? Where can I find a good, concise summary of the most obvious diffs? Or maybe you or someone could just paste in the five worst ones? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 16:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

update: OK, although the evidence in the thread-starter first ANI is weak, I see more that you and others provided in the comments (yours: scrolling to: "Support topic ban - Albino has gone on a tear now..."). Having a look now. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, your example (of AF writing about pharma companies lobbying to have e-cigs treated as medical devices) would indeed be a compelling instance of twisting a source [38] (just as Mallexikon showed QG did with GERAC, which you were one of the only editors to grok). Except: AF explains [39] (supported with diffs) that the passage they wrote was originally sourced to a different source [40] that the passage indeed summarized accurately. (I don't care for his ABF-ing and calling your characterization "twisting" of what happened, but they wouldn't be the first to run hot under pressure on a drama board.) I'll keep looking. If there's a smoking gun -- besides fighting over including WMA, which is bad, but alone not imo worth a ban either -- I'm not seeing it. I see general TE (which is at least as bad with QG); I don't see it as over the top: is this a situation like QG where those who know AF well gnash their teeth in frustration but have so far failed to build a strong case? If not, can you help, and point me to the good evidence? It's a lot to go through. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 20:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for considering more carefully. QG's first link above - Albino's contribs, demonstrate he is a SPA on e-cigarettes; this is not ambiguous. Per WP:SPA, SPA editors are often agenda-driven. The next link is the old ANI case, and I see you are digging through that. I'll just pick one diff from there (of what are many) namely this, where AF's edit notes was "emove older study that newer ones find answers to", but what we did, was remove a source (a review of the literature) that described the lack of good evidence for harm reduction and risks of e-cigs, dated 2013, and moving up 2 practice guidelines, one dated 2014 and the other dated 2013, which each recommend e-cigs for harm reduction. (note he left the 2013 ref... why, in his reasoning?) but in any case these are different kinds of sources (and there has been tension in project Medicine about how to WEIGHT practice guidelines vs reviews of the evidence) and they don't cancel each other out. The reasoning was bogus or incompetent, but the effect was to eliminate what AF calls "speculation" about the risks. That is the crux of his agenda in those articles. That ANI case was back in November. If you look at the next difs provided by QG, you will see that agenda being enacted in each edit. Using article-comment notation to hide the "Environmental effects" section (mostly about risks) with edit note that "it is trivia"' removing facts about risks stated in WP's voice on the basis that they must be attributed (that is how pejoratively he has come to view discussion of risks - that it is so perjorative that it must be attributed)... etc. He is a disruptive and persistent presence. Hence the topic ban. Which looks like it will succeed, so far. I think it is objectively on point. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

yeah the thing about lobbying was really frustrating. [[41] his original source] was an opinion piece and of course we prefer straight reporting over opinion pieces (he could have cited the opinion piece, attributing it, yes). but what we really got my goat was that the NYT reporting (the more reliable source) was unambiguous in emphasizing the victory of the e-cig lobbyists. so twisted. and adding the rhetorically self-righteous stuff about the COI of pharma with their lobbyists... when all lobbyists are nakedly self-interested. just... argh. on that whole thing. But of a piece with the pattern of relentless pro-e-cigarette editing. its the pattern. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, AF clearly doesn't/can't/won't grok MEDRS and there is a pattern. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 20:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

side discussion that went sideways and has become distracting in-fighting Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Middle_8 Am I perfect, No. Have I made mistakes, yes. Have I learned from them, I think I have. What you have here is two examples Jtydog has found. What he doesnt have is a pattern of me repeating those mistakes. The first diff is from October 2014, I had taken almost a year off from editing wikipedia, and almost 6 years since I was active. I had never editied a page with medical rules. I made a mistake and replaced a source and edited out a comment. I learned from that experience and have not done that again. As for using WP:TRIVIA In November of that year, well the reason Jtydog can find it so quick is he was the one who misused it on me first. Was it a mistake to not research its use first? Yes, have I done the same things again? No. AlbinoFerret 23:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC) But there is a pattern, cf. the diffs QG has at the top, and they're not only undue weight (though I agree this has been a problem and commend you for pushing back, within reason). QG's first diff after "AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources": [42]; those are MEDRS, and you really should know that by now. Sorry, but MEDRS is one thing I don't IAR on. Take a break (short I hope) and come back, and grok MEDRS and try to take to WP:OPPONENT to heart and lung. Wishing you well. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 00:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Middle_8 You may want to look closely at the World Lung Federation, at the top of the page is a gold bar clearly labelling it a press release. I am not the only editor that was against using WP:Tertiary sources for medical claims. There is even a ongoing RFC on the subject. Until that edit they had only been used on the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes sister page, both of which were one time part of the Health section of Electronic cigarette, split off at the same time by Doc James. Up until QG's edit there was a defacto standard/agreement of only using reviews for medical claims on e-cig pages (read the first link), thats why the RFC was started. AlbinoFerret 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC) There NEVER was a consensus to use only using reviews for medical claims on e-cig pages. We don't have different rules for e-cig pages. There is a long standing WP:CON to include other sources including WHO, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the World Lung Foundation. See Electronic_cigarette#Position_of_medical_organizations. Also see Electronic_cigarette#Harm_reduction for other sources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that are not reviews. User:AlbinoFerret, claiming that only reviews can be used for medical claims runs against WP:MEDORG. The RfC resulted in WP:SNOW. See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Positions. You also deleted other sources including a formal policy statement. After you could not delete the reliable source you then added context that was inappropriate.[43][44][45] See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_1#Original_research_2. You, User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, and User:Levelledout appeared to be against using the formal policy statement written in a peer-reviewed journal for medical claims. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_21#Policy_Statement_from_the_American_Association_for_Cancer_Research_and_the_American_Society_of_Clinical_Oncology. Your last edit to the safety page was to delete even more sources including a number of reviews. So what is your reason to make a full revert back to an old version while delete a number of sources including reviews? We want to know the WP:TRUTH. QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC) The facts are clear as can be, if anyone looks at the article when it was copied over from the Electronic cigarette article. Before you started editing it on your own because of the activity on the main page kept us busy. You started adding non review quality sources for medical claims. You will notice that reviews and formal policy statements in peer reviewed journals (review quality) are all that existed. AlbinoFerret 02:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Let's review according to your diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625 See WHO: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-WHOPosition2014_8-0 See US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-FDA_nitrosamines_13-0 See The UK National Health Service https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-nhs_17-0 These sources are not reviews but they are reliable according to WP:MEDORG. QuackGuru (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from e-cig related articles. Per Bishonen, I see obvious advocacy. Assuming good faith, I feel that both the articles and AF would benefit from him spending his wiki-time on other topics for the foreseeable future. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose action against AlbinoFerret or QuackGuru via ANI - This should go to Arbcom. Considering the e-cigarette dispute keeps popping up at ANI and has apparently gone on for so long now, and also considering there have been concerns raised regarding conduct of multiple users, this should go to arbcom where evidence can be carefully evaluated by those uninvolved. Seems binding solutions are needed at e-cegarette.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This thread is focused on AlbinoFerret's behavior. We can manage this at ANI if people bring clear cases and responders focus on the question at hand. Here, it is AF's behavior. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))

• Procedural oppose There are two main culprits in this current shitstorm. If the community lacks the cojones to sanction QG, who is the main culprit, and is content to let him off with a weak "warning" (how many warnings is that now?) it is against natural justice to sanction AF. I tend to agree with the view that arbitration will be the way forward here. A lynch mob at AN/I probably won't do it on this occasion. --John (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Question: I see several people opposing a topic ban on the ground that the whole QuackGuru – AlbinoFerret thing should go to RFAR instead. Is anybody actually planning or working on an RFAR submission? John, BoboMeowCat, Robert McClenon, for instance? This question is not meant as criticism, as nobody is obliged to spend time on anything on Wikipedia beyond what they want to, and filing RFAR's is a bugger, with the diffs and so on. Just, it would be convenient to know, and may affect the outcome of this thread. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC).

I have the same question, and I don't think any of the "procedural opposers" have any intention of filing on ArbCom. I do not think this issue is a QG/AF issue, but rather the immensely problematic editing history of AlbinoFerret, whose entire edit history since September 2014 is the most egregious example of relentless disruptive WP:SPA advocacy I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for at least six months to a year. His edits and endless disruptive discussions on the subject are simply far too POV and tendentious, disrupting the progress of the entire subject and the articles it encompasses. It does seem like blatant advocacy. Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a draconian solution at this point - especially since the air is rather full of smog because of misbehaviour by QG at this point. Suggest that such issues at that point be addressed to the Arbitration Committee, which will slow down everything in all likelihood. Collect (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The diffs are all presented and the question is clear, with respect to AlbinoFerret. Please take the time to focus on AF's behavior, which is the topic of this discussion. Thanks. There is a separate (malformed) section for QG above. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))

• (Non-administrator comment) I am heavily involved in the topic at hand having spent a long time editing the e-cigarette article pretty heavily and having clashed with QG and AF. I think in the case of both editors the battleground that e-cig has become has brought out a negative side to their WP editing, in QG this is found in WP:OWN and IDHT, in AF it's more ADVOCACY and leaning towards SPA as it becomes more and more a focus of attention. The large proportion of AF's edits being on the Talk pages of e-cig articles rather than the article themselves reflects, in my eyes, his attempt to bring some form of consensus to article improvements rather than riding roughshod over the opinions and policies of WP. A topic ban, in the short term, may make things better. I certainly think AF taking a vacation from the article may be good for AF's stress levels. But the root problem is that e-cig, and the daughter articles, are battlegrounds where a lot of people are shouting, and nobody's [well not quite nobody] listening. I don't know whether ArbCom can do something to help in this matter but banning AF from the page will not reduce the amount of problems there. SPACKlick (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per InfiniteBratwurst. I used to be involved, but haven't edited any of the articles in several months. I've been slightly active on their talk pages, though. EllenCT (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Infinitebratwurst's !vote was not based on looking at the diffs of AlbinoFerret's behavior and thinking about them in light of PAG, so that !vote should not count for the closer, and neither should this one. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))

• Note. It's been a problem previous times that this has come up that those involved in the dispute separate into obvious camps but are pretty vocal. Out of curiosity I checked the history of the users posting in this section and their edit count on whatever e-cig talk page had the highest edits (doesn't indicate time of involvement):

AlbinoFerret: 1641; QuackGuru: 630; Cloudjpk: Not available but has edited at the article a bit.; Doc James: 490; BMK: 0; CFCF: 151; Jytdog: 91; Bishonen: 0; Levelledout: 233; InfiniteBratwurst: 10 (relatively new w/ 77 total edits); Johnuniq: 13; Robert McClenon: 0; Formerly 98: 148; Winkelvi: 0; Kingofaces43: 3 (RFC and RSN post replies); AniMate: 0; Cardamon: 0; JzG: 0 ; A1candidate: 22; Kevin Gorman: 0; Two kinds of pork: 0; Cullen328: 0; Atsme: 0; Zad68: 203; Middle 8: 0; RexxS: 0; BoboMeowCat: 0; John: 0; Softlavender: 0; Collect: 0; EllenCT: 84.

Obviously I'm not suggesting to ignore those involved, but I always lose track of who's actually been involved in the article whenever this comes up here, at RSN, etc. Figured it might be helpful for others trying gauge the situation too. If not, just more text and numbers for the wall. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's the same data presented in a different way:

• AlbinoFerret: 1641
• QuackGuru: 630
• Doc James: 490
• Levelledout: 233
• Zad68: 203
• CFCF: 151
• Formerly 98: 148
• EllenCT: 84

 

• A1candidate: 22
• Johnuniq: 13
• InfiniteBratwurst: 10 (relatively new w/ 77 total edits)
• Jytdog: 9
• Kingofaces43: 3 (RFC and RSN post replies)

 

• Cloudjpk: Not available but has edited at the article a bit

• AniMate: 0
• Atsme: 0
• BoboMeowCat: 0
• BMK: 0
• Bishonen: 0
• Cardamon: 0
• Collect: 0
• Cullen328: 0
• John: 0
• JzG: 0
• Kevin Gorman: 0
• Middle 8: 0
• RexxS: 0
• Robert McClenon: 0
• Softlavender: 0
• Two kinds of pork: 0
• Winkelvi: 0

BMK (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I wanted to try to keep it as condensed as possible, but I normally don't tinker with tables here, so I didn't think of that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am involved in the articles, but not to the extent the raw numbers show. On average it takes 4 or more edits on a comment for me to get it right. I seldom make a perfect edit or comment and leave. Any view of the histories will show this. I think that numbers only tell part of the story. AlbinoFerret 22:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You are not "involved" in the articles, you are ***INVOLVED*** with the articles. Articles on e-cigarettes make up the first (Electronic cigarette - 466 edits, 55.47% of your total article edits), second (Safety of electronic cigarettes - 82 edits, 9.7%} and fifth (Legal status of electronic cigarettes - 23 edits, 2.7%) in the list of articles you've edited most, making up a total of 67.97% of your article edits. The list of article talk pages you've edited has Talk:Electronic cigarette as #1, with 1641 edits, 69.35% of your talk page edits, Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes as #2 (293, 12.38%), Talk:Legal status of electronic cigarettes as #5 (72, 3.04%), for a total of 85.08% of your talk page edits (that includes 7 other edits on the subject in archives.)

These numbers -- 67.07% of article edits and 85.08% of article talk page edits -- most certainly live in SPA territory. It's clear what subject you're here to edit, and crystal what your position is on it. That's the "obvious advocacy" that several very experienced editors have commented on, and that's why a topic ban is appropriate. BMK (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your label as a SPA. I tend to post more to articles I'm interested in, nothing strange there. Your raw numbers tell nothing and I disagree with the spin. I would also like to point out that slightly over half of my editing is on talk pages. Discussing and trying to make the articles better. If you take into account the number of edits I make to a specific edit or comment, it isnt that large. You seem to have some attraction to this section, and seem to post an awful lot here. AlbinoFerret 01:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

My calculations show that AlbinoFerret has made over 2890 edits on the topic of e-cigs to talk pages (or noticeboards) since 30 September 2014—over 17 talk-page edits per day for 164 days. That is beyond enthusiasm and is unhealthy for other editors, particularly in a contentious topic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

How many of those were to the same comment or edit? How many editors you are comparing me to are disabled and sit at their computer because they cant easily leave the house? AlbinoFerret 01:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors.

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering based artcles that he routinely watches. This is behaviour that was previously addressed by a Request for comment in 2012.

Since that time, Wtshymanski has continued to systematically revert any and all edits made by IP address editors. Many are vandalism (no problem), but many are good faith edits. There are far too many examples to document here, so I have restricted examples to just those from the past three weeks.

17th Feb

IP edit: [46]

Wtshymanski revert: [47]

This was a good faith and basically correct edit. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds of being 'ungrammatical and out of place'. It could easily have been made gramatical and was exactly where it needed to be.

18th Feb

IP edit: [48]

Wtshymanski revert: [49]

This was a good faith edit and technically correct. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds that the output is not light despite infra-red often being described as "infra-red light" as indeed it is throughout the rest of the article. Further: infra-red light emitting diodes are described as precisely that - "light emitting diodes". The revert actually made the article worse because it no longer told the reader what the 900 nm output is (could be an electrical signal for example).

25th Feb

IP edit: [50]

Wtshymanski revert: [51]

The article was PRODed by Wtshymnski. The IP editor challenged the PROD by deleting it as he is perfectly entitled to do. WTS simply reverted the deletion doubtless because he believes that IP address editors should not be allowed to challenge PRODs even though they are. (The WP:PROD procedure clearly states that a PROD is aborted if the tag is deleted and it must not be rePRODed.)

25th Feb

IP edit: [52]

Wtshymanski revert: [53]

The IP editor's edit must be assumed by the WP:AGF policy to be a good faith edit, there being no evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, WTS has, characteristically not assumed the required good faith by reverting the edit as 'vandalism', and has done so by copy-pasting back an old version of the article (intermediate edits preventing a stright 'undo'). In his haste to revert yet another IP address editor, WTS also pasted back a spelling mistake and a 'coauthors' parameter to a CS1 template which is deprecated. Thus WTS corrected one error but reintroduced two.

2nd Mar

IP edit: [54]

Wtshymanski revert: [55]

Again a potentially good faith edit from an IP address editor . Once again, WTS makes no pretence at assuming that the edit is good faith and it is dismissed as vandalism. Another editor, Andy Dingley independently made the same point on Wtshymanski's talk page. Nothing can be inferred from the editing history as the IP address resolves to a college in India so it is anybody's guess how many real users are behind it.

It is known that Wikipedia is always wanting to recruit productive editors for the project. Inevitably, many potential editors will start as IP address editors before creating an account - provided they find the environment welcoming. Wtshymanski has long held the view that IP address editors should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia and has said so (see RfC referenced above for more). This may be Wtshymanski's view but it is known that it is not the view of the project and Wtshymanski has no right to impose his view in the face of the project's

IP address editors can be productive and offer quality editing to the project. Deliberate wholesale reverting such edits does not provide the welcoming environment, that such editors need if they are to be encouraged to staty.

As evidence: a quick scan produces this IP address's contributions [56]. This editor has made good quality contributions on UK parliamentary procedure; seems to understand the subject and the contributions have been well referenced. I suspect this may be an experienced editor, but if it is, I have not been able to link the address with any other or an account. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with DieSwartzPunkt The diffs shown, show the removals called vandalism and they're not, further when he's challenged by a non-ip user, he's been letting the edits stand. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

18 Feb IP edit was absolutely correct and Wtshymanski revert is an error, because what it emits is light (everything that involves photon is light). Some part of the entire light band is visible, but other invisible parts are also called.

I agree with DieSwartzPunkt's observation for all other instances too. – nafSadh did say 17:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• What's the point in this ANI post? Is this an "incident"? Maybe. What administrator action is desired here though?

Once upon a time we had WP:WQA and WP:RFC/U. Neither of them were likely to be effective (WP:Requests_for_comment/Wtshymanski wasn't), but at least they were an attempt by WP to have a means of resolving such issues. Admins won't act over such issues - it would involve making value judgements about other editors and that never happens. Even when it's not a popular editor who can rally their clique of supporters.

WP needs to restore WQA, RFC/U or something else in that line. This ANI post won't achieve that much though. Wtshymanski will, as always, back off for just long enough to dodge the bullet (see the RFCU closing comments) and then will be back, just the same as before. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not proven The accusation is:

"Wtshymanski is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering-based articles that he routinely watches." (typo and punctuation corrected)

and, doubling down, just in case we might have thought the meaning was open to interpretation:

"Wtshymanski has continued to systematically revert any and all edits made by IP address editors." (emphasis was in the original)

But a quick perusal of the history of each of the pages diff'd above will show many edits by IPs that were not reverted by Wtshymanski. Therefore the claim of "any" is specious. Some were let stand, some were reverted by others, "others" not excepting Andy Dingly and DieSwartzPunkt. There are also many edits by IPs that were reverted by W. with completely defensible reasons and edit summaries.

Perhaps W. is too quick to assume that IPs' edits are wrong. (From my own experience, given the number of IPs' edits I've corrected that were wrong, this would not be an unreasonable bias on W.'s part.) I believe AD and DSP are similarly too eager to find fault with W.'s edits, and this patently absurd accusation of "any and all" is a result. Jeh (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"many edits by IPs that were not reverted by Wtshymanski."

So because he didn't get all of them, his behaviour over the ones that he did revert should be discounted?

This isn't about Wtshymanski reverting anon edits. It's about his assumption that for any anon edit he reverts (frequently a justified revert) he assumes that it's deliberate vandalism, and he assumes this because of who made it, not the quality of the edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"This isn't about Wtshymanski reverting anon edits." That's odd, because that's exactly what you DSP said it was about. If it's really about his over-use of the vandalism charge, then you DSP should have said that from the beginning. And then every one of your DSP's your diffs needs to show an edit summary by W. with a demonstrably unjust accusation of vandalism, or they don't support your position. If it turns out that a clear majority of W's edits to IPs' edits do not include an unjust accusation of vandalism, your case gets rather weak. Jeh (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Jeh, I know that you're just about the only friend Wtshymanski has round here, so it's not surprising that you've rushed to defend him. However please actually read this post first. I didn't raise this. I haven't posted any diffs, so I don't know which diffs you're complaining about. Mind, it would have to be very blinkered to not see the problem with what he's doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct you are. I missed the correct attribution among all the rest of the periodic Wtshymanski pile-on. I have edited my above accordingly. But as for your "I don't know which diffs" claim, there is only one set associated with the complaint. So I think that if you were to hazard a guess as to which diffs in this talk page section I'm referring to, you'd either be correct, or you'd have to pretend to be a complete idiot. And we all know you are not that, so please drop the "I don't know what you're referring to" act. You're smarter than that, and I'd thank you to assume that I'm smart enough to not buy it. Jeh (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You claimed that Wtshymanski had allowed some IP edits to stand, but failed to provide any diffs. In the short discussion that I had on this at Wtshymanski's talk page, he made the same claim. He then obliged with a single diff that supported that position. But he had to go all the way back to 2007 to find it. There are examples of IP edits being allowed to stand, but as they are obvious corrections of errors, reverting them would be vandalism in itself (though as in case four above, that is not always an obstacle). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please. You took that "2007" bit seriously?

So. "There are examples of IP edits being allowed to stand." Your words. Doesn't that rather contradict your accusation? Do I have to quote it yet again, to remind you of what it was? Do you understand what it takes to disprove a universal claim? It takes one counterexample. One.

The first diff above is from DC motor. From the first page of 50 edits, working from the bottom (I am not counting IP edits that were clearly vandalism, either reverted by W. or otherwise):

[57] IP made stylistic wording changes to picture caption. W. did not revert.

[58] vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else.

[59] IP wikilinked Hybrid car. W. did not revert.

[60] IP made minor grammar correction. W. did not revert.

[61] vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else.

[62] minor word correction by IP. Nobody reverted.

[63] vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else.

[64] vandalism by IP. Rv by Wtshymanski.

[65] IP added redlinks. Rv by Andy Dingley.

[66] vandalism by IP (added blank lines). Rv by someone else.

[67] vandalism by IP. Rv by ClueBot.

[68] vandalism by same IP as above. Rv by ClueBot.

[69] vandalism by IP. rv by someone else.

[70] vandalism by IP. rv by ClueBot.

[71] vandalism by same IP as above. Rv by someone else.

[72] IP removed a blank line (non-rendering edit). Not reverted that I could find.

[73] Wtshymanski edit. Unrelated to previous IP edits.

[74] vandalism by IP (blanking). Fixed by ClueBot.

[75] IP added an ungrammatic sentence: "It has very high starting resistance so that it would use in that kind of equipments which needs a very high starting torque." Wtshymanski reverted with comment "out of place unclear and ungrammatical" (this is the rv DSP complained about).

[76] minor grammatical correction by IP. Wording improved by me.

Counts:

19 edits by IPs total (I am counting successive edits by the same IP, with none intervening, as just one).

11 of these were vandalism. Of those, ONE was reverted by Wtshymanski.

6 were good edits. Of those, W. reverted NONE. Two of them were significant changes to content.

1 was a good faith but erroneous edit, reverted by Andy Dingley.

1 was what I would call "legitimately problematic". Wtshymanski reverted it. Yes, it could have been improved.

It seems clear to me that W., far from reverting "any and all" edits by IPs as you accused, was far more selective. He in fact reverted only one of 11 IPs' vandalism edits, one problematic edit, and none of six good edits. I would say that the evidence from this article, one of those you complained about, refutes your accusation rather soundly. The evidence does not even support a claim of "W. erroneously reverts most IP edits", with or without an accusation of vandalism. (I would also say that it shows there is ample reason to view IP edits with a particularly skeptical eye.)

But you are the one making the claim, so you are the one who should be providing complete summaries of recent diffs. Not just a few cherry-picked examples. Jeh (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The above is non-evidence. 12 edits were reverted by others. That proves nothing except that someone beat Wtshymanski to the punch in each case. Even Wtshymanski presumably sleeps and works from time to time. As already stated, Wtshymanski usually does not revert an edit, if it leaves the article wrong (6 edits). And the last 'legitimately problematic' one, is similar to case 1 of this complaint. 'It could have been improved'. Yes, and Wtshymanski is as capable of improving it as anyone else, but if the edit had been left, someone would have improved it.

I have not 'cherry-picked' evidence as you claim. I have listed every IP address revert since 17th Feb. If I had provided a 'complete' list of sumaries as you suggest, this ANI would still be being compiled. But this was stated in the original complaint. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

So, I provided the diffs you asked for, and you moved the goalposts. But then you want to stick by the original complaint? The original complaint was:

"Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering based artcles that he routinely watches. "

That has been disproven (with great ease, just as most generalizations can be). You listed "every IP address revert since 17 Feb"? And you found a grand total of five? W. has made 'prox 700 edits since 17 Feb. So less than 1% of W's edits in the last three weeks were reverts of IP edits that you think were unjustly described as vandalism? You're going to have to find much more compelling evidence than that.

"If I had provided a 'complete' list of sumaries as you suggest, this ANI would still be being compiled." So you can find a few examples out of several hundred edits, not mention that they're picked out of seven hundred edits, and you think that makes your case? This has all the earmarks of a witch-hunt. Makes me wonder if the evidence in W.'s other ANI, etc., cases, at least the ones brought by DSP, AD, and GM was as tenuous? Jeh (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the "problematic edit" by the IP (severe grammar problem) was the one you listed. Yes, it could have been improved. The fact remains that W.'s revert of the IP's edit left the article better than it had been after the IP. So we have a justified edit by W., and your complaint is that he should have done more. Got it. Jeh (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Andy, above you asked (?) what the point is. I think you or someone should ask for something specific. I looked at W's block log and this seems to be an annual affair (that somehow skipped last spring). The first block for this in 2012 was a day; the block for this in 2013 was a week. There is a clear pattern of the same behavior continuing, which is a violation of AGF and is DISRUPTIVE. So you should propose a longer time-limited block (say 2 months?) or perhaps an indef. It would probably take community consensus for either, and this is indeed the place to propose that and get consensus for it. But in the block proposal you should make a good, concise, ANI-ready statement of the case, if you want it to succeed. That is my advice anyway. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have better things to do than to read and memorise Wtshymanski's block log. If he has been formally warned not to behave just like he's doing here, and he's been blocked for doing it previously, then I'd agree that it might be useful for an admin to follow that precedent and act accordingly. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You questioned whether this was an incident. With the demise of the RfC/U system, the only avenue now available to address user's behavioural issues is here at ANI (and the defunct RfC/U procedure says so). If nothing happens as a result of this, then I can only assume that the admins are granting open season on reverting other editors' posts. That may not be there intent, but it will certainly be the message. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I would only ask that the admins look at the pattern of behavior here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Wtshymanski hammering his personal knowledge into articles again
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User Wtshymanski refusing to follow the merge procedure when merging articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Unilateral redirects without merging as stated in edit summaries - User:Wtshymanski
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive683#Request for admin attention re: proposed deletion of multiple electronics components articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive690#Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive138#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Floydian .28Result: Stale.29
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Power factor
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive257#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:85.255.233.193 (Result: Protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive172#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: declined, semi-protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive149#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:24.177.120.74 (Result: page protected)
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive103#Wtshymanski and the transistor AfDs
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 7#Talk:PSR_B1919.2B21.23Merge

Please note that some incidents that would no doubt have ended up as blocks ended up instead as page protection because Wtshymanski's latest opponent (typically a new user) behaved worse, so the block log does not tell the whole story.

Also note that when Wtshymanski faces the possibility of sanctions, he typically does not defend himself but instead stops editing for a while. The old "he hasn't edited since X, so nothing to do here" trick works every time -- his RFC/U was closed with "Considering that Wtshymanski has not edited since 16 May 2012, no immediate administrative action appears required". Please don't fall for it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy's post above underlines a very major problem. The administrators are (unwittingly) exacerbating the problem. A running feature in the long history of these behavioral disputes and complaints is that whenever the administrators decline to take any action, Wtshymanski regards it as an endorsement of his attitude and behavior towards other Wikipedia users. I have lost count of the number of times, that some editor has criticised Wtshymanski on his talk page only for Wtshymanski to respond that his attitude has already been taken to ANI (or wherever) with no action and therefore it is acceptable [to the admins]. This was covered as long ago as the 2012 RfC/U. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Found it!

[In response to a complaint on his talk page] "... and yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest." - Wtshymanski

• again, DieSwartzPunkt and Andy Dingley you have presented a bunch of evidence, which is great. But just coming here and making a complaint about a pattern of behavior generally leads no where here; the discussion will just go on and on and will eventually peter out as everyone gets exhausted. If you want something done you should make a concrete proposal for action Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It's DieSwartzPunkt who posted this, not me. I have no expectations of ANI ever acting usefully, so wouldn't have wasted the ink. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

well there is self-fulfilling prophecy if i ever saw one. OK I will do it, just so I don't have to watch this follow the sad pattern. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

As for what action is required? Wtshymanski's battleground attitude to other editors (both registered and anonymous) has been going on for several years. Guy Macon's very comprehensive listing above is testament to that. What is required is some action to force Wtshymanski to co-operate with other editors in the manner that Wikipedia intend. This means either a series of escallating blocks until he falls into line (though this has not worked so far). Alternatively, I would suggest the proposal that was made at the 2012 RfC/U, where a set of rigourously enforced sanctions be applied against Wtshymanski. There was a good list discussed here which would be a good starting point. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Proposal 1: 3 month block on Wtshymanski

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

• Support - as proposer. W has a well documented, long term pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing by indiscriminately reverting IP edits. Demonstrated by block log and diffs above. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - as complainant. Previous block for this behaviour was one week and achieved nothing. A longer block is needed to try and get the message across. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Heres a better idea: block or interaction ban Dingley from bringing Wtshymanski to ANI again. Hes the one who has the problem. There are just three editors here who keep complaining about Wtshymanski: DieSwarzPunkt, GuyMacon and Dingley. Theyre the ones who are causing this. Wtshymanski reverts bad edits - whats even wrong with that? To find things to complain about they dragged up a RFCU case from three years ago. No one else has trouble with Wtshymanski so leave the guy alone. 82.132.234.182 (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Re: "DieSwarzPunkt, GuyMacon and Dingley": ...and Binksternet, and Bratland, and Deucharman, and Dicklyon, and EdJohnston, and Floydian, and Hasteur, and Jytdog, and N5iln, and NellieBly, and North8000, and Northamerica1000, and P-Tronics, and Rdengler, and RichardOSmith, and too many IP editors to count... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. As Wtshymanski himself said, "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC) The new proposal 2 is better. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Sadly. The evidence speaks for itself. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The complaint states that "W has a well documented, long term pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing by indiscriminately reverting IP edits." But the "evidence" posted by DSP shows only five such incidents "in the last three weeks". That's five edits out of over 700 made by Wtshymanski in that time. That's quite a standard W. is being held to. Regarding the list of previous incidents so painstakingly compiled by GuyMacon, many of those were closed without action. Since the current proposal is unsupported by sufficient evidence, this turns into "let's punish him more for the past 'pattern of behavior', even though we've provided no evidence that it's continuing." That's not how AN/I works. Jeh (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that you are prepared to cite 700 more or less mechanical edits adding a "no" to the "living=" parameter on biographical talk pages (that do not actually seem to change anything), as justification that Wtshymanski can revert IP address editors, contributions. Unless, the is, that you yourself do not approve of IP address editors editing. Guy answered the conclusions in his missive. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I won't comment on past history, but those 5 diffs at the beginning of this section are problematic as evidence. For example, the Feb 25 edit does not refer to the IP edit just before it, but to an earlier IP edit. The Mar 2 edit was clearly subtle vandalism from an IP whose only edits have been vandalism. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This point was addressed. The IP resolves to a whole college in India. These have been problematic for a long time. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Per difs provided by Jeh which refute the accusation. Edison (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

And have been shown to be non- evidence. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I see the case as clearly proven. I see Jeh's posting of diffs of other peoples' edits as not proving anything about Wtshymanski's behaviour at all (How was that even supposed to work?).

However I don't want to see Wtshymanski long-term blocked (or Alan Liefting, where something similar and equally counter-productive happened). We have several clear policies, one of which is AGF, others are about crediting merges, discussion with others etc. and Wtshymanski has a long, long history of ignoring any of them he feels like. However what I want to see happen instead is for him to just start bloody well behaving himself, same as the rest of us have to. I don't want this to be at the cost of excluding him altogether (if at all possible). Maybe over-optimistic, but I hope something is possible.

As an imposed action today, I'd be much more keen on some narrowly worded restriction. "Not describing non-vandalism as vandalism" would be a start. Simply not reverting IPs at all, if that's the smallest that can stick. I can't support a three month block on an editor though, even Wtshymanski. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Andy above. Just because Wtshymanski does not assume good faith doesn't mean that we should not give him a chance to correct himself. A temporary ban from reverting any IP edits may even be better than this. Epic Genius (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oddly, I proposed this as an alternative to the 3 month block, but got shouted down. (See edit history for more). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not reasonable. I advised you to withdraw a competing recommendation; you freely agreed without protest and suggested I delete the whole 2nd proposal; which I did. You just lost all credibility with me. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

@Jytdog: Since I neither reproposed the option 2 nor added a vote of support for it, what exactly is your problem? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 2: revert restriction

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from reverting an edit without a content based edit summary. In addition, they are prohibited from referencing the original editors lack of registration status in the summary.

• Support addresses the specific concern without unduly interfering with editing of the encyclopedia. NE Ent 23:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support. As I indicated with the examples I gave in User talk:Wtshymanski#rv V ?, it can be very difficult to figure out who was reverted and why from Wtshymanski's edit summaries. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment That's a completely valid concern, and goes with the "content-based edit summary" requirement, but I don't see how it's related to "can't refer to anon status". Will the WP default edit summary for reverting an IP edit be changed for Wtshymanski? Or will he be required to remove it? That would seem to me to make it even harder to figure out who was reverted. Jeh (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    • He is (often but not always) removing the standard "Undid revision X by Y" (which does not refer to a users registration status, although you can infer it if it list an IP) now, and instead using edit summaries such as "rv anon v" that do refer to a users registration status. Leaving in the default edit summary would not violate this proposed restriction. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. First, this proposal is not matched by a specific complaint that the proposal will address. (Which btw is why the following lengthy screed is here under my vote, instead of in the "discussion after complaint" section where it belongs.) DSP's original complaint was that W. reverts "any and all" IP edits; that is obviously false. Subsequent discussion was all over the place, but I don't see any specific complaints that are complementary to this proposal.

I suppose we can infer that the goalposts have now been moved the complaint has been changed to "W. frequently does not provide content-based edit summaries, and refers to IP edits disparagingly in edit summaries." But no evidence has been presented to support those complaints. A report of an "incident" here is supposed to be supported by diffs that are clear illustrations of the problem behavior. The only clear evidence here is DieSwartzPunkt (talk · contribs)'s five diffs, but those were originally compiled to support the "W. reverts any and all IP edits" complaint, not this. But those are all we have. So, taking them in order:

• 17 Feb: Edit summary of W.'s revert was content-based ("out of place unclear and ungrammatical") and did not mention "lack of registration status" outside of WP's default summary for a revert of an IP edit. (Re the quality of the revert, though that does not seem to be anything being addressed by this proposal: I would note that "high starting resistance" does not sound like a positive attribute for any electric motor under any circumstances. Granted that W. could have reworded instead of reverting, W's revert nevertheless left the article better than the IP's edit did.) Score: Zero support for the supposed complaint.
• 18 Feb: This is the "not visible so it's not light" revert. I agree that W.'s revert was a mistake, but the edit summary was content-based ("IR not visible") and only used the WP default wording for a revert of an IP edit. Score: Zero support for the supposed complaint.
• 25 Feb: This is the "restored deleted PROD" case. In this case W. did write "rv anon". But the WP default summary text was also present, and it also shows that the edit being reverted was by an IP. Score: one for "edit summary not content-based" but I cannot see that this unduly refers to an "anon" editor, not when WP's default message does the same.
• 25 Feb: This is the "unijunction transistor" case. W.'s edit summary is "rv anon v". Granted that this is not "content-based", but how much do we have to "content-base" a summary to defend a rv v?

DSP writes "The IP editor's edit must be assumed by the WP:AGF policy to be a good faith edit, there being no evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, WTS has, characteristically not assumed the required good faith by reverting the edit as 'vandalism'".

But the "no evidence to the contrary" part of that assertion is absurd. Changing "unijunction" to "junction" in one place in an article titled "Unijunction transistor", and which has the word "unijunction" all over it, is pretty tough to assume to be an honest mistake. It is, rather, sadly typical of IP drive-by petty vandalism. If the IP thought the correct word was "junction" then ie should have made the change everywhere. Hence "rv v" is justified, and no further "content-based summary" is required. Score: No support for either supposed complaint. You may not agree with my conclusion, but I don't think you can say that I have no case at all. At worst, it's arguable.

n.b.: I have adopted the pronoun "ie" as a parallel to "he" or "she", to be used to refer to IPs of unknown gender.

• 02 Mar: This is the "two phase electric power" edit. Edit summary: rv v with WP standard rv of IP text. The IP changed "90" to "180". On first glance this too could be seen to be an honest mistake, since the very common split phase power used in the US has a 180 degree phase difference. But this edit was in the "this article about" section of a SeeAlso, contrasting the 90-degree "two phase electric power" with split phase power. Moreover, there's a nice diagram in the lede, which clearly shows a 90 degree phase shift; and 90 degrees is also mentioned in the lede text. The IP didn't change any of that. Further, the IP's edit history shows a clear pattern of petty changes, nearly all of which were reverted. DSP says that the IP locates to a college in India, so there might be several different people using it and no conclusion can be drawn. I would agree if there was a pattern of mostly good edits. But not here. If the IP is being used by a group of people, then it's a group of people who collectively are vandals. I would also argue that expecting an editor to do a geolocate on an IP is an unreasonable length to expect anyone to go to. It looks more to me like a desperate quest for a reason to AGF, despite evidence to the contrary. No, "rv v" is appropriate and sufficient. Score: No support for supposed complaint.

So in my opinion, only one of those diffs clearly supports the complaint that I'm assuming this proposal addresses, with one or at most two more arguable.

But even if all of them supported the complaint, do not, by themselves, demonstrate a general pattern of problem edit summaries by W. They show five edits, for which DSP apparently had to scour W.'s edit history for the last three weeks, a period during which W. made over 700 edits. Proposers need to provide evidence showing that these are more than isolated cases.

Furthermore, I really wonder how many other editors' history would stand up to this level of nitpicking? I also wonder how many of W's past AN/I and other cases were made on equally flimsy grounds?

Lastly, regarding "prohibited from referencing the original editors lack of registration status" part: When you revert an IP edit, WP automatically supplies a default summary of "Undid revision (number) by (IP address)". Are we going to require that W. change that? If not, how does the word "anon" call any undue or disparaging attention to the anonymous nature of the edit being reverted? If you do, do you really want to require W.'s reverts to not reflect the IP of the edit being reverted? That would only make it more difficult to figure out who was reverted and why, a result Guy Macon (talk · contribs) could be expected to object to, based on his statements above. Jeh (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree that the proposal above is too broad given the context. I am about to support the proposal, but with a scope restriction. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jeh - so your thesis here is that Wtshymanski's categorisation of these reverted edits as "vandalism" was correct?

Both of these edits (unijunction transistor and two phase power) were (to agree with Wtshymanski) ignorant and careless. They were obviously contradicted by the articles themselves, so any "careful" editor, not even a subject expert, should have had cause to question them. However a vast number of our IP editors on electrical topics are Indian college students with the confident ignorance of undergrads worldwide and an oddly (but obvious) Indian fixation on somewhat obsolescent electrical topics (I don't know what their biomedical students are learning, but their electrical engineers are taught about what the West tends to regard as museum pieces). I would lay money that these edits came from either an Indian technical college, or a bulk ISP such as BSNL. Look at synchronous motor and the perennial factor-of-two numerical errors introduced over "poles" and "pole pairs". We are waist-deep in this garbage and as someone who reverts far more poor edits to electrical topics than even Wtshymanski, I'm sick of it.

However ignorance and piss-poor teaching still isn't vandalism. Per AGF, none of us are allowed to treat it as such. As WP editors we are required to display infinite patience with clueless edits against basic common sense. Wtshymanski is no longer doing this. To be honest, I can't blame him for it. We should forgive it. However we shouldn't (as you're doing here) construct convoluted excuses for why it's "correct" to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"so your thesis here is that Wtshymanski's categorisation of these reverted edits as "vandalism" was correct?" Yes. I said so. I don't think I was at all unclear. Personally I am often a little more hesitant to use the "v" in an edit summary for an IP's first edit and first mistake (e.g. the "unijunction" edit). But with the pattern seen in the history of the IP of the "two phase electric power" edit? That seems very clear to me.

Your thesis is that I'm supposed to AGF even when an edit is of a pattern very commonly used by petty vandals, even when it's from an IP with multiple previous similar edits. I think that, and your requirement of "infinite patience", is absurd. That is an absolute, a universal, and I see no support for such in WP:AGF. Please note that WP:AGF begins with a disclaimer: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." A requirement of "infinite patience" is not at all "common sense", particularly not when the encyclopedia is being damaged repeatedly from the same IP.

I don't think I used "convoluted excuses" either. I think that was done by the apologist who noted that the IP locates to a school and therefore the IP's history of other erroneous edits is irrelevant. How is that idea consistent with WP's use of schoolblocks? Hey, in our effort to bend over backwards while touching our toes to AGF, why don't we just always assume that even if an IP goes to a private home, different family members might be using it, therefore an IP's history is always irrelevant? r-i-g-h-t.

Assuming I agree with your position here (I don't, particularly the "infinite patience" part): How do you reconcile "I can't blame him for it - we should forgive it" with your support for DSP's "reworded" proposal below?

Even if we accept that both of those edits were not v., there still is no evidence for a pattern of problematic edits. DSP says he went back three weeks in W's history and found two AGF failures. Oh my ghod, the sky will fall. Again, I ask: How many other editors' histories would stand up against this level of nitpicking? I think DSP is just a little too eager to bring ANI cases against W. Jeh (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"with the pattern seen in the history of the IP"

What "pattern"? They've made a dozen edits in total. This year they've made the two phase edit and a self-reverted. Neither of these are vandalism and there is no pattern of vandalism from them. Even Checkuser regards IP data as stale after three months, but you're seeing a pattern of confirmed vandalism from it.

Do you believe in some form of demonic possession? Do you think this router has become inherently evil, and so any editor connecting via it is now forced to turn into some sort of vandal?!

Your failure to accept AGF as applying to IPs is as bad as Wtshymanski's. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah? Feel free to bring an ANI case if you think you can make it stick. Jeh (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

More constructively: If incorrect use of the "vandalism" charge by W. is what you're really concerned about, why not make a Proposal 3: "Wtshymanski is forbidden from using 'v.', 'vand.', 'vandalism', or other similar accusations of vandalism in edit summaries"? Now, as I said, even if I accept those two IP edits as not-vandalism, there is still a failure to make a case that these are anything but isolated incidents. And I think that, although a few incidents of of AGFFailure could be worthy of a warning from an admin, any long-term restriction on editing behavior needs far more proof. But at least this is a nice clean proposal with clear boundaries for what is and isn't being proposed. If you do this, be sure to make the new proposal separate from the others, unlike what DSP did. Jeh (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support with reword : The scope is too broad as it apparently attempting to address issues not raised here as Jeh observes. My support would be for a sanction worded, "A prohibition on reverting any edit from an IP address editor. This includes any that are vandalism". The latter because Wtshymanski labels good faith edits as vandalism. Any genuine vandalism will get swept up by others in the usual way. To be enforced by escallating blocks if breached. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment : One, I call a procedure violation. This is not a "support with reword"; in particular, this is not a "reword". It is a different proposal completely. You need to make a new proposal for this. (Should the closing admin assume that the previous "support"s apply to your new proposal? Why? They're for a different proposal, one that still allows W. to revert IP edits, among other differences.)

Two, I guess now the "problem" has morphed into "Wtshymanski's reverts of IPs' edits are bad, and Wtshymanski labels good faith edits as vandalism". Let's see: Out of the five diffs you posted, only two showed W. accusing of "vandalism". Re the article content, those were completely justified reverts. And in each case there is completely sufficient reason to not AGF.

That leaves two actual problem reverts by W.: One was a revert against policy (restore PROD after IP deleted it). In talk page discussion W. made clear that he was surprised that IPs were allowed to block PRODs. The first time I ran into that, I was surprised too. The other was the "IR not visible so it isn't 'light'" revert, which is a factual error on W's part, not related to reverting of an IP nor to any accusations of vandalism.

But even if we accept those, that is still only two problem edits in three weeks. You haven't shown that such problems only occur when W. reverts IPs, you haven't shown any unjustifiable charges of vandalism, and you haven't shown that any problems that are demonstrated by these edits are anything but isolated incidents.

And your attempt to cast it as a "reword", attempting to roll "support"s for the original proposal 2 into "support"s for this, is particularly egregious. Jeh (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - but don't these "restrictions" apply to every editor anyway? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Question What are you supporting? The original Proposal 2, or DSP's so-called "reword"? Jeh (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In concept. Decent edit summaries are a "best practice," not something that's generally enforced; this would make them enforceable. That's why it's not an unreasonable measure. NE Ent 10:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support the reworded (and it is re-worded) restriction. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 11:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support but take to ArbCom - User:Wtshymanski is seem to not understand WP:IPHUMAN, which concerns a lot of new users who decide to make some edits logged out before making an account. However, I don't think ANI is the place for this, consider taking this to WP:ARBCOM. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of action it continues...

8th Mar

IP edit: [77]

Wtshymanski revert: [78]

This was a challenge of provided information by asking for a supporting reference. The IP editor did not use the correct {{citation needed}} template - most likely due to inexperience as this is the IP editor's first edit. Wtshymanski just mechanically reverted the IP edit as usual. He could easily have been helpful and inserted the correct template, but driving away IP address editors is more important than being helpful. New and inexperienced editors often need to be assisted to become good editors. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's see. A proposal with only one oppose !vote, and that one from someone who appears to be OK with siding with Wtshymanski in a content dispute where there are zero citations supporting Wtshymanski and where the chairman of that IEEE 1159.1 Power Quality Measurements wrote a paper specifically to correct Wtshymanski‎'s claim.[79] This should be interesting. I will make some popcorn. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

What? I didn't side with anybody in that content dispute. I watched it, but I didn't express an opinion either way. Recently, I just asked a question, a considerable amount of time after the dispute at the article page (unless it's still going on; I haven't looked for a while). But either way, the question was just for my information, not meant to "side" with anyone—if I'd wanted to do that I'd have done it at the article talk page. And anyway, what does that have to do with anything here? Does the fact that I was unclear on how PF is calculated and what negative values would mean make my arguments here less valid? Come on, Guy, you're better than that. Jeh (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. You spent the entire thread attempting to rubbish everyone else's observations on the matter and attempting to justify what Wtshymanski was doing. You even tried to claim that Wtshymanski's actions in some cases were due to his ignorance of the subject in question. Like when you tried to claim that Wtshymanski might have believed that Infra-red light wasn't light. Wtshymanski is sufficiently familiar with the technology to know that 'LED' stands for "Light Emitting Diode" and that 'infra-red light is as much light as any other variety. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You know, DSP, posting carelessly is completely within your rights. But when you do so, you should keep in mind that everything I posted is right here for everyone to see. When it is so ridiculously easy to show that you're off base, I really have to wonder what your motivation is.

There is no support here for a blanket charge of my attempting to "justify what W. was doing". (You have a real problem with speaking in generalities; do you realize that? Do you understand what the problem is with making such claims?) I pointed out that in a couple of the whopping total of five diffs you'd provided, W's. reverts were justified. I pointed out that the five diffs you posted did not support your accusations, that the behavior they did show would not be countered by the various proposals, and that the proposals did not match up with the accusations. Nor did I try "to claim that W. might have believed that Infra-red light wasn't light." I wrote "I agree that W.'s revert was a mistake". I later wrote, referring to the same edit, "which is a factual error on W's part". Get your facts right.

I even suggested a proposal that actually would fit the complaint - W. would be forbidden from referring to "vandalism" in edit summaries. Did you miss that?

You may be thinking of my comment re. the revert of the IP's deletion of a PROD. I was thinking of this comment by W.: [80] Now, maybe I am naive for interpreting that as honest unawareness of the rules—I don't think so, since W. rarely lifts a finger to answer critics; I can't imagine him lying to do so, that would be too much trouble—but it wasn't something I just dreamed up. Jeh (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Jeh, with all due respect, I believe that the record shows that I have been bending over backwards to give Wtshymanski the benefit of the doubt, convince him to engage in a serious discussion about his behavior, and to recommend the minimum level of sanctions that I think will reduce the ongoing disruption to the engineering articles. My perception of your approach is that your are a staunch defender of Wtshymanski, that whenever anyone posts a criticism that is flawed in any way you dissect it analyze it in great detail (which is good), but when a criticism hits home (my response Wtshymanski's continued snarky comments about how right he is about negative power factor despite the reams of citations showing him that he is wrong, for example), you go silent and move on to your next talking point. In my opinion, you are an advocate, not someone who tries to support Wtshymanski when he is right (as he often is) and criticize him when he is wrong. Nothing wrong with that, of course. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I am glad you posted that. I was working on a lengthy reply to the thread over at W.'s talk page when he blanked it (as he is wont to do). Now I have another place, a better place, to put it. But I have real work to do today, so I'll get back to this later. For a short answer, though: I see many things wrong with W.'s behavior; it is just that there are so many people eager to bring AN/I cases against him that it seems superfluous for me to mention them. Meanwhile, it is puzzling to me that you read me as an "advocate" when I don't think I've done much if anything beyond calling for hewing to the standard you called for. Jeh (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Twitter link ban?

There is a User, Ronz, who has been quite prolific in their removal of the Twitter (along with Instagram, IMDB, and similar sites) from seemingly any article that they come across[81]. Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Twitter notwithstanding which states that Twitter is generally not acceptable as an External Link except "for official links when the subject of the article has no other Web presence." Is it now "open season" on Twitter links? The existence of the Twitter template {{twitter|"subject"|subject title}} seems almost bizarre if this is sufficient justification for the wholesale removal of links to Twitter site wide. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The existence of a template does not change Wikipedia's guideline, WP:ELNO, which is pretty clear on the matter. No Twitter links. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There are some exceptions that are allowed, especially the one listed in WP:Twitter. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, so then which of these entries[82] did not meet the criteria for exceptions since most have "no other web presence". You deleted every single External Link from the page including those for IMDB which are allowed per WP:EL/P. Here too [83]. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, your inquiry leads one to believe you have not approached Ronz with your concerns before raising the issue here. I apologize if my impression is wrong. Tiderolls 20:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Tide rolls, yep, wrong impression. Apology accepted, but not necessary, thanks. I try to have more respect for ANI than to run to it as a default. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, if you look on the articles' talk pages you'll see that I linked past ELN discussions (of which this is most relevant). You'll see there (and elsewhere in the relevant discussions) that ELOFFICIAL doesn't apply to individual entries in a list. --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just my 2¢ - As far as I know - If the BLP has an official website - We remove per WP:ELNO, If they don't have an official website then we should list them. –Davey2010^Talk 21:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• That is my understanding also. We try to provide information. Even on a list. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm with Ronz here. No article, no links--Twitter or otherwise. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Drmies, as for the article vs. list aspect, if that is the mitigating factor, sobeit, but DGG makes a good basic point. The subjects in the example above do not have official websites, so that is why their Twitter links were included, a stated exception. You're saying that because its a list article, it should not have Twitter (or any other social networking) External links at all? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but ANI is not the proper venue to try to change consensus regarding content. If you would simply read the relevant policies/guidelines/discussion, you would see that yes it is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, I can understand wanting to resolve an issue, but shutting down a discussion doesn't help the situation. I've read WP:EL and specifically WP:ELNO as well as WP:Twitter, and I still fail to see the logic behind your wholesale deletion of all external links from a wide swath of articles. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue was resolved long ago. You've demonstrated a need to misuse ANI while not being able to read/understand current policies/guidelines and the relevant noticeboard and talk page discussions. Do review WP:IDHT and WP:DTS. --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, instead of using adjectives like "wholesale", can you provide a handful of examples where the Twitter link has been removed and you feel that our policies would have allowed it to be retained, along with an explanation as to why you feel those links actually met policy?—Kww(talk) 20:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Kww, that's a fair question and I appreciate you asking. Either of these edits is a sufficient example [84][85]. Both happen to be list articles and involve the same subject matter. The rest of the Twitter deletions I've found are where an "official website" is listed, so it makes sense within Policy as I now understand it. If the distinction is Ext Links in a list article, OK, but it should be clearly laid out in Policy. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with WP:ELOFFICIAL - these links are not the official website of the subject of the page (like in this removal), they are the official website of a subject discussed on the page. We are not writing an internet directory or a version of the yellow pages, let alone that they are necessary for the understanding of the subject of the page. Those links are inappropriate on these pages, and should indeed be 'wholesale' removed. Especially since an earlier discussion resulted in the consensus that these links were not appropriate along with other links on those pages. That consensus should first change before these links were re-included on the pages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

WOT Services

Please take a look at the activity over at WOT Services. The article has a history of manipulation by those involved with the company. For a few years now user Weatherfug has been obstructing critical edits. When the article is edited for balance or when the unbalanced tag is applied, the user claims vandalism. Recently, the admin JZG has become involved. He uses his administrative powers to push his editorial agenda. Readers will note that neither Weatherfug or JZG/GUY are willing to engage on the talk page. Instead they revert without discussion.

JZG has offered the explanation "Nobody cares" in his edit summary. I suggest that if the user does not care about article quality, that he refrain from editing it. Many users have voiced their dissatisfaction on the talk page. Many have tried to edit the article over the years, only to be discouraged by obstructionist reversions.

Weatherfug's last comments on the page are "The discussion is over" In lieu of discussing the issue the users posts on JZW's talk page. Previously Weatherfug had been posting on multiple notice boards in an attempt to exclude IPs from editing. Respondents at these noticeboards noted that "The IP editor has a point" and the NPOV board found that the article was unbalanced. During this time I did not attempt to edit the article due to the apparent futility of the process. I had been simply tagging the article as unbalanced.

After a 3rd opinion which established that the article was unbalanced, I found a source at The Nation which was previously unused in the article. After I had posted the source on the talk page, Weatherfug did decide to include it. However, his wording misconstrued the critical information provided by the source in an apologetic tone. As I was advised by a 3rd opinion editor that I must edit the article myself, I attempted to clarify what was written at The Nation. Unfortunately, the predictable pattern of obstruction has continued.

I do not expect that users will always agree 100% on article content. However the techniques used to exclude and discourage others at WOT Services seem contrary to Wikipedia's goals. Apologies in advance if this is not the right place to bring this issue.36.252.1.178 (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• I read the talk page going back to December. You seem to have been trying to add this material for a long time, this poorly verified and trite material verified only here in an FAQ, not an article written by a journalist and vetted by an editorial board, about an incredibly minor thing--minor in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure that at the time it was a considerable nuisance to The Nation, though what time that was, no one knows, since the FAQ isn't even dated. I assume your NPOV tag is based on the exclusion of the Nation material, and is thus also invalid.

  What we have here is stonewalling, wikilawyering of the worst kind, in a passive-aggressive way that no doubt greatly irritates other editors. Whether JzG is involved in some article content or not is irrelevant: any admin who looks into this would have semi-protected it, and if the IP keeps this up then maybe the talk page ought to be protected as well. As far as I'm concerned, this IP should be topic-banned from this article. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The source was perfectly acceptable for Weatherfug & JZG when it was being misconstrued. Why is it suddenly unacceptable when it is clarified? The reason given in the edit summary was that it is a blog. If JZG had stated that it were unacceptable because it is a FAQ page, we would not be here. Is The Nation a blog? The other reason given was a section heading issue, which was addressed. I am no wikilawyer, if anything I am less familiar with how things work here than others. I have repeatedly asked other's opinions. In fact, I asked before inserting the passage, but no one had anything to say. Others who are concerned with the balance of the article have already been driven off.36.252.1.178 (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

For a period of at least two years, a series of IPs all, I am told, geolocating to Nepal (I haven't checked because it is pretty obviously all one person or a small group of people) have been relentlessly adding poorly sourced negative material to this article and tagging is as biased, any time the material is removed or toned down. The specific text being edit-warred in by the IP at the moment is a section headed Inaccurate ratings, based on the story of an apparent false positive affecting The Nation and supported only by an FAQ page on The Nation's own website. The only thing that can be said for this version is that it is better than Inaccurate and Biased Ratings which was the IP's original preferred title (and also edit-warred when someone tried to tone it down).

All the IP has ever had to do is to bring reliable independent secondary sources to substantiate the veracity and significance of these errors. I can't trace any attempt to do so, or any evidence of understanding of our sourcing guidelines. In short, then, this is almost certainly a single user with a bee in their bonnet. Only one thing surprises me: that the complaints concern a political magazine. The major source of claims of bias against WOT is the subculture of quacks and conspiracy kooks. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I am tangentially involved in this dispute, having offered a 3O last December (after which I unwatched it). Looking at what has happened since, it seems to me that the case belongs on the Dispute resolution noticeboard rather than here. Since it is here, however, I would like to note a couple of things that disturb me:

1. WeatherFug has consistently addressed the IP with the patronizing "Dear user with the ever-changing Nepalese IP". On JzG's talk page this has become "Troll with the ever changing Nepalese IP". This is uncivil and he should be asked to stop.
2. JzG, very much a party to the dispute, has protected the page twice, on 30 January and yesterday. This looks to me like an abuse of admin privileges.

I would be happy to offer an opinion on the content issue if it was raised in the proper forum. Scolaire (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a party to enforcing WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. That is pretty much the entirety of my involvement with that article. If people want to add properly sourced critique then they can go right ahead. Anonymous hatchet jobs? Not so much. I do think a review of Weatherfug's contributions is probably worth doing. I haven't looked precisely because I don't want to get drawn in. As I stated above, all the anon has to do to get his preferred content into the article is to bring some half-decent sources to the talk page. I am an occasional user of WOT, I have no connection to it and don't give a damn beyond what is said in Wikipedia's voice based on self-evidently inadequate sourcing. As an aside, the IP should register an account, that would make it much easier for the other editors of the article to interact with him.

If I thought WP:DR would help, I'd have sent them there. I don't think the IP is interested resolving the dispute and I don't suppose Weatherfug is either. The immediate question of whether we should include a section calling into question the reliability of a service based on a single incident documented only on the website of the other party to the dispute, answers itself. Poorly sourced negative material comes out until it has been discussed. The IP believes the opposite, hence I semi-protected the article. The parties can work it out on Talk, during which time we do not say, with Wikipedia's voice, that WOT is biased based on the say-so of a political website without the benefit of any independent review or coverage. Because, you know, this is kind of obvious.

Standard terms apply: any admin who thinks the action should be undone, is free to do so. I personally don't see any other way of controlling this relentless addition of poorly sourced material, but if someone else wants to take a shot then be my guest. I am off to spend the day singing Poulenc's mass in G and a requiem by Pizzetti so can't respond quickly in the mean time. If an IP address geolocating to Goring-on-Thames adds a section to the article on Francis Poulenc to the effect that he hated basses, sourced to a scan of the closing bars of the Gloria, you'll know who it was. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Whatever your motives, you were reverting the IP's and ScrapIronIV's edits – with tendentious edit summaries – and you were involved in discussion on the talk page. Therefore you were a party to the dispute. As an admin you know there is a page for requesting protection. You should have gone there if you wanted the page protected. Scolaire (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at the talk page and the edits I have made. Decide for yourself if JzG is presenting the issue fairly in his telling of the story. (and also edit-warred when someone tried to tone it down). I repeatedly tried to engage on the talk page. I did modify what I reinserted to respect the concerns of others. I am interested in resolving this dispute. I have asked for compromise. I do ask for good faith. Where I could have been more polite, I apologize and recognize that I can improve. The passage was being misconstrued in a way that implied the mistake was on the part of The Nation, when the source clearly stated that the user responsible for the negative rating admitted fault. Look at the contributions of others who have also spoken to the unbalanced nature of the write-up. Even the NPOV board said as much. Anonymous hatchet jobs Is it appropriate to pressure IPs into registering? all the anon has to do to get his preferred content into the article is to bring some half-decent sources to the talk page You removed it stating that it was a blog. I agreed that the word bias was not appropriate because I can not reference the disclaimer used by WOT, as that is primary sourcing. Because The Nation is not a blog I put the passage back, without the word bias. Before inserting this passage I asked for your comment. You say all I need to do is find an appropriate source, but when I do find a source, it is misconstrued. When I clarify, the source is no longer acceptable for you. This seems duplicitous to me. Naturally, I can continue to find more sources, but it seems a bit futile if I am going to be obstructed at every step. The name calling etc. is not important to me. We are all adults here, you may use whatever language you feel is most suitable. I am not here to complain about those things. However, I do expect a logically consistent discussion that focuses on the content of my actions, not my identity, where I reside, or how I connect to the Internet via dynamic IP addresses. I can only take responsibility for my actions. I am not responsible for the lack of competent ISPs in my area.36.252.1.189 (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"For a period of at least two years, a series of IPs all, I am told, geolocating to Nepal (I haven't checked because it is pretty obviously all one person or a small group of people) have been relentlessly adding poorly sourced negative material" I had only tagged the article until after the 3rd opinion, when I was advised to edit the article. Check for yourself. Why does JzG seek to misrepresent this? 36.252.1.189 (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A more pertinent question is, why are you so determined to insert poorly sourced negative material? I have no problem with properly sourced criticism in that article, the issue has always been that the content of the (usually tendentiously titled) WP:CRITICISM section has never had anything approaching proper sourcing. The solution is, just as it always has been for over two years, bring better sources. Or give up. Either works, in a way that constantly adding poorly sourced critical material does not. Per policy. WP:RS has strong support, WP:NPOV requires reliable sources for critical commentary, whereas WP:LETMEADDTHISPRIMARYSOURCEDCRITICISM ORTHEARTICLEISAWHITEWASH is not widely accepted. Your edits were disruptive. You can fix that by sourcing them properly or stopping. End of. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Weatherfug added the source after I posted it on the talk page. You reverted to Weatherfug's version of the passage when you were edit warring with ScrapIronIV. If the source is unacceptable, why did you not remove it at that time? The source was acceptable when it was being misconstrued. When it was clarified, you objected. The edit history and talk page covers it all. Readers should check there and decide for themselves.36.252.1.189 (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Scolaire: YOu say tendentious edit summaries. The text I removed was:

Political magazine [[The Nation]] received a negative rating from WOT Services for their outgoing emails. The Nation inquired with the user responsible for the rating, who admitted that he had erroneously rated the domain. The magazine called upon readers who felt compelled, to help to improve the rating.<ref>{{cite web|title=FAQ: Web of Trust|url=http://www.thenation.com/web-trust|date=|accessdate=17 January 2015|publisher=[[The Nation]]}}</ref> On March 31, 2014 a WOT power user (who's ratings carry greater weight than others) had negatively rated the domain, accusing it of distributing [[malware]].

The statement that "nobody cares" is not tendentious. If anybody cared. there would, by now, be a reliable secondary source for this repeatedly added text. I do not care about the text (or indeed the article subject), I do care about the relentless addition of critical material of this nature based solely on the self-published content of an involved party. Excluding such content is not even remotely controversial. I have no idea where I first heard fo the article, most likely it was OTRS, all I know is that when I see junk content like that in an article, I remove it, as any Wikipedian should. If supported by reliable sources, I would have done nothing. It never has been. Over a looooooong time. Sooner or later, the obvious has to be done. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

self-published content of an involved party. Can you please explain how this is relevant to the discussion? Where did you remove self-published material from the article?36.252.1.189 (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that JzG should not have used his admin priviledges to settle a content dispute in which he is a participant. Whether this constitutes an "abuse" of privileges is up for debate, although I note that JzG was recently warned not to invoke his admin status during a content dispute, so he should have been a little more careful in this aspect. As for his usage of tendentious language, I think there is a fine line between being direct and being abusive, but JzG has clearly crossed this line when he began to use words like "fucking ridiculous" and "I have been an admin since a long time before your first edit". As far as don't bite the newcomers is concerned, this recent attempt to invoke one's admin status during a content dispute is completely uncalled for. It is an inexcusable action because this administrator had already been warned not to do that. -A1candidate 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What you fail to recognise is that I am not part of the content dispute. All I did was to remove poorly sourced, contentious, negative material. We're supposed to do that. I have no opinion about the inclusion of material itself, should those determined to include it ever get round to finding a reliable source. That's my only "involvement" with the article: as janitor. This is not like the many disputes I have had with you (you were going to mention that, weren't you, in a spirit of transparency?). Sure, you think it's unforgivable. You think my mere existence is unforgivable, this is abundantly clear by now. Quackery supporters and long-time Wikipedians tend not to get on, that's just how it goes.

And now to get back t othe complaint at top.

• The IP complains that "Weatherfug has been obstructing critical edits". That is arguably true, but would need diffs where he has opposed properly sourced critical edits.
• The IP claims that "when the article is edited for balance or when the unbalanced tag is applied, the user claims vandalism". That is a serious misrepresentation. The IP claims that the article is unbalanced on the grounds that poorly sourced negative material is not included. The IP has only to produce reliable independent sources to substantiate the significance of the claims, and the problem goes away. That has not been done. The IP's version of the article being "edited for balance" is, as the article history plainly shows, to include poorly-sourced negative material. The solution is, and always has been, bring better sources to substantiate the relevance and signficance of the material. What the IP is actually doing is tendentious editing.
• The IP claims "admin JZG [...] uses his administrative powers to push his editorial agenda". I have no editorial agenda, other than the removal of poorly sourced negative material, something every Wikipedian is required to do.
• The IP states: "readers will note that neither Weatherfug or JZG/GUY are willing to engage on the talk page". This is simply false. On the talk page right now is a section titled "recent reverts" where I explain exactly what people need to do to include this content.
• The IP states "the article has a history of manipulation by those involved with the company", I see no proof. There is a clear implication that I am one of these. This is entirely false. I have no idea about Weatherfug and haven't looked, it is legitimate to wonder why the IP is so very determined to include this content and whether the IP perhaps has some undeclared external agenda, but my employer is not a secret and I have never had any connection whatsoever with WOT other than as an occasional user.

The problem for me here is the idea of "involvement creep". There aren't may admins given the numbers of articles and disputes. If every admin becomes "involved" the first time they take any action on an article, then all the POV pusher have to do is keep going until they run out of active admins. It won't take long.

I'm happy to leave someone else to police this article. The addition of poorly-sourced negative material is forbidden by policy, and whether or not the IP manages to drive away Weatherfug, me or both, the same will apply. That content cannot go into the article unless and until it is properly sourced. A three minute review of the content, its inclusion and the tendentious headings under which it has been included, is all you need to see that this is an obvious case where anybody would have done the same.

As I say, I have no idea what first drew me to the article, the edit summaries indicate it may have been this request by Scolaire at the NPOV board, which accurately summarises the problem needing intervention at that time. Whatever it was, it was not a desire to edit the article, it was a specific complaint about non-compliant content. I have not looked at the claims of conflicted editing, they may have merit, albeit that no specific evidence has been provided other than that the supposed conflicted editors oppose inclusion of poorly sourced negative material. ScrapironIV is not a problem, Weatherfug may be, the IP definitely is. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

JzG is definitely involved in the content dispute as evidenced by the following diffs:

• JzG made a controversial edit to the article on 26 December 2014 [86]
• JzG was reverted by ScrapIronIV [87], In the edit summary, ScrapIronIV told JzG to participate in the talk page and NPOV Noticeboard discussions
• JzG ignored ScrapIronIV 's request for talk-page discussion and continued edit-warring [88]
• JzG then invoked his administrator status in the midst of a content dispute [89], despite being warned recently not to do that [90]
• JzG made his third controversial edit to the article by reverting ScrapIronIV yet again [91]
• JzG's controversial edits were opposed by both ScrapIronIV and the IP but he blatantly ignored them and continued edit-warring [92][93]
• JzG, very much a party to the dispute, has protected the page twice, on 30 January and 6 March 2015, after persistent edit-warring with the IP [94]

As shown by the above diffs, JzG's claim that this is not a content dispute is a complete lie. He not only participated in the dispute, but continued to engage in edit-warring and invoked his admin status in the midst of the content dispute. He bites the newcomers [95][96], views himself as a "long-time Wikipedian" [97], attacks other editors by calling them "apologist" in the edit summary [98] and accuses me of being a "quackery supporter" [99]. Surely, these personal attacks and abuse of administrative privileges must stop. -A1candidate 11:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED contains the "any reasonable administrator" clause. Given the semi-protection has been reviewed and endorsed by another admin, that is not of concern to me. What is of primary concern is JzG's statement: What you fail to recognise is that I am not part of the content dispute. All I did was to remove poorly sourced, contentious, negative material. We're supposed to do that. I have no opinion about the inclusion of material itself, should those determined to include it ever get round to finding a reliable source. That's my only "involvement" with the article: as janitor. indicates a lack of understanding of "involved" -- specifically admins have only been authorized/tasked by arbcom to act in this editorial capacity for WP:BLP issues; as WOT Services is not a person that is not applicable.

Of much greater concern is JzG's repeated failure to meet the requirements of WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." As arbcom recently explained: "Administrators are expected to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. This requirement is not lessened by perceived or actual shortcomings in the conduct of others."

If the scope was limited to just this incident, I'd simply make the statement above and move on; however, given the recent AE warning I'd like to see an acknowledgement / commitment from JzG to abide by WP:ADMINACCT moving forward. NE Ent 13:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent - Does this mean that Guy is your next victim, the next admin you're going to go after and attempt to get desysopped? Do you undertake this campaign because you know that you will never be an admin?

Go edit some damn articles and make yourself useful. BMK (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

IP claims that the article is unbalanced on the grounds that poorly sourced negative material is not included When did I claim this? The article is unbalanced because it takes an apologist PR tone. Check the edits which misconstrue The Nation's FAQ. Decide for yourself if that is balanced. Others have tagged it as reading like an advertisement. The NPOV board said the article had problems. Did the NPOV board take this view because there are not enough poorly sourced passages? I am not the only user who has voiced concerns about this issue. The consensus was to edit the article for balance.

"readers will note that neither Weatherfug or JZG/GUY are willing to engage on the talk page". Did you engage on the talk page or just lock the article and ignore the proposed edit? I left the proposal up there for almost a week. If you had offered guidance or any feedback at all we would not be here. When I reinserted the passage, I did it in a way to address the concerns you mentioned. If you had other concerns, you could have shared them. You still have not addressed the seemingly duplicitous nature of how you determined that the source is unacceptable, after having previously allowed it.

"the article has a history of manipulation by those involved with the company" I see no proof. There is a clear implication that I am one of these. I am referencing the talk page, near the top. Cursory research would have revealed this. My expectation was that an administrator would review these things. Maybe I was wrong to make that assumption. I will try to be more explicit in the future, although I fear that I have already become too long-winded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WOT_Services#References_and_POV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WOT_Services#NPOV_question https://www.mywot.com/en/blog/123-wot-publicity-awards-2008 Deborah S. is the WOT PR spokeswoman. The previous conflict of interest edits should be considered here, along with the apologetic tone of the article. I can not rationally accuse JzG of being involved in this. I have no way of providing evidence to support those accusations.

The way JzG presents the issues here seems dishonest in my view. Maybe this is due to my lack of experience. Maybe it is not, as others seem to have similar problems with his behavior. JzG's history of warnings speaks to this. Again, I ask readers to review the talk page and edit history before deciding for themselves.

I am not perfect. In fact, I am an inexperienced user. Why not offer guidance instead of making (seemingly inaccurate) accusations? I recognize that I might have taken a higher road on the talk page. In fairness, WeatherFug was confrontational from the beginning. My actions were quite mild as compared to the treatment I was given. I am open to criticism, especially specific instructions on how to navigate a situation like this. I know, you will say: "post reliable sources". I will find more sources. Finding The Nation took a bit of effort, but I am sure I can find more. My issue here is that the source was acceptable for JzG & WeatherFug, until it was reported accurately. Finding more sources is futile if I will be obstructed in the same manner. ScrapIronIV observed the same.

If JzG or WeatherFug are penalized, it is not my business. Resolution for me simply means stopping the obstruction. A pledge to edit in good faith would suffice in my opinion. Retribution does not solve anything for me. From the beginning there has been an adversarial tone. Initially this concerned my use of a dynamic IP. Can we move forward from this, and bring this issue to a close?36.252.1.183 (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read the article or talk page, but removal of WP:BLP violations from an article, and warning those adding them, does not make one an involved admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Did Arthur Rubin even read this thread before making that irrelevant comment? WOT Services is not a person and this [100] is not a BLP issue. NE Ent 19:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Your report above contains all those things. I fully understand that you believe your edits to be peerlessly neutral, of vital importance to the subject, and to fail to include them is a fundamental abrogation of Wikipedia's mission. And all you have to do to get your way is to produce reliable independent sources to substantiate the importance of the matter. Have you thought of trying that? I did suggest it on talk. You chose to reinsert the text without independent sources instead, which of course is unacceptable. I'm encouraged that you're now discussing things but shouldn't you be discussing the content on the Talk page? With reliable independent sources of course...

That is all you've ever had to do. Just saying. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for that. I do not claim that anyone is possible of holding an unbiased view. In my view, we all have our biases. Please do not make these unfounded accusations. It does not help. The rest of your response is just talking past what I have posted above. Please address what I have written.

...determined that the source is unacceptable, after having previously allowed it. This is the part where in my view, you push your editorial agenda. 36.252.1.181 (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Clearly there is a need. It is not me who determines that the source is unacceptable, it's policy and guidance. I'm happy to talk you through that on the article's talk page, but in simple terms, in order for Wikipedia to accuse a service of being biased we require sources independent of the two parties, with some degree of editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. You will find, somewhere, a trenchant critic of just about everything, however Uncontroversial. Wikipedia does not, by design, weigh these things up according to our own beliefs, we defer to independent sources. In as much as I can make anything of the claim at issue, a WOT user mis-classified a site. The site asserts that this was a deliberate, evil and suppressive act, a clear violation of Hanlon's Razor on the face of it. The reader can't judge the merit of the claim because no trusted source, no analysis is provided. See the problem? Guy (Help!) 06:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for_inaccurate_hyperbole. Early on the talk page, I outlined my personal bias. I asked for help from more experienced editors. Not sure why you think there is a need to characterize my activities in that way.

The site asserts that this was a deliberate, evil and suppressive act... I am not seeing that anywhere on the source I posted. In fact, that was what I was clarifying. "For bullet point two, we did contact the original user who left the bad comment on elabs10.com and he said it was a mistake." So as you suggest, it was a mistake on the part of a WOT user. This is the content I inserted. We need to be on the same page. ScrapIronIV posted this in an edit summary. The way WeatherFug had composed the passage made it sound as if the error was on the part of The Nation. However, I will agree that on the WOT page there was plenty of the back and forth you describe. That is by the wayside, because the WOT page was not the source. Before deeming it an unreliable source you restored the passage written by WeatherFug. So at one time, you had interpreted The Nation's FAQ as a reliable source. Maybe you can appreciate how this gives the appearance that you were interested in promoting the view presented by WeatherFug's version which misconstrues the source.

For the 'bias' part, I removed that at your suggestion. It had been added initially because I made the mistake of referencing a disclaimer used at WOT. ScrapIronIV explained that this was an unacceptable use of primary sourcing, so I left that out.

Of course I will gladly continue this discussion with you or others at the article's talk page. For example, I responded to your assertion that The Nation is a blog. It is a magazine. If you had participated and said 'Well, actually this is a FAQ page which is unacceptable', I would not have used the source again. I gave it about a week before I re-inserted. Before we can discuss it there, you must participate. Reading the talk page, the content of edits, and the sources being contested might be part of that.

Again, I ask you to try to see it from my side. Not participating, being a bit abrasive(without logic or checking the facts - otherwise speak how you like), and then locking the article. It does not show you in a light of an impartial arbiter who simply wishes to adhere to policy. While the rules are definite, the interpretation is subjective. From where I stand it looks like you were willing to bend them for the benefit of WOT & WeatherFug. It gave the appearance that you locked the article because the source was not a blog and you could not produce further objections. Put this in the context of an article which has long-term neutrality problems and a history of edits by company PR staff. Maybe now you can see my side of it.36.252.1.158 (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Amazing to come back from a weekend off to see this here. I came across this article when it was posted on Third Opinion, and was surprised at its lack of content. I looked through the history, saw a consistent and concerted series of edits over an extensive period of time to remove any negative content from the article. This was being done by a user who, at the time, was not contributing to any other article here. It looked single purpose to me. Doing some research into WOT Services, I found a lot of controversy - but any small attempt to contribute was reverted. I tried to get involved, and found myself being accused of being a sockpuppet [101] from an Admin. I was an autoconfirmed user, so when the article was protected, the admin chose to protect it for Admin only. It seemed like an extreme action to me, as this is generally used for only truly contentious articles. I have seen on these boards what the sockpuppet accusation means, and pretty much decided to stop trying to contribute to the article. So, while I am a fairly new contributor, I gave up. I got bitten pretty hard by these users, and life is too short to get into warring contests. Long story short, it has colored how and when I edit articles. I'll occasionally correct a spelling error, or polish up some grammar, but it's just not worth fighting all the time. All of this discussion about editor retention, but no one really cares when a newbie is welcomed with bites, insults, threats, and accusations of sockpuppetry. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to join me in patiently explaining to our new friend what Wikipedia requires in a source, and why a blatantly misrepresented primary source is a poor starting point for critical content. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, re: sources, I just want to add that your explanation to me last month about RS was nothing short of excellent. I thought it might be helpful to share it here. [102] Atsme☯^Consult 13:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing and hounding with allegations of bad faith on GMO

David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

short story

OK, I have a stalker, userlinks above, who is accusing me of bad faith actions and COI across multiple Talk pages, so the issues are WP:HOUND, and WP:AGF/WP:NPA. He is also WP:CANVASSING about the "biased POV of the GMO articles". On his userpage he makes it clear he is a community activist, and it appears to me he is using such tactics here in WP and is violating WP:SOAPBOX via WP:ADVOCACY.

At this point I am seeking a 24 block for canvassing, and a strong warning for this inexperienced editor to stop these behaviors and to focus on content, not contributors. If David persists after a formal warning, I will seek a topic ban. I believe he is well-intentioned but does not understand WP. He appears to be WP:NOTHERE but I am not bringing that case, at this time.

longer story

WP:Canvassing

David entered the GMO topic by canvassing 4 editors on their Talk pages.

• 08:51, 13 February 2015 dif
• 08:54, 13 February 2015 dif
• 09:02, 13 February 2015 dif
• 09:08, 13 February 2015 dif

These messages are identical, are on pages of dissenters from the consensus on the GMO articles, and are decidedly not neutral, citing a "a pattern of corporate manipulation" and other bad behavior by "small group of watcher with a particular slant on the subject" and discussing the "bogus" and "blatant falsehood" of the scientific consensus statement. (Note: the scientific consensus is that currently marketed food from GM crops is as safe to eat, as food from conventional organisms. That was subject to an RfC that upheld the content with the consensus statement and its sourcing. That statement in the GMO articles really bothers anti-GMO activists. Continual problem with drive by editors, and some editors who are active here.)

I provided David formal warning of canvassing here. I also made a note on the Genetically modified food controversies Talk page and added a recruiting template to the article.

• After the canvassing warning, in this discussion on another user's Talk page, David used his concerns about my removing a personal attack (see below) to again vent his general concerns with the POV/COI going on at the GMO suite and my behavior. (again, with an editor he thought would be sympathetic) - which is canvassing, in my view.

David's canvassing led directly to a posting on Jimbo's talk page by one of the canvassers. Thread is here, which grew directly out of David's canvassing of the OP, one of those already linked above.

• David contributed this to the discussion there, discussing "COI problems that are happening with pharmaceuticals, and are now an equally big problem with GMO articles which lack of NPOV." This is just a continuation of the community activist campaigning and canvassing.

• And then, David left a message on another editor's Talk page tonight that I consider to be canvassing, that started with said "Anyone who tries to balance any of the GMO articles is immediately reverted and is often threatened like this." and discussed more below), and is what prompts me to call for a 24 block for canvassing.

• WP:NPA / WP:TPG

• David has now twice added content to article Talk pages, to "introduce" new users, with POV and attacking messages about contributors, not content:

first with this beauty, which i removed per NPA and provided David with a warning on this Talk page

and just now, this, which was also removed per NPA by another editor.

• Most recently, a new editor came to the articles wanting to add UNDUE content with messed up referencing to the Genetically modified organism article, which i reverted. I provided that user with a Welcome template, and I added another note informing the editor in a neutral way, about how the suite of articles is set up and explained how to add a reference. That editor used what I taught him to edit war the content back in (with proper reference formatting), without talking back at all, so I provided an edit war warning. (am not going to do all the editing diffs in this part. they are here if anybody wants to see them)

Today, David followed my note and warning with two messages on that editor's page. This first started with "Don't let these threats scare you off. Anyone who tries to balance any of the GMO articles is immediately reverted and is often threatened like this." Which is a continuation of WP:CANVASSING and violates NPA... and is also bad advice, because the editor was edit warring. David then wrote a message to me on that editor's page, critiquing my introductory note. This is just hounding, and this, along with the canvassing, is what prompted this posting.

• In the two or three weeks since all this started, David has engaged in only two real discussions about content.

• one about "substantial equivalence" which is here: Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Substantial_Equivalence
• the other, trying to add content about a 14 year old primary source discussing cellular engineering (not genetic engineering) to the genetic engineering article. Discussion is here.

In both cases, he was wrong about the topic (law/regulation in one and science in the other), and after he actually read the sources or had them explained to him, he acknowledged he was wrong. All this agita appears to be based on a very strongly held position that "GMOs are bad". He does not appear to be WP:COMPETENT in the subject matter.

• The behavior is all, classic WP:ADVOCACY. I deal with a lot of editors like this in the GMO suite and do not bring them here or create drama.

I am bringing this case, because David is different. With him, there is a new stalking element and really wrong focus on motivations and on contributors (namely me) not content, that is, to me, really icky, and a set of "community organizing" activities that is very unwikipedian.

deeper background here, for anyone who wants it Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Closing. David believes he has The Truth here and that his behavior is justified, and I reckon he will try to turn this into an examination of my behavior. I know that and expect it. I had a very long interaction with David in the leadup to this, (which was prompted by my noticing one of his canvassing messages b/c it was written on a page I watch; I became aware of the others only later). In that interaction I explained how the GMO articles came to be as they are, discussed how COI is and has been discussed and dealt with by the en-WP community, discussed how concerns about behavior are handled in WP, and urged him many times to focus on content, not contributors, nor their motivations - that this is what we do in WP. I grew increasingly worried by things that David wrote in that interaction, and my worries were realized in this message on my Talk page, which to be honest, freaked me out. I realized I had a stalker who a) does not understand how WP works at all (we identify reliable sources, craft content from them based on PAG, and discuss them - we do not speculate endlessly on what motivated this or that editor to do or say what... and that message was the fruit of, and 100% committed to, analysis of (guessed-at) motivations of contributors, all explained with great confidence. yikes.) and b) was really, really committed to his conspiratorial, convoluted POV about me. I replied appropriately (and I meant it) that I would be more careful to welcome new editors going forward. I then struck my interactions with him on my Talk page, apologizing for having bothered him (which I meant). And I archived my Talk page and reduced my User page to a minimum. And went to his Talk page and likewise struck my remarks there and apologized to him again. I have never had a stalker before; it is a weird feeling.

• I ask that, if this turns into an examination of my behavior, that this be done in a separate thread. This thread is focused on David's behavior demonstrated above, which is out of line.

• Anyway, as I mentioned above, I am seeking a 24 block for canvassing and a warning for David to stop these behaviors. I would like the warning to include instruction to discuss content, not contributors.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (added a bit per note below Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC))

Have you first tried to engage with David in a meaningful discussion? If so, why did initial attempts to solve the issue fail? I'm asking this only because I can't make any clear inferences about that from your long post, so it may be a good idea for you to state that clearly. -A1candidate 01:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

yes, as i did describe above. added some Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I see lots of accusations thrown against David Tornheim for allegedly stalking you, and that may indeed be occurring, but if you don't want him to come to your talkpage, you may wish to tell him to stay away from your talkpage (in clear language) and see if that works. You said that you apologized to him, but I don't consider that a good way to deal with unwanted attention. -A1candidate 02:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your advice but you are distracting from the point. I have not disinvited him from my Talk page, as that is the first place for him to bring concerns about my behavior. Per WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, this board is next, as I have told him.

But this is about david's behavior. I believe the canvassing is sanctionable and the discussions of content, not contributor, need a warning. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll also chime in and say that Jytdog seems to try to help out new editors relatively well. However, some terseness is needed in controversial topics when someone comes in with a strong viewpoint of their own. This seems to be a case more so not of a new editor being bitten, but someone coming in from an advocacy perspective with a fringe viewpoint and coming in a bit too hot to really realize the problem with that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support warning. Support temp block and warning. I'd weakly support a temp block, but it's really the warning that would hopefully help the situation. I've been involved in some of the content in this case, but haven't been targeted by David Tornheim like Jytdog has with this hounding behavior. There's really no excuse for this behavior and it's just poisoning the well at the related articles. The canvassing is very apparent (also to a t as described by WP:Votestacking) as Tornheim has been selectively recruiting from editors who appear to hold his viewpoint or have been trying to further WP:FRINGE viewpoints in the article. If it was just a new editor reaching out to one of those folks, that could be construed as someone just learning the ropes, but not this many people. The WP:TRUTH behavior seems very apparent where Tornheim came into the article hot as a new editor and just doesn't seem to get WP:GEVAL in this topic (similar to climate change, evolution, and other science articles where other editors with fringe POVs run into trouble). Overall, this just seems to be lashing out for not understanding how Wikipedia works (not for a lack of others trying to help) from trying to move too fast with a certain POV. The advocacy is tricky to address at this point here and maybe could be resolved without need for ANI, but it does seem to be leading towards the personal attacks and hounding that is not appropriate in any case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll also tack on there has been some battleground behavior/edit warring:

• [103] David adds content, removed due to sourcing issues by Jytdog.
• [104] David reverts content back in " please do not undo without presenting your reason on the talk page. "not accurate" is not a reason"
• [105] Reverted by Jytdog asking, "per WP:BRD please do not edit war, but rather open a discussion on the Talk page."
• [106] David reverts again directly copying Jytdog's edit summary "per WP:BRD please do not edit war, but rather open a discussion on the Talk page."
• [107] I reverted David's 3rd revert asking him to justify his new addition on the talk page at this point.
• [108] At which point, David posts a 3RR warning on my talk page after my single revert.

This shows a tendency to edit war rather than come to the talk page and seemingly not understanding that if you make a change and it gets reverted, you then need to gain consensus for it on the talk page. The snark involved in copying Jytdog's edit summary about BRD is also problematic and the warning on my page seem pretty retaliatory in nature. This user is still relatively new, so I do hope changes occur, but this is looking like a difficult case that isn't just due to being a new user. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose temp block and warning. I am working on a response, which I intend to post tonight. I would appreciate a chance to respond before any action is taken. David Tornheim (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Calling for a block based on a single incident involving canvassing of four editors which occurred nearly a month ago seems on its face unreasonable. Jytdog is an involved editor in this issue, and as such, Jytdog's behavior in this lengthy interaction should be subject to scrutiny as well; "this isn't about me, this is about them" arguments are specifically discussed and dismissed in Wikipedia:Boomerang, and "anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny."Dialectric (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting Dialectric, I am sorry my complaint was not formatted more clearly and that I missed your response. I am not making this report based on the 4 initial canvasses. I warned him for that. I am seeking the block because of the subsequent canvassing that I bulleted above, here and here, with that post on Jimbo's page here in the midst. He shows no sign at all of stopping and appears very committed to continuing to "community organize"?canvass around these issues. And I am seeking the warning for his continued comments on contributors (me) in, inappropriate venues, and following me around. ( this message to me on another editor's talk page... just ick. I hope that clarifies. I wouldn't have brought the block request based on the initial 4 canvasses - I agree that would not be reasonable. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Some of this would be for Jytdog to clarify, but I didn't see a clear it's not me it's them demarcation in his post, but rather him asking that if someone really wanted to discuss his behavior, it be brought up in a different section so there could be some clarity rather than a jumbled mess. The canvassing though is only one of the problems experienced at the articles (though maybe the most actionable). Advocacy really seems to be the core problem here though, so this isn't based in a single incident. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say there is nothing to do at this stage but it's clearly important to watch David Tornheim's input in relation to these articles, as he seems to be of the school that believes that anything not anti-GMO is pro-GMO, an easy mistake to make but not one that Wikipedia should fall for. For example, this edit states in Wikipedia's voice that an experiment that led to genetically modified human children in the US was unethical and illegal "there" and in other countries (in fact it should say "in the UK" as it is not illegal in the US, where ti happened); this is attributed to "British scientists" but the story makes it clear that the criticism comes from some British scientists and is nto a considered corporate view of any British scientific body. It would have been much better to attribute the actual quotation in the source by Lord Winston, whose criticism was much more measured. But in any case this is a 2015 edit based on a 2001 story about a technique (ooplasmic transfer) that has been covered much more recently, and is intimately bound to the three-parent baby debate. As a criticism of genetic engineering, it represents nothing more than a random interjection. In short, the edit represents a simplistic and partisan view of a complex topic, within a mature article. many of David's edits are similar. I think David now understands that he needs to discuss such edits in advance and achieve consensus before making edits that may be controversial. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

*note, created separate section for comments on my behavior below. this section is for David's behavior. I imagine this is going to get separated as new comments come in. This is the point in the thread where David added his comments below. Jytdog (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi JzG I am not making this report based on the 4 initial canvasses. I warned him for that. I am seeking the block because of the subsequent canvassing that I bulleted above, here and here, with that post on Jimbo's page here in the midst. He shows no sign at all of stopping and appears very committed to continuing to "community organize"?canvass around these issues. And I am seeking the warning for his continued comments on contributors (me) in, inappropriate venues, and following me around. ( this message to me on another editor's talk page... just ick. Jytdog (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Don't support. DavidTornheim has indeed attempted to inject content that was not supported by RS and has been looking for support. I'm not enough of a WP policy maven to weigh in on whether he's been violating the many policies cited here. However, he has in some cases responded appropriately to specific criticism and backed down. I think attempts to continue working with him are appropriate. I do wish he'd stop with the allegations. Lfstevens (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Regarding a block: Oppose (will not solve the issue); regarding a warning: support; regarding a topic ban from GMO and organic subjects: support. I have first hand experience with the rather bullying way Jytdog applies to get things his way with the effect that the neutrality and reliability of articles is impaired. That, and his behaviour, needs to be stopped. The Banner talk 13:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Wrong place The Banner talk 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This section is about David's behavior. Thanks for your support the warning. Blocks are meant to be educational, and I think David has no concept that his canvassing/campaigning is wrong. if you want to comment on me, you would probably best do that below. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• It is my opinion that the allegations raised against me by Jytdog are a direct result of my attempts to address Jytdog's behavior. Please see my response and reply to the allegations incorporated into the discussion below about Jytdog's behavior. David Tornheim (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • • yes it is clear that you believe you are doing The Right Thing. The problem is that you do not understand WP nor its behavioral guidelines. This is not a place for the tactics of community activism. It's just not. In any case, this thread has zero traction. All three of our posts are TLDR and we are not going to get community feedback nor admin action. Ah well, I screwed that up. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog's behavior

(note - created separate section so this has its own focus, separate from the above, which is David's behavior Jytdog (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC))

• Response to Allegations: I have been on Wikipedia since July 2008 [109] and have worked on a number of different articles.  I have never been taken to an ANI board before and have never been blocked. I have never taken anyone else to an ANI board or any other notice board. I am used to working things out on the talk page of the relevant articles.

I do understand Jytdog has put quite a lot of effort into revising all of the GMO articles and so it is not entirely suprising there is resistance to new people making changes. However, Jytdog's treatment of new users does not follow WP:DONTBITE, especially those that raise WP:NPOV concerns, which I explain below. In 2004, Jytdog said:

"There is a suite of related articles on GM matters. A few years ago these articles were a complete mess, with much overlapping content (most of negative anti-GMO stuff). A group of us went through and cleaned them up ..." here

Unfortunately, during this massive rewrite, as indicated above, the voices of GMO critics/consumer advocates (renamed pejoratively "anti-GMO") were compromised and the revised articles took on a Pro-GMO slant. "Anti-GMO" is an unfair label for the consumer groups, because people can be conerned about GMO's and want more testing before widespread release, without being opposed to all GMO's. This is an example edit where GMO critics' concerns are watered down to be almost unrecognizable here.

Jytdog is correct that I believe there are serious issues with lack of WP:NPOV for all of the GMO articles, and my good faith efforts to address them and work with Jytdog and the others are met with these kinds of accusations--just look at my talk page.

The 'scientific consensus' issue is simple--there is none, and other editors have pointed this out:

• Unmismoobjetivo (talk) here
• LesVegas (talk) here
• user:Arsenal lb here
• Gaba ^(talk) here.

English language Wikipedia is supposed to reflect a worldwide view of the subject, and there is widespread mainstream diversity of opinion in Europe, at least, especially ENSRR here. Reliable sources explain the lack of 'scientific consensus' here and here. Jytdog and others insist that reliable sources that do not conform to their view of the subject are fringe/advocacy groups here. This is POV pushing.

Jytdog, especially, but also Kingofaces43 and others have shown owernship behaiors WP:OWNER (or WP:GANG) towards the GMO articles, especially when changes are proposed that might address the NPOV concerns. For example,

User LesVegas identified the WP:NPOV problem and put an NPOV tag on an GMO article here and the tag was removed only 5 minutes later by Jytdog here. The user attempted to put it back here, and again Jytdog removed the appropriate NPOV tag only 2 minutes later here, despite the fact that the user did discuss the NPOV problem on the talk pages (here) and had good reason to tag the article that continues to have WP:NPOV problems.

Shorly after Jytdog engaged me on my talk page and I explained my concerns about lack of NPOV, he wrote, "You appear to be charging full steam into things that you don't know much about. If you don't move more carefully, this is going to be much uglier than it needs to be..." here.

Viriditas (talk) wrote about this WP:BULLY behavior as well on my talk page here with this edit.

After Jytdog bared his teeth, I was still able to find some common ground and establish some rapport with him/her. However, I felt it necessary to explain the problem of intimidating new users, as gently as possible. I did so here. The situation I explained is that user Alexlikescats explained the same lack of NPOV here at 21:45, 29 March 2014 (another user:107.2.182.250 chimed in, in agreement here). Only 32 minutes after Alexlikescats said the article was biased, Jytdog accused Alexlikescats of having a single-purpose-acccount here, which violates the rule of WP:DONTBITE, especially the section, "Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute ". That was the last thing the user did on Wikipedia. See Alexlikecats, contributions.

When I had confronted Jytdog with the problem of intimidating new users, Jytdog admits in the box (show more detail above), that s/he 'freaked' out and struck out ALL the correspondence between us and archived all discussion. I don't think that is a mature way to address the very relevant concern I had raised.

Another example of Jytdog's similar treatment to a new user is here

This behavior of Jytdog's is what Viriditas describes here as “poisoning the well”, scaring off new users who do not share Jytdog's POV.

When I saw yet another new user (MaxwellBarr) who tried to make good faith edits to address NPOV in a GMO article getting hit by accusations by Jtydog here, I did indeed tell Jytdog again I saw that as a problem here, here and here, while urging the user not to give up on editing the page here. Unfortunately, this user appears to have been scared off as well and has not made any further contributions to Wikipedia confirmed here. Again this is a problem with WP:BITE. This last incident pushed Jytdog to bring me to this forum claiming this confrontation was "canvassing.". I am happy to accept advice from 3rd parties on what I should do if I see a problem like that. I continue to be concerned about Jytdog's behavior of treating new users like this and having ownership behaviors like reverting any new additions and refusing to take seriously new ideas, but I am not sure what I should do about it.  Even though I have been on Wikipedia for quite a while, I don't really know much about resolving disputes in the forums.  I generally just try to talk it out with the people involved. Until I tried to add sourced material to articles in the GMO suite, I had never encountered such vigorous and tendentious opposition.

The incident Kingofaces43 describes was resolved here and here. I said on the talk page, that I intended to add material another user had suggested here, for which neither had specifically objected except for a blanket rejection here. The two working together reverted my inclusion without discussing on the talk page and without giving a valid reason of reverting (too old and "not true" [an opinion not backed up with WP:RS] are not valid reasons for rejecting material IMHO), which to me seemed like edit waring and unnecessary obstruction on their behalf as part of a WP:TAG team to accomplish 3RRR.

In summary, I think there are some real WP:OWN and WP:GANG behaviors on the GMO pages, and serious problems with WP:NPOV that can not be addressed because of that. I have tried in good faith to address those problems and am looking towards 3rd party admin(s) who have no investment in the GMO articles to give some guidance on how I might address the problems.

Instead of a block or warning for me, I think the deserving person for sanctions should be Jytdog for biting (WP:BITE) new users who do not share his/her POV and thereby "poisoning the well." David Tornheim (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That's unlikely to happen, because the allegation of biting relies on the idea that anti-GMO views have parity of esteem with the mainstream view. The articles right now reflect the neutral point of view as a result of many years of debate between people of all shades of opinion. I understand that some people are not familiar with a lot of this, and you perhaps you don't know about the practices of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry that historically plague contentious articles. Your best bet is to offer new users advice on policies and how to stay on the right side of them (though I have to say I'm not convinced you know, fomr a sample of your edits in this area).

We do know that people cast themselves as "consumer advocates" not anti-GMO. Antivaxers, climate deniers, creationists and many other activists opposing the scientific consensus, do the same, with some success, in that in recent years some segments of the media have fallen into the trap of believing that science and cranks are valid opposing views. Recent outbreaks of preventable disease have seen some changes here and it's becoming slightly less common to interview an antivaxer and put them up against a lone scientist representing the tens of millions who support the consensus view. The nature of a scientific consensus is that it encompasses all known facts and valid opinions about those facts.

Wikipedia notes that there is no good evidence to support most of the harms claimed by anti-GMO activists (a few of the economic ones are entirely valid but that is a different debate). I'm a fan of the precautionary principle, but I've had to accept this view of GMOs over time. They are actually in many ways safer and less environmentally damaging than non-GMO crops: less pesticide, less fertiliser, less preservative, less chance of toxic breakdown products in the produce. It doesn't help that much anti-GMO activism comes from scientifically illiterate "chemophobes" like the Food Babe, or from the organic movement, which is prone to all kinds of irrationality due in no small part to its Steiner "biodynamic" heritage.

This is not Wikipedia's problem, it's the anti-GMO movement's problem, they need to find better arguments. Obviously we also need to patiently explain the facts, but in general we already have, in talk page headers and the articles themselves. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Responses

articles under discussion here. broadly stated, are:

Genetically modified food controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Genetically modified food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Genetically modified crops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Genetically modified organism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

Organic food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Organic farming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

OP of this subthread, making a complaint, is David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am the one against whom David is complaining: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The complaint is: violations of WP:OWN and WP:BITE

• some of what David writes above is about content; this is not the place to discuss content disputes so I will not respond here.
• With regard to claims that I WP:OWN the subject matter...

It it true that I watch them (I watch ~2500 articles) and in all my editing, I am keen that content be sourced from reliable, secondary sources per VERIFY, OR, RS, and MEDRS, and that content be NPOV. The GMO suite is no different.

And it is true that I am the biggest (or one of the biggest) contributor to most of these, and that they dominate my editing, if you analyze my edits by article. Here is a breakdown. i am aware of this.

but I don't believe I do the behaviors described in OWN, here. i ask myself the questions in WP:TENDENTIOUS all the time. But some things come close to the OWN behaviors, like

*the "qualifications" thing (the subject matter is technical - science and law etc.) If an editor is calm enough to actually listen, those things generally can get worked through, as they have with David twice now when he slowed down enough to actually listen - you can see that in the two examples I linked to in my complaint (here and here.

*The "comments on other editor's pages" thing comes close too. I think I have generally stayed within both the spirit and the letter of this place in talking with other editors and especially new editors, but I could see how someone could have an issue with some of what I do there. I acknowledged that to David already and am thinking about this going forward.

• to state the obvious, GMOs are a subject matter where people come to the article with very strong emotions and views and make changes that violate NPOV, OR, RS, etc. We get lots of "driveby" edits adding bad content (violates NPOV, OR, etc) in the articles because of that. The new editor Maxwell discussed above is very typical - editors come, want to add some UNDUE matter, and never talk back. it is not my fault if people do not understand WP and do not talk back. WP:BITE does not say that "anything new editor adds is OK." It just doesn't say that.
• That said, I try very hard to engage in civil, PAG-based discussions with editors who are willing to talk on these pages and have received several barnstars, specifically for my efforts working with people on controversial subjects, (and this is just some of the feedback along these lines):

this from 7%266%3Dthirteen

this from Yobol

this from Brangifer

this from DocumentError

this from IRWolfie-

this from Epipelagic

this from SandyGeorgia

With regard to "engaging with new ideas" I am very happy to hear new ideas and see them implemented, or implement them myself. On the GMO suite, most people who come by are not bringing up anything new. Maxwell's edit, for example, was about the Seralini affair, which was worked on vigorously as it is unfolded and is now integrated into the suite and has its own article. I'm always happy to discuss re-arranging things and have offered to discuss with David, which he has taken up.

I am really proud that ~in general~ these articles have stayed off the drama pages, and we have not gone to Arbcom. (although there was a really bad period back in August 2013 when it got to so ugly (especially with unfounded claims of COI on my part that I took myself to COIN (none of my accusers had the sense or graciousness to even bring a case in the proper forum) and I revealed my RL identity to an oversighter - results of that are here.... and that it looked like this might go to Arbcom. We avoided that.

I have interacted with lots of folks over the past three years on these articles. I've attracted some haters. For the most part these are folks really committed to an anti-GMO POV. I will ping some of them here, to be sure they are aware of this. Viriditas, Petrarchan47, Canoe1967, El duderino, The Banner, I would say are key people who have said I am a bad presence here and might like to comment. There are other editors whom I know have strong concerns with my GMO editing, for example Gandydancer and Groupuscule, but have generally not personalized it (especially not groupuscule who is always a paragon of elegance and civility). There are other editors who have generally had different perspectives from me and have really engaged in Talk discussions over the years, like Semitransgenic. IjonTichyIjonTichy and Dialectric have shown up more recently.

Lfstevens is fairly new to the topics and recently went over the GM Controversies with a very fine-toothed comb (thanks again for that) and may have input on this. Guettarda also recently came by.

Then there are those who have really collaborated on building the articles - Sunrise (not so active on them anymore), Aircorn (not so active on them anymore), SylviaStanley too, and Kingofaces, who has already weighed in above. (the article analysis tool is broken or i would list more)

Tryptofish (away on personal matters) has been invaluable in mediating some of the conversations. I wish he were around as his feedback is wise.

What I am trying to say, is we have managed to keep the conversations civil enough, and focused enough on PAG based discussion of content and sources, that we have been able to resolve issues on the Talk pages or through RfC. David - a newbie, community activist - is breaking that. Making personal attacks of COI etc all over WP, trying to whip up opposition, instead of simply dealing with the content and sources in the article.

I am glad David finally brought this here, however. This is, finally, the proper forum for raising his concerns, especially since RfC/U is now dead. . As you can see, I am taking the initiative to open this up wide. Let's get this dealt with.

finally, i ask myself the questions in WP:TENDENTIOUS all the time. I am human and fuck up sometimes. When I do, I acknowledge the mistake, apologize for it, fix it, and move on. If there is consensus that I am acting badly on this more meta-level, I look forward to hearing that. I do expect some strong accusations that I am acting badly. I do not expect that to be the consensus, but am opening this up, since we are all trapped in our own limited perspectives on the world; feedback is good. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I was pinged to this discussion. Which is such a mess I can't tell who is saying what about whom.

As a tangent/rant, I don't know why we did away with RFC/U, and instead get these long rambling incoherent threads on ANI, where everyone with an ax to grind piles on with little regard for subsequent readers or relative actionable evidence requiring admin intervention. There are frequent references in here to a "David"; for readers who don't know this "David", how about using usernames?

One thing that stands out to me in this discussion (because I've seen it now twice in just a few days, reference the recent thread about Formerly 98) are these two statements:

This behavior of Jytdog's is what Viriditas describes here as “poisoning the well”, scaring off new users who do not share Jytdog's POV.

and

Viriditas (talk) wrote about this WP:BULLY behavior as well on my talk page here with this edit.

Both Viriditas and Petrarchan47 are mentioned several times in this discussion, which is not surprising considering that both of them have long been grinding an ax with medical content (ref threads about a year ago on marijuana, and recent threads about Formerly 98-- they both seem to show up whenever controversial medical content is involved). That Viriditas wrote negatively about a medical editor on someone's talk page is not evidence of anything, except, well ... that Viriditas frequently does that. In spite of a long-standing ax-grinding with me, Viriditas nonetheless posts to my talk page when he wants to go after another editor.[110][111]

Is any admin action required? I don't know, because I haven't read through yet another long incoherent discussion here that would have been better served at RFC.

I do know that something should be done about Viriditas and Petrarchan47, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I asked for a short block and warning for David Tornheim way above, which is still an open matter. He responded by making a complaint about me, which is in this subsection. I expected this, and made my original request in part to provoke this, to get David to finally raise his concerns in the right place. I do want the short block and warning, however and think it is warranted - my posting was not POINTy. Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the subsequent clarification. But more generally, I just do not understand how ANI is supposed to result in anything productive in the absence of RFC/U. Multiple RFC/Us are long overdue on several editors, and yet, we no longer have such a forum. I agree with you that ANI is now the only place to raise issues, but don't think engaging here is likely to be productive. It will result in useless section headings and drahmaz like the section just below this, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the offensive section heading has now been removed-- thanks to whomever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia's concerns

SandyGeorgia, I have no idea what you are talking about. With that said, I would like to clear up some of your glaring misconceptions:

• Petrarchan47 retired a year ago from Wikipedia. My understanding is that she recently dropped in and made several comments and then went back into retirement. I fail to see what she has to do with any of this.
• David Tornheim recently left me a message on my talk page, and I responded to him on his talk page in regards to his dispute with Jytdog. I also commented about Jytdog's treatment of David Tornheim on Jytdog's talk page. However, I have not edited in the GMO topic area since 2013 and I would ask that you stop trying to bring me back into it.
• As for your extremely bizarre claim that I am involved in some kind of "long-standing ax-grinding" with you, I'm afraid you flatter yourself as I have no idea what you mean. You appear to harbor deep grudges and then project them on to other editors.
• Your claim that I post to your talk page when I want to go after other editors is simply absurd. Your diff shows that I was offering you support in a conflict with another editor that I had the same experience with, as I felt I could offer a corroborating opinion. It shows nothing about going after anyone, and I've never pursued the matter.

Now, please stop drawing me into your petty squabbles and role-playing fantasies. I have not edited in this topic area since 2013 and I have no desire to be pulled back into it. Viriditas (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, in any case, V. I won't ping you since you don't want to be involved. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is, I'm not involved. And yet, SandyGeorgia has created this fantasy world where I'm somehow the evil ringleader lurking in the shadows. This is bizarre behavior. Viriditas (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

and you are the 2nd person who is unhappy with David for having tried to drag them back into this. I am sorry for that. I've seen some of the work you've been doing since you stopped being involved, via watching Trypto's Talk page. happy editing to you. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I admit, I've criticized David Tornheim's methods on his talk page. I think he needs to take a rest from the GMO battlefield for a bit and focus on improving one article. He's scattered all over the place and that makes it seem like he's less interested in improving an article than in fighting the good fight. On the other hand, he's had a lot of trouble editing in this area because of the guardians. It might go a long way, Jytdog, if you could offer to work with him on a single article in a collaborative manner. Viriditas (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I've dealt straight and clean with any objections or ideas he has had, on specific content or sourcing, and will keep doing so. There is no way to respond to Big Global Statements, as you pointed out. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog and KingofAces43 both revert too much in my opinion and Jytdog has done so to some of my edits. The intense emotions that accompany the GMO controversy pushes everybody involved to their limits. That said, when I identified RS material that suggested a problem with glyphosate, Jytdog added it to the article unbidden. I'd just like everybody to spend less time on this controversy and more time on the articles. Lfstevens (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for that feedback. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• My name was included in the above sections, so I guess I ought to respond. In my opinion, the GMO articles were a mess before Jytdog reworked them. Often they were eye-wateringly one sided, the same information was repeated in several places, poor English, poor references, information out of date, and so on. Jytdog has made a marvelous job of re-writing them in a neutral factual tone in Wikipedia style in spite of massive attacks on him. He has reverted several of my own insertions but I can always see the logic behind what he has done. I congratulate him on the vast amount of excellent work he has done.SylviaStanley (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC

• Regarding a block: Oppose (will not solve the issue); regarding a warning: support; regarding a topic ban from GMO and organic subjects: support. I have first hand experience with the rather bullying way Jytdog applies to get things his way with the effect that the neutrality and reliability of articles is impaired. That, and his behaviour, needs to be stopped. The Banner talk 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Moved from section above, wrong person

• Oppose Block/Ban Having read through the supposed "bullying behaviour" of new editor MaxwellBarr, I find it not to be any sort of bullying at all. The editor (MaxwellBarr) first puts in a spam link to gopro.com that is bot deleted. Then the editor immediately puts in a bunch of material that is unref'd. Jytdog reverts but fully explains his (proper) reasoning. Then the editor inserts a random citation at the bottom of the article, and Jytog civilly removes and explains. That is how this is supposed to work. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I am preparing further response.David Tornheim (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC). (It is now posted below. David Tornheim (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC))

If you do I suggest you keep it brief. We have both already left WP:WALLOFTEXT here, which is probably why we are getting so few responses. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I appreciate your desire for brevity and to avoid worsening the WP:WALLOFTEXT. I wish you had considered that before creating the problem by posting a wall of text. I am glad you said something here, because it is indicative of your attitude in the general case: Your contributions are held to be more valuable than other people's contributions. The rules do not apply to you as much as they apply to other contributors.David Tornheim (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Based on my own experiences, I feel obligated to acknowledge that Jytdog does demonstrate behavioral issues that require an admins attention as other editors have noted above. I included a few diffs which will help confirm the bullying behavior mentioned above:
• [112] <---Bullying?
• [113] <---passive aggressive bullying of a newbie with mention of ARBCOM because they disagreed?

Despite Jytdog's good intentions, he has a rather skewed interpretation of WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI guidelines in that he believes those guidelines supersede policy. I imagine there are quite a few editors who have been targeted under the pretense of WP:MEDRS and WP:PSCI, and would gladly provide more diffs to demonstrate same, but I see no reason to include them all here. It also appears we've been getting a snowjob as it relates to the ongoing abuse of WP:MEDRS by the same select few.

• [114] <---reverted (Undid revision 650497838 by 2602:306:836F:A3E0:A17D:786E:1D03:BE85 (talk) revert content based on WP:PRIMARY source per WP:MEDRS) Excuse me, but the passage he reverted was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and according to WP:MEDRS, Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals..... [115]. How is that revert not an abuse of the guideline to control article content?
• [116] <--- reverted (Undid revision 646440329 by AmiLynch (talk) revert addition of content based on WP:PRIMARY source that violates WP:MEDRS) Same song second verse. The excuse that the passage violates a guideline is not cause for a revert. How does one violate a guideline anyway? Furthermore, the passage came from the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine 26 (2014) [117] Again, it appears as though he is controlling article content per WP:OWN which actually is a violation of policy.

Granted, there are vandals and CAM spammers who need curtailment, but some of Jytdog's targets have been GF editors, including newbies who actually added passages citing RS in adherence to WP:PAG. In most cases, all it requires to become a card carrying bullseye of the quack-watch cabal is to express a little opposition or criticism of certain interpretations of mainstream views regarding WP:PSCI, WP:MEDRS and/or related categories. It reminds me of the trials and tribulations of Judge Roy Bean and his sheriff's posse, only now we're subjected to a 21st century mobocracy which actually determines what information will or won't be allowed in articles regardless of PAG. Hello WP:OWN and WP:NPOV - is anybody home? I don't doubt that the majority of editors on both sides of the isle have good intentions - most are highly intelligent experts in their respective fields - unfortunately (and representative of what happens when power corrupts), innocent editors inadvertently fall victim to the demands of the cabal, and open collaboration is replaced by censorship in a "police state" environment. Quite frankly, few editors survive such an onslaught. The result is an encyclopedia that reflects a one-sided view via censored topics.

In the interim, Jytdog says whatever he wants to say, apologizes to those he has offended whenever he gets around to it, strikes what he says, hats and archives it, resumes bullying and his normal pattern of tendentious editing, attempts to baffle admins hoping they will swallow his BS diffs and misinterpretations of MEDRS because they're inundated with work and are less inclined to analyze the material presented. [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123]

I can't help but believe it's part of his baffling exercise which usually precedes the dazzling. For example, it may be difficult for some admins to see his strikes as a tactical measure. If there were only a few, I might be inclined to believe he was being sincere, but are the strikes a true representation of regret for the right reasons? Admins will only see the one or two diffs he might provide in his own defense with a statement something like, I thought about what I said, realized it was wrong so I struck through it. The admins and/or reviewers may think, "Ok - he acted in GF by striking through that comment." Are you sure about that? I think it requires a little more research to see just how many strikes are involved in his repertoire. I find it hard to believe such behavior is a common practice among GF editors. Perhaps I'm wrong in my evaluation. If I am, I will gladly strike through my comments and archive them. Atsme☯^Consult 21:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• These observations are in alignment with my own, and with several others. For example, in the midst of a year-long, intense debate at BP, Jytdog joined the discussion and essentially tried to take over the process. Here and here he apologized, exactly as Atsme describes above, and then left the page. In the comments on the page I've linked, Coretheapple said this about Jytdog's approach: I notice that you tend to characterize editors who disagree with what you're doing here as people who are "arguing" with you, in contrast to the nice people who are producing a "positive vision." and some of the editing has bordered on the tendentious and violative of WP:OWN, especially the hairtrigger reverts that I've seen. But the solution is not for one editor to appoint himself as impartial editor, "negotiating" an "apportionment" agenda[as Jytdog categorized his role].

I do agree that his tactics deserve an impartial look from *uninvolved* admins. It is my opinion and personal experience that Jytdog come across as a bully/dictator and may be inadvertently working against WP's goal of retaining editors. I had an experience similar to David's in that I was editing here for a few years and hadn't seen the inside of a noticeboard aimed at me until I had the misfortune of editing a GMO-related article. This is a tactic Jytdog and his buddies use unabashedly. It serves to scare off editors who question the neutrality of his work, if nothing else, and the articles go ignored and remain unchanged. (It is not a done deal that the GMO articles are perfectly NPOV, and the claim is ridiculous on its face.) Even when no action from an ANI is warranted, the editor's reputation has been sullied - with David in this instance being lumped in, sans evidence, with the "anti-vaccers" (read: crazy and not to be trusted). petrarchan47tc 01:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: And excuse me, but the most damning evidence you can find is Jytdog reverting the addition of primary studies? We don't use the thousands of primary studies published daily peer-reviewed journals; we use the secondary sources, and you already noted that according to WP:MEDRS, Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals. If you don't understand that publishing a single trial in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make it a literature review or a systematic review, you shouldn't be criticising the actions of editors who do. Jytdog was absolutely right to remove Escitalopram and venlafaxine for the prophylaxis of migraine headache without mood disorders, One hundred and twenty cases of enduring sexual dysfunction following treatment, and Persistent sexual dysfunction after discontinuation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors because they are case studies - primary studies and not of value for making medical claims on Wikipedia. The only "BS diffs and misinterpretations of MEDRS" are yours above. --RexxS (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@RexxS: no, it wasn't the most damning, there are way more, but those two were enough to demonstrate behavioral issues. FYI - the 1st revert sourced a published article that was cited in 2 different reviews - 1 systematic review - Migraine in Adults: Preventive Pharmacologic Treatments and 1 PubMed Central article Italian guidelines for primary headaches [124]. The 2nd revert sourced an article that mined data from 120 reports and summarized the findings in a report published in The International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, a book published by IOS Press, [125] which would fall under A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Atsme☯^Consult 06:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That's complete and utter nonsense. Two of the three sources are clearly primary and the other is dubious. If you even bothered to look at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19667978 you'd see "Publication Types: Comparative Study, Randomized Controlled Trial". Studies and RCTs are primary sources. http://iospress.metapress.com/content/1021h330k91qv844/?genre=article&issn=0924-6479&volume=26&issue=2&spage=109 is a report by the authors based on a website they set up to collect self-reported data. It's neither a systematic nor literature review - PubMed doesn't even classify it - see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24902508. If you read the third source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18173768 it says "Publication Types: Case Reports". Case reports are primary sources. Jytdog was absolutely right to remove them. If you think these are the sort of sources that should be in our medical articles, you need to be banned from ever touching a medical article article again. Competence is required. --RexxS (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Utter nonsense is believing dubious justifies a revert, or that the suggested guidelines in MEDRS must be followed explicitly, or that they should be treated the same way we treat BLP violations. Let's not forget that today's mainstream science was yesterday's fringe. WP:MEDRS reads: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. It further explains: The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. You don't revert just because it doesn't follow MEDRS. Who came up with such a nonsense idea? The most important aspect of editing is having the freedom to do so in an open editing environment. Bottomline, the passages Jytdog reverted in the examples I provided above were not themselves considered policy violations as was Jytdog's WP:OWN behavior. DS, blocks and topic bans are not initiated because an editor wants to add information to improve an article and didn't cite a particular source Jytdog determines to be a RS. If other editors question a source, we have a citation needed template for just that purpose, and I'm pretty sure Jytdog knows how to use it. If I may recommend the following passage in the quote box at WP:FRINGE: ...This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinized. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries." I find the latter to be valuable information to keep in mind before your next revert. Atsme☯^Consult 21:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So you've shifted your stance again. This time it's "give us the freedom to stuff articles with today's latest fad as illustrated by this single case study". Well, no. Here's what the opening line of WP:MEDRS states: "Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." (my emphasis) That has to be the first and foremost consideration for including content in any article that has medical claims. MEDRS has the consensus of the community and it spells out that it is vital to base our articles on secondary sources. Not "optional", not "preferable", but "vital". So of course the proper action is to remove dubious claims sourced to primary sources. And yet you want to pillory Jytdog for simply insisting that we only use the best quality sources for medical claims. I've seen far too many SPAs trying to undermine MEDRS to sit back and watch you try to do the same as them. MEDRS is the bulwark that prevents every pharma shill from stuffing our articles with "subtle" advertising; or every "true believer" from promoting their peculiar view of medicine - all based on readily available primary sources. Bottomline is that the edits that Jytdog reverted were clear breaches of MEDRS and he not only had every right to revert them, but a duty to Wikipedia to do so. --RexxS (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reply by David Tornheim:

I am glad that Jytdog is reflecting on his/her behavior that I raised about new users, when he said above:

"comments on other editor's pages"... I could see how someone could have an issue with some of what I do there. I acknowledged that to David already and am thinking about this going forward.” (posted here)

I do feel harassed by Jtydog and this feeling continues from these allegations and the vigor which he continues to fill my talk pages even during this ANI (here and here)—he has put more than twice as many edits to my talk page as I have. (see)

How can I be stalking him/her, when s/he keeps showing up on my talk page with endless allegations like those lodged here? This is not about me: Jytdog appears to do this to anyone who tries to edit the GMO suite of articles in ways that he does not approve of, in particular new users who can be scared away. The only reason we are here (in ANI) is because I have been editing on Wikipedia for a while, and cannot be accused of WP:SPA, and have not been intimidated in letting Jytdog WP:OWN the articles.

I disagree that a determination of whether WP:BITE has occurred is dependent on the outcome of a content dispute. New users should be welcome even if other users think correctly or incorrectly that the new user's POV is WP:FRINGE. Please note that a consensus can change, but organic consensus can be stifled by WP:BITING people who do not agree with a consensus achieved at one point in history. Also, a consensus can be achieved that does not adhere to other Wikipedia policies: For example, it may be based on inaccurate information, use of unreliable sources, original research or insufficient use of all reliable sources, WP:UNDUE, etc.

It has been stated that that some GMO articles are “mature” articles. However articles on Wikipedia are never “done” (WP:PERFECTION and WP:EDITING). I am not aware of any policy that says a “mature” article requires a higher threshold for changes or improvement than a brand new article, and Wikipedia policies make it quite clear that users should be WP:BOLD and correct articles that have problems (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM). That an article has a long history is not a reason to avoid correcting errors and problems with it (WP:PERFECTION). WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM includes “adding other points of views to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced."

To Guy (Help!): you said, “Your best bet is to offer new users advice on policies and how to stay on the right side of them (though I have to say I'm not convinced you know, fomr a sample of your edits in this area).”

Jytdog has accused me of canvassing by talking to new or existing users anywhere but the article talk page (although sometimes my attempts to do that are censored by Jytdog here and/or KingofAces here). Jytdog has said I am stalking him/her if I interact with a new user after Jytdog scolded them and I have tried to encourage them not to feel intimidated.

What do you propose I do if I were to see this behavior of WP:BITE from Jytdog or any other user? I noted this WP:BITE behavior in Jytdog and all attempts on my part to address it only made things worse. I am very open to any suggestions about the proper way to address it in a way that would not cause the reaction I witnessed from Jytdog, which is to accuse me of canvassing and stalking.

I think the behavioral problems here are likely to go away if Jytdog learns that his WP:OWN , WP:BITE, and POV pushing behaviors are in violation of Wikipedia policy. I think he is a good editor who sometimes forgets that we are all here to make an encyclopedia, not to be the 'guardians of Truth” WP:The_Truth

-David Tornheim (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to close

• Support as proposer per the excellent comments by Lfstevens above. This thread no longer serves any purpose. There are problems with David Tornheim's edits in as much as there are issues with Jytdog's behavior. Dispute resolution is the best way to handle this, as ANI is not setup to deal with this current issue. Use the RFC process to resolve content disputes on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is a distinct imbalance between the evidence of problems with David Tornheim's edits and the evidence of Jytdog's behaviour. In fact the evidence adduced by diffs of Jytdog's behaviour was a completely unfounded misrepresentation of WP:MEDRS as I've shown above. You can't simply brush away the clearly documented problems with David Tornheim's edits by calling them equal to Jytdog's policy-compliant actions (that Atsme tarnished through Atsme's lack of understanding of the difference between primary and secondary sources). --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You might want to read my response to you above regarding primary and secondary sources, and what guidelines are applicable to the actual passages that were reverted. Sometimes verifiable requires more than a click and a revert. Atsme☯^Consult 06:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I've read it and it's clear you have no clue what a primary source is. If you can't tell the difference between case studies or RCTs and secondary sources, you have no business criticising someone like Jytdog who can. Your intervention here is spurious at best. --RexxS (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Read it again. You are confusing a suggested guideline with adherence to policy. Bullying people into using RS you and a few others consider acceptable is not acceptable, and neither is reverting another editor's contribution simply because you don't like the source. I think it contributes to the reason we are here now. Atsme☯^Consult 21:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You read it again. There's nothing "suggested" about Wikipedia guidelines. They enjoy the consensus of the community and you'd better have a damn good reason to claim your edit gets to be an exception to them. What was so extraordinary about the edits that Jytdog reverted that they shouldn't be subject to MEDRS? It's the community that agreed MEDRS, so it's you and your tiny band who find MEDRS inconvenient who are pushing the limits to see what they can get away with. It's not my judgement of what's acceptable; it's the judgement of the community. It's not a dislike of a source; it's a dislike of POV-pushers who try to make medical claims based on feeble evidence. If you make a habit of pushing dubious medical claims based on primary sources - assuming you can figure out what they are - I predict you'll be back here soon enough. --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support to close and move to more appropriate venues such as dispute resolution, per Viriditas. petrarchan47tc 02:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This is WP:Dispute resolution. Look at the page -> the box on the right -> third heading: "Conduct disputes" -> first entry: "Administrator assistance (Request)". That's here. The only other venue for conduct disputes is RfArb. Is that what you want? Are you going to file the case? If not, perhaps it's better to let the community come to a conclusion here, even if it takes a few days. --RexxS (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Stop the badgering, RexxS. You know very well that DR in this context refers to "civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages" about content. ANI is not the place for that. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
      • • Don't accuse me of badgering when that's exactly what you're doing. ANI is one of the only two venues left for DR of conduct issues and you're simply trying to close down a discussion that's not going the way you like. This isn't a content issue, it's a conduct issue and it's disingenuous to pretend it's not. --RexxS (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
          • It's a content dispute about GMO. You are badgering people who disagree and I and others see no purpose or reasonable outcome to this discussion, which is why I've proposed closing it. I have zero involvement in the GMO debate. The extent of my involvement is from two years ago, when I covered the protests that took place where I live and when I wrote about the larger movement from a journalistic perspective. Get a grip. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
            • It's a conduct dispute about David Tornheim's behaviour, although I can see you'd like to pretend it's something else. Here's a clue: the title is "Canvassing and hounding with allegations of bad faith on GMO". Canvassing, hounding and allegations of bad faith are not content issues. So you can stop your badgering and attempts at deflection. If you want to talk about content, clear off to the article talk page and let those who understand the difference get on with discussing the behavioural matters. --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

guys, fwiw, you have each made your points and are unlikely to convince each other. Whoever closes will take your arguments into account. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support in agreement with DR. Atsme☯^Consult 06:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support; overdue. It is not the function of ANI to sort out which of several problematic editors is more problematic than the other. I encourage all parties discussed here to reflect upon their own behavior and take steps to address the concerns raised, and worry less about the shortcomings of others. See The Mote and the Beam. NE Ent 11:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• I would be fine with a close if folks feel that there has been enough discussion. However I disagree that this is a content dispute. I do not raise ANIs spuriously; I think David's canvassing and NPA behavior is at least warn-able. I came here looking for that; continued accusations of COI are DISRUPTIVE and I feel I am being stalked. David is doing these policy-violating behaviors because he believes I am corrupt (which is out of bounds) and that I have problems with WP:OWN and he doesn't know how to address problems in WP, and instead seems to be resorting to the kind of community activism tactics that he uses in the RW (per his user page). His attempts to raise BOOMERANG issues is normal, and I expected it and indeed hoped for it, so that whatever might be legit in David's concerns could be addressed in the appropriate forum, which is indeed this forum. There is no other place where it could be addressed. I am interested to get community feedback on OWN ( maybe the community will judge that I have issues with that - just because David doesn't understand WP doesn't mean he might not have a point, and we can all be blind to our own faults. I do think my behavior is OK. but I could be wrong. I expect random haters to pop up here and add garbage to the thread). I would appreciate if folks focus on the issues actually being raised and examples provided, as hard as that is with the TLDR posts, off-topic stuff, and our busy lives. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You can pretty much consider that David has received a warning here. But in all of the above, do you know if anyone pointed out the proper channel's where David might get assistance, instead of canvassing? Like adopt-a-user, the teahouse, and what ever? If not we could gather up a few links to what ever and give them to them.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Serialjoepsycho I explained to David how concerns about COI are handled at the bottom of this (in response to David's question about how COI is handled in WP). Dialectric gave more advice about dispute resolution here and here. The canvassing warning I gave David points to Wikipedia:Canvassing and that article explicitly tells you how to bring up concerns in various forums as well. One can lead a horse to water... I don't see that anybody pointed David specifically to Teahouse or adopt-a-user.Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think its wp:teahouse and WP:ADOPTif he's not.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

fwiw, Serialjoepsycho... responding to what you wrote above ("You can pretty much consider that David has received a warning here"). David pretty much views my posting here as "bullying" - so while i might take what has been said here as a warning for David, what I would like, is that David take at least a warning from this - a warning from the community, not from me. The closer will judge if that is warranted or not, of course. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No doubt. I agree with alot of the positions you have highlighted. I only mention the above so that if he does canvass again this can be pointed to. Also so that he can be informed about these places where he can seek help, whether or not he's banned.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support close with part of the resolution being that David seek help through either WP:TEAHOUSE, WP:ADOPT, or Wikipedia:Co-op, or some similar venue regarding matters of policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support close. This has gone on enough and is looking to just be a drama-fest for those with a chip on their shoulder. A formal warning at the close for David could still be helpful if it doesn't seem like the point is getting across that his behavior was problematic (not sure where he's sitting currently). It's hard to deal with folks pushing WP:FRINGE ideas into articles, and they often don't react kindly when they come in strongly with their own point of view to get it rejected. There are always going to be people that get ticked off about that in science topics especially, and I don't think there's much we can do about that unfortunately. Doesn't seem like there's anything more to do here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Requesting an intervention

A frequent editor of Louisiana articles, Futurewiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to struggle endlessly. The user has been cautioned again and again, and was taken to ANI twice under their previous username Dragonrap2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see sockpuppet investigation). There doesn't seem to be any learning curve, and editors spend a lot of time cleaning up after this editor.

Difs:

• [126] - no edit summary, reason or source, and has been cautioned to stop adding "Hamlet" to infobox names.
• [127] - added a photo gallery to an infobox.
• [128] - added "hamlet" to its official name after being cautioned to stop doing this.
• [129] - random unsourced content.
• [130] - added a small table. While editing as User:Dragonrap2, there were many cautions against this and it went to ANI.
• [131] - changed genre of a musician without adding a source or edit summary. Another editor reverted and cautioned them on their talk page to stop doing this. No matter, Futurewiki just kept on doing it.

Editor after editor has tried to assist, or warned this user about unconstructive edits. Thank you for any assistance you may offer. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The striking thing about that editor's talk page is that so many other editors have warned them about their errors, and pleaded with them to stop. Futurewiki doesn't say a single word in response. I suggest an indefinite block until the editor posts a sincerely worded unblock request, agreeing to engage in discussion with other editors, and to make a sincere effort to comply with our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

SPI at the time was closed by User:Mike V as "This looks like a situation where the user forgot his or her password and just created a new account. None of the edits overlap chronologically and the other account has not been used since the new one was created." Today that was disproved that by being both active at File:KEEL logo.png. DMacks (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure WP:CIR but a block at this time is a bit harsh. The contributions are a mishmash of poor and decent [132] -- not sure about Elite Radio Group notability -- but I'm not seeing evidence of edit warring or throwing a hissy fit when they're edits are reverted. NE Ent 11:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• What Cullen said. This is an editor who keeps doing things that are causing disruption, and who does not engage at all with those who try to stop the problem. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps a warning to stop ignoring and start engaging, followed by a short block if he does it again just to get his attention? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok his latest act today is to page movie a bunch of templates for listing places in parishes to the title "populated places in xxx parish". This is going to require mass rollback. He was warned by Magnolia early in this rash of editing and just continued on. He doesn't read his talk page. Requesting an immediate block to stop disruption, a mass rollback of the template moves, and consideration of an indefinite block for CIR, pending his response. John from Idegon (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Futurewiki is a sockpuppet of indef blocked 123lilbrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Dragon Lil Brad / Dragon Rap221 / Hissrap18 / Hissrap2013. As with the previous accounts, this user has made persistent borderline disruptive edits focused on the Ark-La-Tex region, especially Fairview Alpha, Louisiana. He/she has just crossed the line with scores of disruptive page moves. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Winmelgarcia

(unarchived by me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC))
{{archive top|Wrong place and stale report. If vandalism continues take it to WP:AIV for an immediate response. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)}}
Winmelgarcia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is suspected with hoaxing edits on Top Model articles, particularly notable celebrity stars. I reverted it/them all and vandalized it back. ApprenticeFan ^work 15:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think you meant to say "s/he vandalized it back", didn't you? ;) Anyway, s/he hasn't edited since your most recent warning on his/her talk page, so let's just see what happens. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – (Non-administrator comment)Stale, next time take it to WP:AIV EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hang on. None of these edits is obvious vandalism to someone who has no clue about the Top Model thing. And I note it's described as "suspected with hoaxing edits". So AIV wouldn't really be appropriate, as it needs to be determined whether this is actually a hoax or not. If not, someone owes Wimmelgarcia an apology. If so, it doesn't make any sense to close this as stale. If this is true, why would we ever believe anything they ever write again? Creating hoaxes is fundamentally incompatible with writing an encyclopedia, and calling it "stale" doesn't make a lot of sense. If it's true.

So, @ApprenticeFan:, can you give all of us non-Top-Model people some proof that this is a hoax - that it, that it is wrong, and obviously wrong, i.e. Winmelgarcia couldn't possibly have thought it was right? If so, I'll indef block now. If not, please don't accuse someone of hoaxing without proof. On an encyclopedia, hoaxing is pretty much the worst thing you can say about someone (much worse than rude words). --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. This is all 100 percent hoax adding inappropriate hosting changes into Top Model franchise cycle articles: [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138]. Confirmed that is true not a pure vandalism, it's truly hoax. ApprenticeFan ^work 01:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

A hoax is simply a more obscure, less obvious form of vandalism. (WP:HOAX). Still is vandalism, still can be dealt with at AIV. More importantly the user has stopped after recent warnings. Even more importantly, no one followed the bright orange notice and notified the user of this discussion. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No, a hoax is much worse than vandalism. And AIV is for obvious vandalism. And we don't allow people putting fake info into article to continue editing, whether they stopped after a warning or not. If left a message on the user's page that he cannot resume editing until this is resolved, only because with my level of knowledge in this area I can't prove it's fake. No idea if/when they'll return, so this thread can be closed. @ApprenticeFan:, let me know if you see this editor resume editing before explaining himself. I'll try to keep an eye out, but I'm easily distracted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Failure to engage in discussion at Buddha Bar

User:JesseRafe removed a large amount of material from the article, Buddha Bar. I restored the material per WP:BRD and initiated a discussion about it at Talk:Buddha Bar#WP:BRD discussion on inclusion of compilation albums information. JesseRafe has not participated in that discussion but continues to remove the material. Obviously opinions can differ, but I believe that a change of this magnitude should be discussed and, if there is consensus to move this material to a separate article (which I do not oppose), such a change should be done in an orderly fashion, not just be deleting the existing material from the article. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

As this huge amount of tangentially-at-best related data was just unceremoniously dumped on a page about a bar, I was confused and thought it might have been an accident or untended material. It does not belong, especially sans introduction, and is beyond undue significance given the amount of material about the bar (which is notable) is less than 5Kb, including multiple sections and sources, and this endless list of non-notable albums is almost 27Kb, I fail to see how it's even objectionable that this should be removed. JesseRafe (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, the other editor who replied at Talk:Buddha Bar#WP:BRD discussion on inclusion of compilation albums information. supports Jesse's position ... both editors should use talk page more and edit summaries and WP:ANI less. NE Ent 18:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you agree that if one editor makes a major change, and another editor reverts that change and initiates a discussion, the first editor should discuss the matter before making the major change over again? Also, where is this separate article that User:JesseRafe is supposed to have spun off? bd2412 T 19:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't not. If two editors disagree, the smarter, more mature and more wiki-savvy one starts the talk page discussion and (except in cases of BLP violation / hoax type stuff) lets the other "have their way" transiently while consensus forms. NE Ent 02:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Did that happen once? How quaint. In the real world, junk content is a plague on Wikipedia and contentious material subject to challenge should remain out of the article until there is consensus as to its inclusion. Anything else is a very obvious POV-pusher's charter, to say nothing of the Randy from Boise issue. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, it is incorrect of JesseRafe to claim that the information on the compilation albums "was just unceremoniously dumped on a page about a bar"; that information was assembled by at least a dozen different editors. Sources have existed in the article for quite a long time indicating: 1) that Buddha Bar, in addition to opening restaurants, bars, and other venues, also produces and sells compilation albums of the music that it plays in those venues in order to establish its atmosphere; and 2) that these compilation albums are reviewed in reliable sources like Billboard Magazine, with these reviewers noting the connection between the albums and the venues. This is not junk content; the album series is reliably sourced and clearly meets criteria 1 of the notability guideline for albums, having been published in multiple, non-trivial, works independent from the people who have published the albums. bd2412 T 17:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Bolterc disruption to Aam Aadmi Party article

Bolterc (talk · contribs) has been nothing but a problem where the Aam Aadmi Party article is concerned. They have previously been reported here, have been blocked twice, have had a discretionary sanctions notification and numerous other warnings, and have tried and failed to push their POV via an AfD. Even now, they are resorting to comments such as this edit summary, they are still messing about with redirect/dabs despite an obvious inability to understand how we operate, and they have just unilaterally moved the AAP article to Aam Aadmi Party (India). The most recent discussion thread of any length is here and even during that they were edit warring to get their dodgy version of various things into the article.

Please will someone deal with this mess once and for all, perhaps via a topic ban. The article move should be reverted also, pending consensus. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved page and made edits based on RFC discussion on talk page. Please stop personal attacks and make meaningful contributions. Please add your views to the RFC section. More Neutral Views are requested. Bolterc (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The RfC is open and you have pre-empted its closure. The thing doesn't even directly relate to a page move. You have been nothing but an incompetent and tendentiously disruptive pov-pusher regarding this subject and time should be called. (I've just indented your response, btw: something else that you have been told about before but still do not understand). WP:CIR anyone? - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've reverted the move and the recreation of the disamb page. Also locked everything for 3 months.--regentspark (comment) 20:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This response to the DS warning does not exactly inspire confidence that the Bolterc meets the CIR requirement... rdfox 76 (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I believe there are competency issues here, combined with issues of partisanship that make User:Bolterc see anti-AAP political conspiracies where none exist, eg, see this this malformed RFC. Would help if some experienced user, not involved in India-related articles (and, thus less likely to be seen as part of the conspiracy), tried mentoring the user; barring that I don't see them remaining unblocked for long. Abecedare (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Bolterc never added anything important to any of these articles, he is only disrupting these articles and wasting the time of other people by repeating the same argument over and over. He had been blocked before for edit warring too. I don't think that he will agree on mentoring at all. Fundarise (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Fundarise could be sock puppet. Admins please have a check. Bolterc (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A sock of whom? - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as a sensible preventative measure. Bolterc is clearly passionately partisan and - having claimed to have designed one logo for the AAP[139] - may even have a conflict of interest. A ban could even be to the benefit of the party they espouse, as they have done so much to damage any possibility of achieving their avowed aims here that I could easily think them some sort of anti-AAP saboteur. That ban might be lifted if they eventually demonstrate that they are here to build an encyclopedia and can work collegiately. NebY (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Leonard Nimoy

Joseph Prasad, after repeated warnings about his conduct has continued to edit war, edit tendentiously, and edit disruptively at the Leonard Nimoy article for several hours today. I'm not looking for a block, I'm not looking for anything punitive, just something from an administrator or another editor who Joseph might listen to in order to help him understand this behavior at any article is not acceptable and cannot continue unchecked. Another editor and myself have attempted at the article's talk page (here: [140]) to discuss the content dispute that seems to have started his behavior in a downward spiral. This is not the first time this editor has had difficulties with understanding guidelines and policy and has reacted in the same sort of manner with edit warring, tendentious editing, and the like and has been blocked once not long ago for edit warring {here:[141]). More than once he's tried playing the WP:DIVA card and has "quit" Wikipedia when challenged in regard to his edits and behavior (one example here: [142]). I have nothing personal against this editor, but I am personally tired of his repeated choices to be tendentious and disruptive even after editors have reached out to him and asked him to stop (most recent example from ATinySliver here: [143]). After the previous was offered, the editor responded by adding an unnecessary and inappropriate "needs citations" tag at the Nimoy article on a section that is well referenced. After it was reverted out and being told adding it was an inaccurate representation of the section's referencing, he responded by starting to place cite needed tags in the article rather than looking for references and improving the article himself. The tendentious and disruptive nature of his tagging is obvious in this edit summary [144] -- with the edit summary showing that he was more interested in winning than building the encyclopedia and improving the article. I think this editor can be a real asset, but when he goes down this road (as he has done often), he starts looking like a net negative. Any help or advice in the matter would be greatly appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This report makes it seem like you never do anything wrong. And the citation needed tags highlight what editors need to reference. If I have the time and motivation, eventually I'll get to it myself. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Instead of putting on multiple tags in your limited available time, fix one or two of them, that would be much more helpful to the encyclopedia. Tagging is simply making someone else do the work that you think needs to be done - they should be used sparingly. BMK (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Concur tagging is not helpful. If tags actually made someone do the work they might be useful; they don't, so we end up with articles with tags from 2007 lingering around. NE Ent 02:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Since I see my name here, for clarity's sake: I have asked both to stop. I have no more to add beyond the article's talk page and the user's talk page. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Joseph, why don't you look for references instead of just adding the citation needed template? If you can't find references then remove the text from the article as being unreferenced. Unreferenced text means it cannot be verified.--5 albert square (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the material I tagged, which had to do with Nimoy's television appearences, the only sites I have found from the first page of a google search was IMDb, and Nimoy tribute site, and TV.com, which are all unreliable sources, I'm sure. I switch in between just removing the material and adding those tags, the tags tell editors to add refs to those areas, removing the unreferenced info would take out A LOT of material out of the article. And I have different times where I focus on specific sites, and do other sites on the side. The weekdays are my major days for Wikipedia a lot of the time, from 4-10 PM, the main things I do on Weekends is remove vandalism and unsourced information. I don't have the time or motivation to add sources at the moment. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless there is a genuine question as to the accuracy of the information, I think you should leave this alone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did have a question as to the accuracy, since I know Nimoy's acting career well, just not of his small television appearances. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Why can't you do what BMK suggested above and add one or two references? That would be helpful. Or, if you can only find unreliable sources then remove the information as unsourced.--5 albert square (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If, as NYB says, an editor has actual reason to believe it's possibly / likely untrue. NE Ent 02:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you let him consider and accept the good advice he's been given, as opposed to telling him what to say in order to reject it? You're not his lawyer, and this is not a court of law, it's a project to build an encyclopedia, something you seem to be totally unaware of. Stop kibbitzing, stop Wikilawyering on behalf of other people, and start editing to build the encycylopedia. Otherwise, get the fuck out of here, you're deadweight. BMK (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

IMDB is not necessarily reliable for trivia, quotes, etc., but it is acceptably reliable for mundane info such as cast-and-crew lists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, that really depends... I think IMDb can be quasi-trusted for cast-and-crew lists in regards to long-ago completed projects. But I sure wouldn't trust it for cast-and-crew lists for any movies and TV shows that haven't premiered yet!... In general, I think user-maintained databases like IMDb should be viewed with abject suspicion, at best. --IJBall (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• As Baseball Bugs says, IMDB is an acceptable and reliable source for screen credits, cast lists, and some awards. It's just not reliable for trivia, biographical information (except birth dates/place), quotations, other works, etc. To tag multiple screen credits in a biographical article which are easily verifiable via IMDB is indeed disruptive editing. Either add the cites yourself if you want the verification to be visible, or leave them be -- that's what the External Link to IMDB is for; that's why actor's articles have IMDB links at the top of their External Links. If you sincerely want to improve an article, add citations rather than WP:OVERTAGGING and WP:TAGBOMBING. Softlavender (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Would any of the editors in this discussion care to find a ref for any one of the citation needed tags? P.S. I did one.[145] --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Bob! {{Cite web}} and {{cite news}} are the most common; click on either of those to go to the template page to view the parameters and how to use them. For example, your edit linked above would look like this:

• <ref>{{cite news|last1=Guttenberg|first1=Steve|last2=Higgins|first2=Bill|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/leonard-nimoy-remembered-by-three-779357|title=Leonard Nimoy Remembered by ''Three Men and a Baby'' Star Steve Guttenberg|work=[[The Hollywood Reporter]]|date=March 5, 2015|accessdate=March 8, 2015}}</ref>

Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Same sort of behaviour at Seth MacFarlane now. Removing genres from the infobox because they were unreferenced. However, a simple Google search referenced all of them and I think that some may have been referenced in the article already.--5 albert square (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It is an overflow of genres, you only use genres used prominently throughout their career, and you told me to take it on to the talk page, and barely typed anything. And there were multiple genres that were redundant, such as Jazz, Vocal, and Vocal Jazz. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Update: Sadly, the editor in question didn't heed any of the advise given here and went on to violate 3RR repeatedly. He's now blocked for 48 hours. I suppose this can be closed out now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Seeking deletion of a Warning

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

---

Hello,

I received a warning when attempting to edit a page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_rape Here is the warning:

Campus rape[edit] I have reverted your addition there because it is based on a page from crisisconnectioninc.org, which is too unreliable and too local for representing those data as general statistics on wikipedia. Please argue your case on the article talk page instead of reinstating the addition. Materialscientist (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Campus rape. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring... Materialscientist (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC) _________________

I responded to MaterialScientist as follows: Materialscientist, I definitely don't want to appear as if I'm taking part in an Edit War! What happened was I cut and pasted my Edit multiple times simply because I was trying to figure the best place to place the Edit within the article. Also my iPad mini was giving me fits.

_________________

I have no problem with the material I added being removed. I am requesting that the Warning be removed from my Talk page. I have always tried my best when doing edits. The very evening that this occurred, I thought my iPad device was not "taking" the edits, or that there was a problem with my connection to Wikipedia, so I must have repeated the process two or three times in a matter of minutes. I had no idea that MaterialScientist was deleting my post as I was trying to re-post it. I respect the job the editors do. I feel this is an honest mistake on my part.

Could I get help on this?

Scott Scottlovessue (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You can delete the warning yourself, but I recommend not editing any more articles until you can get control of you iPad and understand how to use your watchlist to see when your edit has been reverted.- MrX 02:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Harassment, hounding and baiting by Viriditas at User talk:Collect

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

---

Collect (talk · contribs) is serving a week-long block and asked Viriditas (talk · contribs) to cease harassing him [146] yet Viriditas persists baiting Collect nevertheless [147]. This not a new pattern for Viriditas and its pretty ridiculous he should be misusing a blocked editor's talk page for harassing him.--MONGO 08:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate MONGO's concern, but there is no evidence of any harassment of any kind occurring, just lively and energized debate among many editors with different opinions. MONGO may have also misinterpreted Collect's colorful use of section headers which were added after the discussion, which likely contributed to MONGO's confusion about this so-called "harassment". I'm happy to stay away from Collect's talk page for the moment, if that will alleviate MONGO's misplaced, but well-meaning concern about Collect's talk page. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

How about just leaving him alone? Your input clearly isn't helping. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I instruct Viriditas to stay off Collect's talkpage unless there is a specific need for him to be there. (I was actually tempted to address this situation by reviewing and potentially commuting Collect's block, but I see it will soon expire by time anyway.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for me to be there, so I won't be participating on his talk page. I am curious as to 1) why he thinks I'm harassing him 2) why he thinks my satirical analogy between his question (Is the US a totalitarian society?) and my question ("Is Florida a "fringe" state?") is a form of outing and attacking using personal information that does not apply to him in any way, and 3) why he thinks I'm trying to drive him off of Wikipedia? I'm not looking for an answer here, but if anyone wants to leave me a message on my talk page addressing just exactly what he's talking about, I would appreciate it. I feel like I've accidentally walked into an alternative reality. Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect has now asked you a second time to stop harrassing him though this has happened since your last "contribution" there so this should make it less confusing for you.--MONGO 13:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused why you wrote this when 1) it didn't address my comment you were replying to, and 2) I haven't commented on Collect's talk page since 06:42, 9 March. It seems like you are trying to confuse people by implying I've been commenting on this talk page. Viriditas (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You were harassing him. He then asked you to cease. You then proceeeded to harass him anyway. I posted the notice here about your harassment. He then posted a second time to not harass him. That's the timeline and it doesn't need precise timestamp diffs. I'm not impressed with either the tone of your commentary there or your inability to see that taunting a blocked editor is unacceptable.--MONGO 14:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with you and I don't agree with your assessment. I was not harassing nor taunting anyone, and there is no evidence of harassment from me on his talk page. There is evidence that a discussion was not going his way and he sought to end the thread. That's all. Disagreeing with someone is not harassment. Making a joke about Florida is not harassment. Further, he not only falsely claimed I was harassing him, he also claimed I was outing him and trying to drive him away from Wikipedia, which is just ridiculous. None of that matters, of course, because I have said I would not comment on his page out of respect, but I will not agree with your assessment, which appears intended to confuse the issue and give the false impression that the "harassment" is continuing. I will repeat, I have not commented on his page since 06:42, 9 March, no matter how much you try and spin it otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It really is quite simple. A blocked editor felt you were harassing them at their talk page so they asked you to stop. You persisted in harassing him. I then posted here. Collect then asked you a second time to stop harassing him...and here we are. I'm thinking that this is a pattern for you, sort of like kicking a man when he is down. Userspace may be on loan from the pedia but if an editor asks you to stop harassing them, especially if they are serving a block, then stop posting on their loaned page! Like duh! Don't play games with us Viriditas.--MONGO 15:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the timeline most certainly did not occur in that order as I already explained, given the subheadings added after the fact, the end of a separate thread, the beginning of a new thread, the filing of this report, and then another claim of harassment. You're trying to spin this to make it seem like the alleged harassment continued when 1) it never occurred in the first place, and 2) I haven't touched his talk page since 06:42, 9 March, nor do I have any intention of returning there anytime soon. Collect didn't like the result of a discussion so he made a series of strange edits pointing me to WP:HARASS, which makes no sense in the context of that discussion. At the same time, a news story about Florida appeared online, and I posted a link to it as a joke, creating a satirical analogy with his previous claim. At no time was there any harassment, only a disagreement and a humorous link to a news item and friendly banter. Please stop trying to spin this otherwise as it simply isn't true. Viriditas (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do you continue it here? Please stop. --DHeyward (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Viriditas: posting messages to the talk page of blocked users that are trying to keep [them] occupied during [their] "vacation" [06:41 9 March] are not appropriate, regardless of who the editor is. That you posted it 6 hours after you were explicitly told to "knock it off" because Collect felt you were harrassing him [148] [00:40 9 March] makes this even less acceptable. I haven't got time to look into the history any further than this to see whether a block and/or IBAN is warranted (yet), but consider yourself formally warned that any further edits that Collect may reasonably perceive as harassing him (regardless of the intention) will lead to sanctions in addition to your current ban from Collect's talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Collect told Viriditas to stay off his talkpage. Viriditas agreed to stay off Collect's talkpage, and has done so. So the problem is solved. The continuance of this thread is therefore incredibly pointless and counterproductive even by the standards of AN/I. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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

IBAN request

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

---

I have been in a two-way interaction ban with User:The Rambling Man for over a year now. That ban was imposed here, not by the ArbCom, and that's why I have come here. I am convinced I can work amicably with the editor. I have been doing some work at ITN, and things seem to be going well there. I have heard his past criticisms of how I have worked at the ref desks, and I have tried to do better there. Also, in a discussion a couple of months ago, I said I would never again file a complaint about the editor, and I have stuck to that promise, and intend to continue so doing. If the IBAN could be lifted (or at least modified), I would feel at ease communicating in a collegial way with the editor, when or if the need arises. Thank you all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that the issues detailed in the following threads have been resolved.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive868#IBAN request (Users Baseball Bugs and The Rambling Man)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive852#Inappropriate conduct by administrator User:The Rambling Man
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 9#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 110#ANI and The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, Medeis

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy's comment noted, if both TRM and BB say they're able to discuss collegiately, I'd happily agree to it. It can always be reinstated. TRM? --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I would agree if TRM is on board with it. It's not as if it couldn't be reinstated if it became clear that lifting it didn't work out. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support if both users join in the request. JodyB _talk 10:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support removal of the IBAN, it's run for a year, the users seem to have buried the hatchet, let's get out of their way. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support if TRM is on board. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - if TRM agrees that everything is in the past. If so, seems like a sensible way to move forward. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Non-admin support If both parties agree of course.--MONGO 16:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I would be happy if it weren't for the fact that I see an intractable link between his edits and opinions and those of User:Medeis, with whom I am also IBAN'ed. It's simply not worth the hassle. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Since I have been mentioned, I will say I do not oppose BBB's request, which I think is in good faith. But having recently been referred to obliquely by TRM as one of several Obergruppenfuehreren on a talk page, where he continues to criticize me and others without being so sloppy as to name us outright, I wouldn't want mine and TRM's IBAN revoked. As for any "connection" between myself and Bugs, that seems to be a conspiracy theory. We are not the same person, and disagree strongly on many, many topics (Think of me as a Reaganite libertarian and Bugs as a Scoop Jackson Democrat. We can live together civilly since neither of us views WP policy as a mutual suicide pact.) I'd implore TRM to divorce his opinion of BBB from his opinion of me. I'm even happy for someone to do an SPI re me and Bugs (with his okay) to announce the results. I don't intend to post here further or follow this, so please ping me if further comment from me is necessary.μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It matters not a jot what you have to say here, this is not about you, has nothing to do with you and your opinion is irrelevant. My opinion stands, as does the IBAN. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

wrapping post close comments into section and hatting. Blackmane (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The above comment by TRM seems proof positive that that he is continuing to have trouble getting along with other editors, and that the interaction ban should continue. pbp 22:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC) No worries, I'll ask again after more time has passed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Why did you feel the need to continue this archived discussion Purplebackpack89? And no, it's not "other editors", it's "particular users" I have trouble with. If you can't postiviely contribute, don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Tumadoireacht and Circumcision

Tumadoireacht was blocked in December last year for tendentious, disruptive and combative behaviour on the Circumcision article. Since then, things have not improved. The latest example is this obvious attempted baiting[149] of an admin (Zad68) for warning another editor about the WP:TPGs. In view of this continued uhelpfulness I propose that it would be for the good if Tumadoireacht were blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As Alexbrn is one of the small but co-ordinated group of editors maintaining the main Circumcision and other related articles in an unbalanced pro-circumcision state, as I have pointed out in recent edits, it may not be public spiritedness that leads to this call for a ban.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 11:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, could you offer some evidence of the problems that are persisting? I'm sure Zad68 is quite capable of handling themselves but beyond that can you substantiate current misbehavior?JodyB _talk 11:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this the same JodyB who states "Marginal ideas and thoughts have a place but should be plainly shown to be marginal. If sourced, the reader can investigate for himself and determine whether the thoughts are correct" on his home page - even if not that JodyB - WP policy is positively disposed towards including the views of "activist" groups that is, in this case, those who question, from a scientific or human rights or other perspective the cutting off of the tips of male child genitals.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I linked to this edit which by itself is sufficient I'd have thought. But for more just review the previous few Talk pages edits such as this[150] (reference to a "small but well coordinated group of editors and admins") or this[151] where the use of anti-Circumcision groups' web sites and primary sources is being advocated, despite Tumadoireacht knowing that WP:MEDRS applies. Or just look at the problematic response above here ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Tumadoireacht has been engaging in personal attacks and general battleground behavior on the topic of Circumcision for a long time now, as a short persusal of Talk:Circumcision and its archives will demonstrate, but here are a few examples from the past few months:

  Any editors out there (apart from the good 'ole boys)

  Be aware that you are most unlikely to be permitted to make any change, however well referenced, to the Circumcision article whether it is better structure, wording, references or content, unless it augments positive views on Circumcision.

  Doc, Flop, Gop or one of the gang

  cabal behaviour

  concerted cabal.

  Tumadoireacht seems to have given up on proposing actual changes to the article entirely in favor of vague complaints and talk page sniping. It is time to see if he can be more productive on some other topic. - MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposing worded changes to the article is the last of a list of eight ways the Talk Page Guidelines mention under the title "How to use article talk pages"

In his eagerness and haste Mr Ollie has failed to notice that at least one of my contributions which he chose to quote from most selectively IS PROPOSING A SPECIFIC WORDED CONTENT CHANGE. Is it" time for Mr Ollie to see if Mr Ollie can be more observant and productive on some other topic ?

My proposals for article content change are evident and numerous not "vague" There are about an equal number of cogent pertinent aspects of Circumcision which about a half dozen editors refuse to permit mention of. These same editors on patrol misrepresent WP policy on Primary Sources and on non medical aspects of the subject to any editor attempting to address this obvious imbalance. The WP policy for instance on both scientific and human rights activist groups ( in this case those who are against this from of genital cutting ) is a good example- it is quite contrary to the picture painted by Alexbrn et cetera. It is not "problematic" as Alexbrn chooses to label it, to point out these aspects of the article, in an attempt to improve it. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban I have been half-heartedly monitoring Circumcision and its talk for years and Tumadoireacht is not helping. As MrOllie shows, current activity is centered on sniping. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Users editing is disruptive. They have not made constructive suggestions with good references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban The situation has to be understood in the context of the protracted, bitter content dispute that is Circumcision articles. It has already been said several times that topic-banning me would help. Yes it would help- it would help those editors that have been in a content dispute with me for months on end. I think almost everybody who has supported this proposal so far is either moderately or highly involved in the said content dispute. I think that I have raised some genuine issues here, and did in fact, originally raise some genuine issues on the article talk page. In the interests of attempting to find consensus I have largely stopped editing the article - all gets reverted by the patrol. On the question of proposing worded content - the pattern of the concerted pro circumcision group is as follows - "we/i have reverted or refuse to allow your edit because your source is too old ( older sources already used for pro C content) your source is a primary source( primary sources already used for pro C content) your source is non medical" ( non medical sources already used for pro C content) - then "your content is 'against XYZ policy" (which often has no relevance but serves the purpose of putting off the would be editor) and then when such inhibitings fail - sarcasm such as this to a new editor

"Either get the journal to change there statement or publish you own review in a high quality journal and we will cite you."

Send to ArbCom - This has been going on from time to time for months. This is the sort of content dispute compounded by allegations of conduct issues (tendentious editing) for which a full evidentiary hearing by ArbCom works better than letting the loudest and the heavily content-opposed editors from the subject area gather at a noticeboard and attempt to establish a false consensus.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban I feel a lot of the editors of the circumcision article are blatenly biased in favour of circumcision. It is helpful to have editors from both sides of the debate. For a cabal of those same pro-circumcision editors to ask for his dismissal is typical. Tremello (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: Tremello is a single-purpose account (SPA) regarding circumcision and related topics; please refer to the user's edit history, and the linked page for Wikipedia's definition of an SPA. Zad68 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban Hello, I was discussing secondary sources for the part of the article on economic benefits with Tumadoireacht. I don't know what happened before but it seems this specific complaint here is that Zad came in to the discussion to tell us to stay on topic . . . kind of ironic because he could have just made an on topic post, such as showing what he might think a secondary source was. And I think instead of trying to get someone topic banned, everyone who has voted here could help wikipedia better by going to the talk page in question and discussing the topic. I read the guidelines here . I think if anything, give Tumadoireacht a "final warning". To Tumadoireacht: I don't think there is any kind of "criminal cabal" on wikipedia that is pro circumcicion. I think the cabal exists in real life and gets trickled down to wikipedia. Either way, this isn't the battleground to fight a great wrong. What do the sources say? You have many good sources. If any other ediots on wikipedia make you angry, I say "kill them with kindness" by that I mean be helpful by giving good sources that they cannot deny. Popish Plot (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

References

• Support topic ban from WP:MEDICINE-scope content as first choice, and from this topic in particular as a second choice. NuclearWarfare blocked Tumadoireacht just three months ago for disruptive editing (see discussion here), but the editor has returned to the exact same problematic editing behavior as before. He simply cannot or will not accept or understand Wikipedia's standards for sourcing, personalizes nearly every comment to the point that it seems he's incapable of just holding a conversation about the topic and the sourcing, and regularly uses the article Talk page to air his personal views on the article topic with highly-charged rhetoric. Most of his comments are just paranoid complaining about what he perceives as a "cabal"; when asked repeatedly to actually provide a specific, actionable article content change suggestion, backed by a genuine reliable source, he never delivers. Overall, dealing with this editor is a huge time sink for no benefit. Zad68 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Zad is an industrious,productive, meticulous and often painstakingly helpful editor and admin. Unfortunately he has a blind spot when it comes to this subject. He can be regarded as the leader of the group of editors who maintain this article in a currently highly both positively and medicine focussed selective stance on the subject of `circumcision. He exhibits a mean spirited obstructive streak when the unbalance of the article is explored, attempting to characterize good faith teasing out of the articles weaknesses with the worst either mistaken or deliberately misdescribed negative interpretation. This habit is uncharacteristic, but still unworthy of such an eminent and valuable editor. Zad's proposal to ban me from all medical related articles is interesting. It dovetails neatly with Alexbrns idea to ban not just from this article but from the twenty or so related Circumcision and genital cutting articles, the two lads thus presenting a sentencing spectrum. The really funny part is that one of our chief bones of contention is whether Circumcision is primarily a cultural rather than a medical act - a conversation which is currently occurring on the talk page but which Alexbrn's shunning proposal seems to be inhibiting his and Zad's participation in. Lets list the points Zad has raised

1/Previous "conviction"

2/No change

3/Non acceptance of WP sourcing standards

4/Personalizes most comments

5/Incapable of holding a conversation about the topic or the sourcing

6/regular use of talk page to air personal views

7/most comments are paranoid complaining about the cabal

8/never delivers actionable content when asked

9/this editor a useless waste of time.

I suggest any editor can find these charges to be exaggerated or plain untrue by reviewing my many engaged and good faith practical proposals and conversations/debate on the talk page of the article. Further I suggest that Zad himself engages frequently in the numbers 3 and 4 and 5 behaviour which he professes to abhor.

On a more general point it might be a positive influence on the article quality if those editors or groups of editors for whom circumcision has a religious, cultural or ethnic imperative or for whom it is second nature, made a conflict of interest declaration, or if not willing to do this, then at least allowed themselves (and thus the talk page and article) to examine ideas about its downsides.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 10:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have no objection to the type of content that Tumadoireacht, by and large, generally attempts to add to the article. However, the way he is going about it is unhelpful—routinely using non-MEDRS compliant sourcing, casting aspersions to other editors, and most importantly, not changing their behavior in response to requests from other editors. This is a serious matter, and I think it merits a block if not a topic ban. I have acted before as an uninvolved administrator, and I reserve my right to continue doing so in the topic area even despite this post. NW (Talk) 14:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• oppose topic ban I don't see the behavior issue as per these diffs. They are just opinions. Discussing views is not a basis for topic banning. Zad's comment here "Overall, dealing with this editor is a huge time sink for no benefit" seems more of a behavior issue (PA) than info (diffs) presented here. If there's more, please enlighten. (UTC)--Pekay2 (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:KTMUSIC1 and article Kimberly Thompson

User might be trying to improve the article, but editing is very destructive. Suggest that someone try to discern editor's intent and apply a non-punitive block of 3 hours while intent is determined and changes to editor behavior is attempted. I am not able to pursue myself at this time. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ceyockey has falsified 90% of the content. Is harassing me and acting as ME manipulating the system and flooding lies and fabricated personal information. I do not know who :Ceyockey is but I am definitely able and willing to take legal action to clear my name against this destructive person. This is illegal and I will be appointing my lawyer to oversee this charade of defiance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTMUSIC1 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you withdraw your legal threat, as it violates the no legal threats policy. In addition, Wikipedia does not allow autobiographies, especially if they remove sourced content from articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, it appears that Kimberly Thompson has been blanked by User:KTMUSIC1. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I have warned User:KTMUSIC1 about legal threats. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: User:KTMUSIC1 continues to blank Kimberly Thompson despite warnings about removal of content on talkpage. They have done it after a final warning as well. Given the legal threat here as well, I would support a block. It's one thing to be unhappy with content on Wiki, it's not acceptable to delete/replace it without a consensus to do so. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's my take on it. Kimberly Thompson only appears barely well sourced in the article, including citations to Facebook and Soundcloud which are totally unacceptable. If she wants the article deleted, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE she can. Don't be a dolt, people and remember the articles we edit are read by a far wider demographic than we think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Support this suggestion. However, if deleted, this article should not be recreated as an autobiography by User:KTMUSIC1, which seemed to be the original intention of the user. Also, I don't know how to delete as WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oppose this outcome. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE only applies to non-public figures. I think the article simply need to be improved. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 14:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The easiest option is to put the article up for AfD, which I've done here. That should sort things out one way or another. This is far from the first time that a borderline notable figure has been upset about a biography. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose suggestion that article be deleted based on any discussion here. That is an issue for WP:AFD (and personally, I think it would fail given her career and its coverage at Drummer World). The issue here is whether a user who claims to be this subject, who has refused to accept instruction in how to proceed from other users, should be blocked (if only temporarily) for disruptive behavior, and I think the answer to that is clearly "yes". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 24 h for repeated blanking the page after multiple warnings and advised them to participate in the deletion discussion after the block has expired.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of excitement over this article occurred while I was dreaming away last night. At any rate, before KTMUSIC1's involvement, the article looked like this, and I'm not exactly sure why well-sourced information was removed (for example, her birth year was backed up by a reliable source, and the city she was raised in was backed up by five reliable sources). And while I understand that YouTube sources are often not acceptable per WP:YOUTUBE, linking to her official YouTube page does seem to be acceptable (but not the comment section or anything). Finally, as WikiDan61 pointed out in the AfD, how do we know that this user actually is Miss Thompson? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Just confirming OTRS are now aware of and involved with this. Mdann52 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible attempt to out an administrator

What appears to be a single user posting from shifting IPs (174.45.188.190 (talk · contribs) and 75.166.119.124 (talk · contribs)) in their few messages under those IPs has twice referred to an administrator that the editor seems to have some beef with, and the name used looks like a last name and does not appear to be a user name. I'm concerned that this may be an outing attempt. (The user also makes reference to having been blocked in the past, so this may also be a block evasion, but I have not identified which account that might be so I cannot check whether it is an extant block.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) This appears to be the edit in question. The name is mentioned here too. Just to be specific.

I will check the archive on the page to see if there was an editor with similar tone. Might not find anything though. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• • "Seifenstein" was a German Wikipedia editor. Not a last name. He was brought in to the George Reekers article over several disputes. Unfortunately, he and I had a major conflict of interest as he was a deletionist, even by German standards and I'm an inclusionist. It was agigantic mess and, in the end, I was unblocked. I'm free to edit here, but my account hasn't been used in several years and I can't access it. Working on LGBT articles here is always going to result in conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.119.124 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
    • There's no user (or administrator) with the username "Seifenstein" or "Siefenstein" on this wiki, or the German wiki. An admin from the German wiki would not be able to issue blocks on this wiki unless they were an admin on this wiki too. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
      • This was several years back, I assume he/she was - I'm German, too. I suppose one could dig through the rather unpleasant archives of the Reekers article, if it mattered. I don't see that it does - I have yet to make an edit and already this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.188.190 (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I did check the history of the article and talk page of George Alan Rekers (We have no article titled George Reekers). There's no user with that name or any similar name shown in the history of either the article or the talk page. The problem is that people think you somehow learned the real name of a Wikipedia administrator and are using it instead of their username. Hence the charge of wp:outing. I bet you have just misremembered the username. If they blocked your old account at one point, perhaps you could locate the actual username by reviewing the old block log? This can be viewed by anyone, without logging in. Just plug your old user name in at Special:Log/block -- Diannaa (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
          • I have similarly checked the German Wikipedia article on Rekers, and see no similar name in the history of the article or the talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Diana, perhaps I have mis-remembered. Or, perhaps it's lost down the rabbit hole. Doesn't matter, I was unblocked, my edits were restored and for several years I avoided all this by never editing. Now, my first gentle dip of a toe in the water and the same wham! against me as the last time, with the same person. It's not very encouraging. I know LGBT articles are really bound to stir up conflict, but this is ridiculous. In any case, I'm not outing anyone, never was. Nor am I a troll or any of the other nastiness. I am going to work on that article and I do expect the same fair treatment every other person gets. I regret you were dragged into wasting your time on this. This was baseless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.188.190 (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
              • Not at all "basesless"; you were engaging in an odd personal attack on an editor who was not even part of the conversation ("I understand Seifenstein is always happy to hassle anyone who dares question the conservative line on gays"). When I could not identify the editor in question in trying to better understand your comments, I faced concern that it was an outing, and as an act of caution I called attention to it so that it might be redacted if it were (such privacy is a matter I take seriously.) At it is, even you still have not been able to identify who you were talking about. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
                • Everyone takes 'outing' seriously. That was a really nasty confrontation, a lot of editors who didn't care for the direction the Rekers article eventually took were very willing to Wikilawyer the whole thing to get rid of those of us editors who wanted the article to be accurate and that Adminstrator came down quite happily on the side of those fighting for their anything-but-neutral POV being incorporated in the article.

So, shall I did through several year old archives looking for the whole mess? Or shall we accept that working together has never been easy for us and do our best to make Same Sex Marriage in the United States a good article? You know, I haven't even made a single edit to the article itself. Oh, Dianna, I do apologize for them misspelling of your name. Voice-to-text is still more an art than a science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.188.190 (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • OK, I've signed in. That, at least, will put an end to the IP confusion.Pauci leonum (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I honestly do not care what problems you had or imagine you had back whenever (and your new identity just serves to confuse further, as it appears to be linking you to user:Pauci leones, who did edit the Rekers article and talk page in 2011, but who has nothing on their block log, and whom I can find no sign of direct interaction with on the only subject I can find that we both edited, the Defense of Marriage Act.) If you can go and at least delete the off-topic personal attack material on this supposed administrator, then we should be able to wrap things up here. Whether or not it is an outing, it is not appropriate material for that page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, neither user:Pauci leones or yourself have any edits on the German wiki. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear NatGertler, personal attack material? Taking another editor's name? I'm sorry, but you're clear concerns about 'outing' are, quite fortunately, not at issue here. There is no doubt that we are in considerable disagreement as to how to proceed on the article Same Sex Marriage in the United States and I can understand that my use of the proper terminology on the talk page to describe the people involved might meet with your disapproval. That's fine - I don't agree with some of your edits, either. Just - and this is important:

1) I haven't made a single change to the article!

2) I've clearly stated that I won't 'be bold' and make changes without discussing them on the talk page first - even though you make changes without gaining the 'consensus' which you require of me.

3) I do think this is an attempt to get me blocked, to prevent me from working on an article which you, for whatever reason, don't want me to work on. It's gone quite far enough. You're going to have to work with editors whom you, for whatever reason, don't care to work with. I have to, as well. I, at least, am trying to focus on improving the article, not on finding means to hinder other editors. I took your 'concern' seriously until this last round. I'm not deleting one single word from the talk page. Perhaps we can stop annoying these good people here and actually, you know, do something productive?Pauci leonum (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I find this comment–

Now, my first gentle dip of a toe in the water and the same wham! against me as the last time, with the same person.

–(from one of the above comments) to be very interesting. However, I understand that you may have mistyped/misworded it.

• If you can remember the previous account you had, the details there would greatly help to clear up the misunderstanding here. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Orduin, perhaps I can't access it because it was a German account? Try Panthera_Germanicus. I left after one enormous fight over Rekers and DOMA, and yes, NatGertler and I have never worked well together. I'm not blocked, I left disgusted by appalling manner in which some editors Wikilawyer to attack newbies (me!) and to drive them out, especially on LGBT topics. For what it's worth, my edits to Rekers are still there, but the battle was beyond belief. I'd post a notable, verifiable, properly sourced (but not, goodness me, no, not ever 'primary' source), and wham! it would be removed. I'd revert with copious footnotes - even got called on having too many at one point - and wham! reverted. I'd revert and wham! blocked by that drive-by admin who should have immediately recused themselves as we'd had quite a disagreement on the German Wikipedia - I'm an inclusionist, he was a major delitionist.

I'd post a potential change to the talk page, wham! I'd get blocked. It went on for weeks and weeks and was horrible and awful and a lot of it was simply this: NatGertler doesn't work well with editors who don't do things his way. One may only disagree with him when one uses his style and his approved terminology. Else, he uses his vast knowledge of how to get other editors in trouble (and, let's face it - Wikipedia has become nearly impossible for a novice editor to navigate. One's always in violation of some guideline or other). That's what's going on here. I've not even made a single change. I've overcome my great sorrow and disappointment at the nastiness involved in editing any LGBT related topic. I've even come to terms with the fact that many editors here actually will reject an edit stating that 2+2=4 if there's enough reliable, proper sources out that to say it isn't. I'm sorry to write so much. I had hoped this was over and done with. Am I going to be hassled into leaving? Is that the point of all this? If so, I'll just go away again for a few years. As have so many, many other competent new editors. There's a very fine line between proper concern and maintaining a really good online-Wiki and abusing the many, many ways to get someone into trouble here. Goodness! I've not even changed one typo on the article yet!Pauci leonum (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Allright. As far as I am concerned; the details here have long since been lost. I'd suggest that the name simply be removed from the talk page; per WP:TPG if need be. This whole thing has been blown way to far out of proportion. -- Orduin ^Discuss 23:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed the name, it was the wrong name in any case - I'd remembered it incorrectly. Just as well, that admin. would wait until a 24 hour block was lifted on me and then block me again the moment I'd logged in, each time for increasingly long periods until the situation reached the point it was finally resolved. Anyhow, I apologize for the waste of everyone's time here. I sincerely hope this is the last of this. Goodness, I've not even corrected a typo yet and been already dragged through an emotionally exhausting and time robbing defense. Pauci leonum (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of clarification: it looks like he was User:Panthera germanicus, who was blocked all of twice. Reviewing edits, the only pages that I recognize having worked on myself are Talk:Same-sex marriage and WP:BLPN, and we were never in the same conversation. Looks like the majority of his edits were to Talk:George Alan Rekers, which, as I've noted before and which can be verified here, I've never edited. However, having seen the block log, I can now see that he was merely misremembering the name of the person who blocked him, so no, it was not an outing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course it was not an outing. I do hope this is finally settled. Goodness.Pauci leonum (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, it was not outing. You misremembered the name. Please keep in mind too though that it's not okay to make derogatory remarks about other Wikipedians, like you did here and here. Please don't do that any more; please restrict your article talk page remarks to a discussion of the content and the sources. It's not the appropriate venue for discussing behavioural issues from the long-ago. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Being impersonated

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

---

A user account with a very similar name to mine has been created earlier today. The use of a similar name to mine, the user page claiming it to be an alternate account for fun and its activity being disruptive edits to an article [152][153] I have edited as well, give it a high risk of being mistaken as being me or might even be an attempt to discredit me. I'm genuinely concerned and would like to know how best to deal with this situation. Tvx1 22:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This could be a possible sock who likes messing with editors either that or an editor with a grudge against you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User is blocked as a vandalism only account plus the apparent impersonation.JodyB _talk 22:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit Warring with a sock at Jeff Cooper

IP editor User talk:99.242.102.111 is edit warring over a long period while logged out from their account User:Hga. 64.134.157.208 (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC) [[154]]

I am not involved in any edit warring anywhere, and neither am I a "sock puppet" for Hga. Users User talk:64.134.157.208/User talk:172.56.9.232/User talk:208.54.38.247 actually appear to be WP:CAN and have been posting essentially the same material, and vandalising selected articles according to their POV, with the same wording in many different places. They are all from Oklahoma. As Hga points out, below, I am in Ontario, Canada, and I do not know Hga. 99.242.102.111 (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You've just deleted a fair quantity of content in small slices across this article - content that has been there for over a year. Can you explain in any more detail please, to make it more obvious to those unfamiliar with the article, just what's going on here? Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty appalled to be accused of using a sock puppet, when 99.242.102.111 AKA CPE602ad08d9143-CM602ad08d9140.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com isn't even in my country! rogers.com is Canada's biggest cable company, me, I hope somewhat obviously, am a resident of the USA and logging in from AT&T in SW Missouri. I know better than to get into an edit war of any type, which is why I'll be replacing all references to on-line copies of Cooper's Commentaries with ones from the published books which are on order, which BTW I mentioned in the talk page.

We have an anonymous Wikipedia editor who in his last edit issued a (repeat) threat "do not reinsert terrible sources and quotes from them or I will put on notice board period". Maybe this is worthy of being put on this notice board, but the anonymous editor needs to look elsewhere.

As for the issue, this editor does not like the provenance of some of the references to Cooper's Commentaries, and believes e.g. the authorized bibliography of Coopers writings is "linkspam". I for one do not know how to deal with the latter, especially from an editor who does not log in, makes these sorts of accusations, and escalates so readily. Advice would be sincerely appreciated. Hga (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe this editor has also been edit warring on Hoplophobia, especially since I see he's accused me of using a sock puppet on that page, one I don't even have on my watch list.... Hga (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, 64, you appear to be edit warring while IP hopping yourself. You're the one trying to introduce a contested change to the article, which Hga originally reverted with what seems to be a perfectly reasonable response. Meanwhile you (or another IP?) apparently responded by labeling the reversion as vandalism and edit warring over it. That's not how we do things around here. I'm going to restore and protect the stable version of the page for awhile so you can discuss the change you want to make. Swarm... ^—X— 00:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:64.134.157.208 has also done the same thing with Hoplophobia. If anything, he, User talk:172.56.9.232 and User talk:208.54.38.247 are the sock puppets pushing the same POV. As Hga points out, I am in Ontario, Canada and I do not know Hga. 99.242.102.111 (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hga and IP 99 are both the same and keep trying to re add material from blogs claiming they are legitimate sources and the article history shows they have been tendentious editing the article for a long time with many editors being reverted who have raised issues with their use of blogs as sources. IP 99 has even reverted several time in a 24 hour period over the last week. He is also making up lies about canvassing to include his half baked claims sourced from blogs. The article is clearly being owned by Hga and IP 99 as its history shows. 64.134.157.208 (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Any administrator who can access my IP address will be able to confirm that 99.242.102.111 and I are at least a thousand miles apart. I would appreciate it if you stopped these unfounded accusations (99.242.102.111 and I don't even have similar editing styles), and then take this to the talk page, where there is already a section on the issues you have with with the page, and we can stop bothering the administrators. Hga (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you want a check user and that would be great. None the less you are both including material from fringe blogs which in no way meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources and you were recently warned of that and you deleted and reinserted your crappy sources and material. You have been editing (owning) the article for years. You have had plenty of time to find reliable sources and clearly have not done that so your material must be deleted IAW policy. Find a source that meets the reliable source guidelines before reinserting material about a person who died in the last 10 years. 64.134.157.208 (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• ODD Hga has not edited in days but shows up here right away with IP 99 who is currently editing. Very odd but not for a sock. Something fishy. More tag team behavior. 64.134.157.208 (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I am involved in an Articles for deletion discussion on a programming language, where you will find my last edit prior to this page about 13 hours ago. Since I'm monitoring that discussion, I picked up your ANI notice rather quickly.

Is there any way you can start assuming good faith on my part, or ... well, I don't know; again, advice is solicited. Hga (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

64.134.157.208 SPI or shut it. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 15:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Works for me, I only suggested what I've learned is CheckUser because in this case it would rule out anything but one of the two of us using a hijacked computer, which I suppose is not beyond some sock puppeteers. But I agree it should be a last resort. Textual analysis, however, is soon going to be even more difficult for Number 64, since I just got the first two volumes of Gargantuan Gunsight Gossip, through the year 2000, and after lunch will start updating the references. In short order see the Jeff Cooper talk page for more details. Hga (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sock of blocked user?

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

---

Some time ago, I blocked a user, and I've just gotten a talk page notification that he's back as a sock. However, I've temporarily resigned admin rights, so I'll have to leave it up to someone else to take care of the situation. Here's the message left on my talk page:

Hello, it seems you had blocked this user [[155]] (Billybowden311) some time ago for extensive demonstrated hoaxing. He has returned now on a sock account with (almost) exactly the same name, namely User:Billybowden211, same article interest, and of course same behavioural habit of hoaxing and making disruptive edits. 84.241.195.207 (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've not investigate this user's actions yet, so aside from the username, I can't comment on whether it's a likely sock or not. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming a nearly-identical username popping up right after you blocked the first one isn't just some crazy coincidence. Billybowden211 blocked. Swarm... ^—X— 00:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Various allegations about a living person at the Misc Ref Desk possibly violating WP:BLP

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

---

AJona1992 has, in the course of asking for advice on the article Murder of Selena, made a laundry list of accusations against another person. The question seems in good faith, but as no references are provided and they are statements about a crime I am bringing this edit to attention as a possible BLP violation. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I never intentionally made those comments for bashing or accusing a living person, they were merely just a list so that others who are not familiar with the topic can make their decision on whether or not an article of that matter was appropriate. I take full responsibility of writing what I wrote and blindly did so without the notion of Wikipedia's BLP policy. Again my apologies, jona^(talk) 01:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I also removed the text as requested by Medeis. I was just searching for help to see if the topic warrant its own article so that the murder article wouldn't cause tags of being overly detailed or be too long to read, I went to WP:Discussion which suggested that I give WP:Questions a try. Best, jona^(talk) 01:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jona, I appreciate it, and certainly no need for you to apologize. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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

POV-pushing and advertising at Sweet Briar College‎

Administrators of Sweet Briar College‎ recently announced that the small college will close this summer. Editors have begun using the article to advertise an effort to save the college. More eyes and editors would be very welcome; semi-protection may be justified. ElKevbo (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

IP says Jeremy Tolleson wants his bio deleted

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

---

Jeremy Tolleson is a retired soccer player, who earned WP:Notability after a short article in a WP:RS announced his retirement. 190.92.93.227 (talk) made the following edits to his page:

• blanked it
• replaced it with "Non authorized." and
• nominated it for speedy deletion under criterion "[subject in article wants the page to be deleted]".

They were reverted each time, with template warnings, by Amaury (via Huggle), ClueBot, and Amaury again.

WP:BIODEL seems to suggest that we should probably delete as a bio of a non-public figure who has requested deletion, if and only if the IP can provide evidence (emailed to an admin) that they represent Tolleson's wishes, possibly after a formal deletion discussion. For now, per WP:DOLT, I've left advice on the IP's talk page and temporarily courtesy blanked the bio with a note on its talk page. I hope I haven't done anything to make the situation worse, but I think I need experienced help to move this forward. FourViolas (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The last one could go either way, but the first two edits the IP made were very typical vandal behavior (not calling the IP a vandal, just saying it's vandal behavior). Plus, we can't be sure if the IP is or represents the person in the article. Typically, in these situations, it's usually best to take it to the talk page of the article and reach a consensus. However, I'm open to any ideas or further feedback anyone else has. :) - Amaury (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to question your behavior. I almost did the same when I saw it on Huggle, until I remembered WP:DOLT. I agree we need evidence that the IP represents Tolleson, and explained as much (and how to confidentially provide that evidence) on their talk page and the article talk. I know the blanking is unorthodox, but I thought it was probably justified given the paltriness of the pageviews relative to the potential for angering an unwilling biographee. FourViolas (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't take it the wrong way. No worries. I don't think you made the wrong call, either. :) - Amaury (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Reporting User:Mabelina for repeated disruptive editing over the Venerable Order of Saint John article name

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

---

User:Mabelina is engaging in repeated disruptive editing over the issue of the correct name for the Venerable Order of Saint John article. She insists that the article name should be "Most Venerable Order of Saint John" and has been changing and edit warring with me over this on the Order of St. John disambiguation page. She has also canvassed my support for her proposed name change and has repeatedly ignored my formal request to stop contacting me on my talk page. As can be seen from her talk page she has a history of thinking that she knows what is correct and ignoring information and advice offered by other editors. In my estimation her behaviour is not only obsessive but also strays into stalking. I cannot provide diffs at present as I haven't worked out how to do so but it should not be too difficult to observe the problems on the pages I've mentioned and / or linked to. Your assistance will be appreciated. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Afterwriting: in response to the above acccusations - I find the whole debacle utterly dismaying to start with. I make a huge effort to contribute to Wikipedia on subjects about which I know a great deal, and take care to explain my thought processes where they are either challenged or perhaps not understood. In this instance, Afterwriting interjected first (as you will see when you look into the archive history) & when asked (not canvassed) by me as to why it has now led to this situation. No doubt Afterwriting performs an important role but when it comes to matters of fact and fails to provide an answer save that I'll be reported - how can this be deemed helpful and collaborative-type behavior. This MOS issue blew up with one of Afterwriting's compatriots very recently & seems to transcend all other matters (including getting the facts straight) in their eyes. The unfavourable history which Afterwriting cites echoes the unfounded accusations made by Anglicanus and I hope you appreciate how dismaying it is to have another repeat performance. Stalking / obsession - who contacted whom to start with? My sole concern is to improve the quality of Wikipedia's articles which I believe is more than borne out by my contributions. Meantime this whole issue about the Order of St John has certainly got very heated - but when one knows categorically something is incorrect, but gets confronted with a vociferous minority of activists who swear blind to the contrary, despite having having themselves produced (perhaps inadvertently) evidence supporting the point I raised, what to do? I sincerely hope that Wikipedia's integrity won't be allowed to be compromised in this way. By the way, if my point of view is overruled so be it, but to be harangued like this cannot be for the good of our most worthwhile project. I shall be very happy to answer any queries you may have - looking forward to hearing. Best M Mabelina (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Where to begin?! Firstly, Mabelina's claim that I first made contact with her is simply false as can be easily confirmed by anyone who wants to be bothered to find out. The fact is that she initiated contact with me out of the blue about this article. I have no interest in the article and really couldn't care less what it is called. Secondly, I consider these comments of hers on my talk page as a form of canvassing: "Hi Afterwriting: I have proposed that the article currently entitled Venerable Order of Saint John be renamed as Most Venerable Order of Saint John, for the reasons stated on the Talk page. I trust you will be supportive of this move. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)". It seems that the repeated and ongoing problem with User:Mabelina is that she thinks her opinions on what is right on such matters always trumps the MoS and the views and consensus of other editors. Afterwriting (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I can easily point out where to begin. It is not worthy of an exclamation mark about one view trumping the other, unless one party thinks this is some sort of game and has an agenda (which they will pursue at almost all costs). It is not at all amusing, not least since time could be better spent on other matters, but since a report has been filed I should defend my corner. 1. User:Afterwriting made the first move by deleting my edit & posting a message to say so. 2. If Afterwriting couldn't care less what the article is called why get involved? 3. I have already detailed to Afterwriting (in an attempt to conciliate, but subsequently deleted by him, that the wording "I trust" is equivalent to "I hope" at least in my parlance - it has no more forceful resonance than that) so to try to blow the issue up over this gives me the strong impression that Afterwriting is looking for an argument rather than making any attempt at being collaborative. Again welcome any further queries, and the sooner this increasingly partisan and vexed issue of the proper styling of the Order of St John is determined the better it will be - many thanks & looking forward to hearing. M Mabelina (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Mabelina's comments become more and more false and more and more strange. I have checked my editing history on the Venerable Order of Saint John article. My only edits, both minor style ones, were on 11 February 2015, a day after Mabelina had sought to bring my attention to it on my talk page and requesting my help with it. I did not "delete" any edit on the article by Mabelina or "post" any kind of "message". All that I did was simply correct the way that the order's Latin motto was styled in the info box ~ with the simple edit summaries of 1. "Style" and 2. "Fix". This was hardly getting "involved" in the article. As Mabelina again indicates in her most recent comments on here, the only edits she will apparently accept are those that she personally agrees with regardless of other editors' opinions, consensus or the MoS. When they don't she becomes combative and disruptive instead of collaborative. I removed our messages on my talk page because she was continuing to harass me even after I had formally asked her to stop posting. Anyone interested can read these messages in my talk page history. Afterwriting (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Afterwriting - the only reason we came into contact today is because you reverted my edit about the Most Venerable Order of Saint John & I asked you why. It would never have crossed my mind to contact you otherwise, so let's just wait for the Tribunal to adjudicate because clearly there is little to be gained from discussing matters with you directly. I should just point out though, that meantime I have made some amendments (& I am not promoting them as improvements, in case you blow your top) to the Most Venerable Order of Saint John article. I await to hear from the Administrators. M Mabelina (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

PS. I find it disgraceful that you continue attempting to spread muck attached to my name and trust that people see through it.

Anyone interested can check that I have not made any reverts to the article page either today or any other day. I have, however, today reverted User:Mabelina's repeated edit war change of the article name on the Order of St. John disambiguation page. I believe this is entirely appropriate given that (1) such pages should normally include article names as they actually currently are instead of being piped and not as someone insists they should be and (2) there is currently a name change proposal discussion on the Venerable Order of Saint John discussion page and this process should be respected and not bypassed. Afterwriting (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I shouldn't be surprised if this is your latest tactic to give the impression that Mabelina is a disruptive editor and therefore the proposed article name change is not worth supporting. However, apart from clearly having nothing better to do and little understanding of the subject matter, the facts don't support your evident opposition to the proper styling of the order as Most Venerable. I suggest we now keep silent until we hear from the Administrators - do you concur? Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Such comments reveal the nub of the problem. Despite there being no basis whatsoever in fact, User:Mabelina feels free to make combative comments about what she perceives to be my hidden motives. I have not expressed any comments at all about "the proper styling of the order". Despite this Mabelina thinks she can read my mind on the subject. I could not give a crap what the order is or should be called. Afterwriting (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposed ban of User:James "J.J." Evans, Jr.

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

---

Ive looked at the various edits and unblock requests this user has made and considering that in spite of admins looking at his requests various times and pointing out how hes blatantly breaching policy he comes back for more and still has talk page access. Therefore I propose that we ban this user indefinitely without access to their talk page and am looking for us to vote on my proposal so an admin can then implement this via technical measures. 87.114.135.71 (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think a ban seems unnecessary at this point considering he's already indefinitely blocked, but I would support removal of talk page access due to his abuse of the {{unblock}} template. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As if that werent bad enough he's generally abusing his talk page for other purposes as well as you can see here. 87.114.135.71 (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) That can be solved by simply revoking talk page access.Epic Genius (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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

‎121.243.113.135 - removing referenced edit

Hi, ‎121.243.113.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is removing referenced edits in a series of places articles related to WP India. Please help.Ssriram mt (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The activity stopped about 5 hours ago. I have warned the user. If the problem resumes, a better place to report it is at WP:AIV. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Dreadstar

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

---

On Friday, March 6, Think Progress published an article by Lauren C. Williams describing how The ‘Five Horsemen’ Of Wikipedia Paid The Price For Getting Between Trolls And Their Victims. Two days later, I was topic-banned by @Dreadstar: under the standard AE sanctions over this discussion [156] at the Gamergate talk page.

I hurriedly followed up by email to Dreadstar, copied to some other administrators active in the area, to ascertain a necessary detail of the topic ban. I wrote:

Just for the sake of curiosity, I presume my topic ban also includes the pages on Campus Rape that I was asked to keep an eye out for by a counselor alerted through this recent coverage of Wikipedia, since campus rape is related to gender? I’d like confirmation of that for the record, so I can advise that activist, even though that likely means canceling her organizations initiative.

To facilitate flexibility, I agreed to abstain from any public comment for a short time. Receiving no clarification, I asked on my talk page:

@Dreadstar: Is it your intent that this topic ban include pages relating to Campus Rape, which might conceivably be construed to be a controversy and arguably is related to gender? One might say that opposition to rape is uncontroversial, but doubtless campus rape has supporters, too, or controversy of some sort. (Then again, one might assume that commenting on other editors involved commenting on actual editors!) I ask only to advise an organization seeking my advice on promoting wider participation by women in the areas of its expertise in the wake of recent press coverage of Wikipedia.

This particular question arose because an official of an organization active in this area had just written to me, asking for advice on their plans to be more active in encouraging their members to be active in pertinent areas of Wikipedia. Increasing participation by women is, of course, an area in which Wikipedia and WMF claim to be greatly concerned. The organizer contacted me because I was interviewed in the Think Progress piece, and perhaps because I have been cited a bit [157] in the wake of my writing on the infamous Arbcom decision.

Shortly afterward, Dreadstar responded by email:

This looks like a threat to me, you'll be lucky if I don't indef block your account.

I do not recall that I made any reply. A few minutes later:

Oh you motherfucker, you DARE ACCUSE ME of condoning RAPE?
You'd best retract, NOW.

A few minutes later:

It's about to get really ugly; accusing me of condoning rape....well, now that gets personal....

In point of fact, my question was entirely reasonable. The topic ban extends to "gender-related disputes and controversies." I outlined why it might not be clear whether or not the subject at hand was in fact gender-related, and whether or not it is a dispute or controversy. I did my best to maintain a light and conversational tone, and this is the sort of close reading of which any educated adult should be capable. I do not raise that question here: that will be raised in a separate inquiry.

The topic ban itself is, in my view, neither just nor expedient. I do not raise that question here; I may raise it elsewhere.

The email responses (and outbursts on-wiki [158][159][160]; see my talk page for more) were outrageous: an request for administrative clarification concerning an administrative action was met by hostility, by implicit and overt threats, and by an epithet notoriously used to request that the umpire excuse one from the rest of the ball game.

Dreadstar has apologized only off-wiki and only in the most broad and general terms. Dreadstar has rendered long and useful service to Wikipedia (as, in point of fact, have I), but perhaps time’s winged chariot is hurrying too near.

Does the community endorse or repudiate Dreadstar’s correspondence? MarkBernstein (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

MarkBernstein, what action is it that you're actually asking for here? Not couched in metaphor and euphemisms, but specifically? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert at Wiki discipline. I do know the likely consequences that would ensue if any of my subordinates sent such email to a customer, but of course Wikipedia has its own sanctions and customs. In my own organization, I doubt a censure or a reprimand would be sufficient, and I would likely not wish that subordinate to represent us. However, it is not my place to instruct people so much more experienced in WikiLaw and WikiLore. You possess a variety of tools. Doubtless, administrators in the past have transgressed, and I expect there are instructive precedents.

Alternatively, perhaps this is entirely commendable behavior and I am mistaken in my belief that the community would not wish to endorse it. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Just answer the question please, in plain and simple English. What do you want to be done here? You've already made a request at ARCA about the topic ban, and the community cannot do anything about admin conduct short of a full ban which is obviously not warranted here. If you have a concern about his conduct, it otherwise goes at WP:A/R/C. I don't see what we can do for you here. KonveyorBelt 16:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I get that you're frustrated, but repeatedly asking if the community "endorses" Dreadstar's email or if we think it's "entirely commendable behavior" is just unconstructive goading. So, do you want the community to come here and say "Bad boy" to Dreadstar, and you'll be happy with that? Or are you looking for him to be desysopped (have his admin privileges withdrawn), or do you want him blocked from editing for some period of time (or until he takes some specific action), or what? Do you want him barred from taking actions in some specific topic area? Do you want him barred from further interactions with you? Coyly hinting around the edges doesn't really answer the question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I don't know what the precedents are, and I don't know precisely how far your authority extends. A block might be suitable; resignation might be suitable; censure might be suitable; Bosstopher’s solution below seems perfectly sensible. (I would also welcome a formal, personal, and unreserved apology, if not from Dreadstar then from the community, but that's a bagatelle.) A mere reprimand seems insufficient to the circumstances, but if it helps to achieve your collective sublime object, to make Dreadstar a source of innocent merriment might not be altogether bad. I'd settle for "mistakes were made all 'round; no lasting harm; we welcome you both back into the community and roll back the time machine to Sunday morning." MarkBernstein (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I am (rather obviously) not MarkBernstein. But I believe that Dreadstar should put him himself up for recall by resigning his admin privileges and putting himself up for another RfA (and therefore that the community should strongly encourage him to do so). Pretty much everyone who's commented on this so far doesnt see Mark's comments as an accusation of Rape apologia. For context, Mark has made accusations of rape apologism in the past[161] which led to his first topic can, but this very clearly wasn't one. Even if Mark had actually made such a claim, it would still have been completely inappropriate of Dreadstar to start swearing at, and threatening Mark. Administrators should not be allowed to harangue the people they block. However there are slight (very slight) extenuating circumstances, such as Mark's previous reputation, I think he should go for a second RfA instead of just resigning. Bosstopher (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved party who would like to see this resolve with minimum additional drama, I suggest that the community should opine on whether the topic ban imposed extends to campus rape topics, and ignore the rude email as an apology has already been made. EllenCT (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

An example where the wording "all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed " is a big problem. As is, it appears the "broadly construed" bit is the issue - and rape is a "gender issue broadly construed." And I think that term should be retired. Collect (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and have raised that question at ARCA. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

So this appears concerning but I feel like I'm missing part of the full picture. @MarkBernstein:, could you please clarify what you mean when you say "Shortly afterward, Dreadstar responded by email"? Was he aware of your communication with this "official of an organization active in this area" or was it a coincidence that he happened to reply at about the same time as they contacted you? Thanks, NW (Talk) 17:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

In my initial email to Dreadstar (and other interested admins), I mentioned the ongoing discussion with the activist and asked for clarification. When this went unanswered, I repeated the question on my talk page. Minutes later, I began to receive the series of emails described above. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there any reason you have been repeatedly plugging that think progress article on your recent filings here and at ARCA? It doesn't seem particularly relevant. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It's the subject that was under discussion at the time; when bringing disputes to AN/I, it's customary to briefly explain what was being discussed. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that you're going to find anyone, including User:Dreadstar, who is willing to defend this, but I also don't think we need a ritual denunciation of this either. Everyone has a bad day, and Gamergate has given everyone more than their share of bad days. Dreadstar has already expressed his desire to leave this topic area to others, so I suggest we let him do so with the community's thanks for the work he has put in policing these articles. I also suggest he drop the topic ban on Mark Bernstein and bring the matter to WP:AE to let other admins sort this out, allowing him to leave this matter behind completely. Contentious topic bans are better left for a collective decision instead of having a single unfortunate administrator be the target of everyone's frustrations on both sides of the issue. People have proven that the are completely unable to restrain themselves in this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm in 100% agreement with Gamaliel. All my other experiences with Dreadstar in the GG topic area have been positive, and I'd like to thank him for his work in the area. I appreciate it is a contentious topic, and that it can bring out the worst in even the most level-headed editor. — Strongjam (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

What would happen to me if I were to start communications with people "Oh you motherfucker?" Why doesn't that happen to Dreadstar? Does he get extra supermariopoints for having flown off the handle just days earlier at TenOfAllTrades (ref amongst others) or perhaps his recent grudge-holding abusive behavior towards people who he was in disputes with literally years ago (ref admin only - so abusive as to have been rev deleted). I'm certainly going to file an RFAr to have his tools removed - but the actions I linked to are not abuse of tools, they are abuse of people. Don't we typically block people until we are certain they are going to stop abusing people? Why do be believe this serial abuser of people is going to stop? Do admins get three free "oh you motherfucker" passes per week? Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - This is why I asked for a withdrawal and retraction of the sanctions. I didn't want to see this coming here, or any other board. I fall in the camp of Gamaliel and Strongjam. A bad day and an apology seems to be enough. Let other admins at AE decide is the sanction is fitting. Driving off good people isn't a net positive for the project, so editors here should keep that in mind for all parties involved. On both sides of this particular issue. Dave Dial (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I am in agreement that Dreadstar has made nothing but positive contributions, at least from my perspective. He has handled this entire situation with more patience and professionalism than one could reasonably expect. As a relatively new editor, I can also tell you that any edits to the GG page are frequently met with anger and vitriol. In my limited experience, it is my observation that MarkBernstein has at the very least engaged in passive-aggressive behavior on the GG article [162], making an already charged atmosphere even more challenging. I make this observation ONLY in relation to the Gamergate page. For all I know, Mark's edits on other articles are constructive and helpful. For whatever reason it seems GG strikes a personal chord with many here. From the very beginning, I had NO interest in gaming and NO dog in the Gamergate fight. The article was initially brought to my attention after reading about it on a news site. I attempted a few minor edits and was immediately (and inaccurately) labeled as a "Gamergate supporter". From the very beginning, Dreadstar has attempted to keep things civil in a very uncivil atmosphere. One of the few administrators I have encountered who takes the time to assist new editors rather than threatening sanctions or blocks. If he DID issue a block, I imagine it was well-deserved. Marcos12 (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As others have noted here Dreadstar has been a excellent admin for along time. You won't find a lack of people to attest to that. If another editor had the same background, I imagine their mistakes would be taken in the same way as Dreadstar's are now... the ratio of a few mistakes to years of helpful work on WP. That Dreadstar felt he was being accused of a particularly heinous position is acceptable. Its his opinion. That such an accusation might hurt and insult is a given. Further, he apologized when he saw that others did not see the cmt the way he did so clearly, he is willing to acknowledge the will of the group, whatever he felt. He has also withdrawn from GG. On reading the threads that led up to the incident I feel there was fair amount of provocation going on in a highly contentious situation and in an heated up environment. I noticed also that a post was made on Jimbo's talk page looking for endorsement, perhaps of a position. No context given. That same editor is going to post an RfAr. Mark has posted here, and on AE concerning campus rape. Looks like a pile on to me. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC))

I have notified the parties that I was expected to notify by law or custom. As a probable gamergate sock puppet IP editor had tried to exculpate Dreadstar’s behavior at User Talk:Jimbo, I added a brief pointer there as well. I have separately requested a clarification of the underlying issue from ARCA because ARCA is competent to do so, and no administrator has been willing to instruct this editor as to the meaning of a topic ban. That request for clarification has now ramified at WP:AE.

I am doing my best to address these separate issues separately, in the forums suited to each. The complexity of complying with this is formidable! The apology Dreadstar offered was general, not personal; vague, not specific; and far from unreserved, and no apology at all made before those to whom he wrote on-wiki, claiming that I had said something which no one reading what I wrote, cited above, could reasonably interpret in that manner. In effect, it was a fig leaf written for Arbcom. Friendship and long service aside, is no higher standard of conduct expected of Wikipedia administrators -- especially those working in contentious areas in which Wikipedia has recently and repeatedly been used to call people prostitutes and frauds? MarkBernstein (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Long service should not be minimized. Bringing calm on numerous occasions to heated situations should not be minimized. Kindness and helpfulness to others and newbies should not be minimized. Against that kind of work, mistakes possibly in the heat of a moment when provocation was clear should be taken in relationship to that long service. Dreadstar clearly saw the mistakes he made. He made an apology whether you like the form that apology took or not.

What did campus rape have to do with anything, and even here why is the situation being enflamed with reference to prostitutes and frauds. This is enflaming and doesn't clarify. What it does is further create a false sense of the situation. Its drama making, and this is no play. Dreadstar has taken measures which remove him from the environment. Clearly you want more. Why? What do you gain? What does the encyclopedia gain? I've never worked with you Mark; I have no sense of what you do but what I saw as an uninvolved editor when I checked out those threads were ongoing remarks that provoked and perhaps were meant to. Dreadstar seems to be trying to clean up his backyard you might do the same with yours.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC))

As I explained above -- quite clearly, I thought -- and as I explained in my original query to Dreadstar, it happened that a worker in the area of campus rape had written to me on Sunday, seeking advice for a Wikipedia initiative. I believe Wikimedia Foundation just announced $250,000 in grants for efforts like this one; presumable, that's part of building an encyclopedia and in the interests of the project. My assistance to them would be affected if this topic ban applied; hence, my request for clarification. As to the reference to calling users prostitutes and frauds, not everyone is familiar with Gamergate which can seem to be a trivial matter of playing fun games, not a concerted effort to drive women out of software development; it can be useful, amid the acronyms, to remember that this is not a game for the people against whom Wikipedia is weaponized. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_GamerGate indeed "what does campus rape have to do with anything?" is a question that needs to be answered based upon the ArbComs general wording of the topic ban and the instructions to interpret them broadly. Given how "broadly construed" the other aspects of the remedies had just been interpreted, MarkBernstein had every right to ask the person administrating the topic ban if the "broadly construed" application would cover campus rape. He had, and has, every right to expect that the response is not going to be: "you motherfucker". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The AE Topic Ban is valid. The comment that spurred his Tban was noted by two admins that MarkBernstein's language was, once again, a violation of NPA and that he had been topic banned, blocked and warned numerous times for the same behavior. No, we shouldn't lift the topic ban, nor can it be lifted here or without Dreadstar's permission. MarkBernstein's bringing up the "campus rape" topic as if Dreadstars TBan was enabling rape apologists was beyond the pale. I can find no substantial contributions by MB to campus rape before the topic ban so I find myself questioning it's use in the same manner that Dreadstar did. We should endorse Dreadstar's action and follow procedure. MarkBernstein is topic banned for making comments about other editors. It has nothing to do with thinkProgress or anything other than MB's comments. This should be closed and hatted and if he wishes to appeal, there is ARBCA. --DHeyward (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• MarkBernstein, the self promotional gamesmanship, both with the op-ed site Think Progress which interviewed you, and your very own MarkBernstein.org, are ... interesting; but please do see WP:SPAM, and in particular WP:LINKSPAM. As far as using said sites for references, see: WP:SELFPROMOTION. and WP:SELFPUB. — Ched :  ?  21:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No one is discussing using my site as a reference. ThinkProgress has an impressive masthead, an editorial process, and an explicit claim for fact checking: it certainly appears to be a reasonable source to discuss on a talk page. In any case, it's hardly unreasonable to raise the question. But this is hardly germane here; the question is not whether or not I publish ThinkProgress (and what's with that? I know 8chan thinks I'm on their board or something like that, but..). The question is whether, for asking an administrator as perfectly reasonable question about the nature of a topic ban, I should have been called a "motherfucker". MarkBernstein (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The answer is "No, you shouldn't have been called a motherfucker." even over email and and even though it wasn't on-wiki. It has no bearing on your TBan or anything else though. Can we close this? --DHeyward (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

and again No. No one should be called names. No one here and not even Dreadstar is suggesting that. He's removed himself as well. Was your comment reasonable or had you been provocative in multiple cmts? Were you surprised at an angry response given your comments? And you've used this kind of provocation before. [163]. I agree with DHeyward. Time to move on and hopefully everyone has learned something.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC))

Yes, my comment was entirely reasonable. Yes, I was surprised struck dumb in astonishment at the angry response. I have never called a Wikipedian a motherfucker -- and I'm not an administrator. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can understand the emotions one might have if they feel that they've been accused of condoning rape? I'm not saying you did, many things can have multiple meanings, especially in text only. And email is not wiki btw. — Ched :  ?  22:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears that MarkBernstein is now here to wreak "Havoc" on the community[164] with these filings. That along with his history of WP:NOTHERE and it may be time to show him the door. --DHeyward (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Giorgi Shermadini

This user @31.192.54.173: keeps edit warring with me on uncited falsehood. Kochag is a Georgian word meaning "bravo".

I have already notified him to stop.

hist google results --Dixtosa (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've given the user a warning about it, and asked at WP:RPP for a temporary semi-protection. If it continues, come back here or report to WP:3RR (for edit warring). EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox guidelines

Austin T Dalyai continues to edit against MOS guidelines saying There is no need for discussion, effected pages at this time David Coverdale, Rob Zombie. I have started a discussion here which Austin T Dalyai has not used. Maybe a timeout will get their attention. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• We don't do cooling-down blocks, Mlpearc. For better or worse. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• These edits, though, are ridiculous, and if Austin T Dalyai continues they should be blocked for edit warring, disruption, and violation of guidelines and consensus. In addition, I'm about to remove some content from their user page, where they're using one of our editors as a punching bag (they're not the only ones of course taking issue with Stefan2's work...). Drmies (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I was thinking more along the lines of "Oh, I must be doing something wrong" timeout, as opposed to a "cool down" block but, no problem, getting the disruption to stop is the only issue. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 18:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page is pretty much a prerequisite for asking for admin action here. I've offered my advice at Talk:David Coverdale. --RexxS (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The usual procedure is to get them to email info-en-qwikimedia.org, so we can deal with this in a more private and less-public manner, or at least so we can confirm identities. Mdann52 (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP User talk:24.57.167.103

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

---

This IP has never made a constructive edit. All edits from April 2014 have lead to warnings on her/his talk page, which see. Perhaps the IP should be blocked? --Hordaland (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

AIV is probably the best place to go for stuff like this Weegeerunner (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The IP in question has made 5 total edits, the last was over a day ago. There's literally no chance anyone is blocking it. In general, only actively vandalizing IPs are blocked, and then only for very short periods of time, to basically shut down the vandalism. There are a few exceptions to that practice, but they're too rare to go into, and don't really apply in this case. --Jayron32 21:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Pammiepie9

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

---

This user continously removes AfD templates from Pamela (Malof) Hill, despite being warned not to do so. Also, user has made only few edits outside topic, meaning a WP:SPA. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks more like someone who is writing a self bio, given their account name and the article name. Blackmane (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The user also just now blanked their talk page in this edit, which I then reverted. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Which you shouldn't have done. If a user decides to blank their talk page, that is their prerogative. Blackmane (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. They are allowed to blank their talk page except for a very few exceptions, like declined unblock requests. Epic Genius (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring IPs deleting each others comments

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoplophobia (2nd nomination), editors 64.134.157.208 and 99.242.102.111 have been removing each others comments and accusing each other of sock-puppetry while edit-warring across Jeff Cooper-related topics (including Hoplophobia and its AfD above). Examples: [165],[166],(two more reversions bouncing between those in the AfD history). See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Jeff_Cooper_article. Pax 02:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If the Reliable Sources Noticeboard section is relevant (I don't particularly think so, seeing as it only has #64 and me, plus an unrelated #3 party commenting, and not edit warring), then much more relevant is the above "incident" where I am accused of using 99.242.102.111 as a sock puppet on Jeff Cooper. Not surprisingly, 99.242.102.111 takes umbrage at this accusation on the Hoplophobia AfD discussion, and he, mistakenly, I think, suspects #64 is canvassing other IP only editors. Bleah. Hga (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no edit warring, I've just been accused of being Hga's "sock puppet," and I have responded. I guess my arguments are threatening. Amazing how cheap politics plays into what should be a straightforward intellectual exercise. Sad.99.242.102.111 (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

First law of holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

somethings up at Keith Haring

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

---

Keith Haring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Somethings up at Keith Haring that probably requires a mop. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Party of 6? A firm-handed mop and probably a CheckUser/SPI as well. Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Flynnus GoldenRing (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Accounts CheckUser'd and blocked, page semi'd for a day just in case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Plagiarism from a Wiki

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

---

Resolved

Hi :) Not sure if it the right place for that ^^' But i would like to show you this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_locations_in_Once_Upon_a_Time That's not the first time it happened, but this time it is a really big big problem :/ 77.193.106.198 (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this! NW (Talk) 14:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Possible legal threat at Politecnico di Studi Aziendali

As part of a content dispute at the article Politecnico di Studi Aziendali, a new account (Equalizerter (talk · contribs)) has made the following statement on the article talk page:

I inform you that Anna Cuomo the writer of the reference no.14 edited on your pages will be prosecuted in Italy for a defamation, the his accusations of theft involving the vice president of the European parliament over the avv.Massimo Silvestri with false accusations and obscene.

For this will be presented before the Italian justice a formal complaint against her and also against those who spread these falsehoods imounemente.Equalizerter (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[167]

The latter part seems to be a legal threat against Wikipedia editors including the reference in the article. I suspect the user is a sock of Equalizerbis (talk · contribs), currently serving a block for blanking the article (possibly Equalizerquater (talk · contribs) as well). --VeryCrocker (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the repeated blanking of the page, it might be in order to ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP, to at least stop the sock farmer from vandalizing the page. As to the legal threats, obviously an admin needs to block the socks and require a retraction and disavowal of the legal threat. However, as with any legal threat, it would be a good idea to make sure the threat is groundless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Socks blocked for block evasion and the apparent legal threat. Page is already semi-protected and am reluctant to raise it, but please let me know if either the socking or the blanking resume. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I blocked two more socks for legal threats.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Regardless of the legal threats / socking issues, the reference that seems to be the matter of concern is ... problematic. It's a page on a Wiki, for one thing, and it makes some claims that we'd never permit without far better attribution than is provided there. It's not a reliable source, and shouldn't be used in articlespace to say the least. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the observation. I just removed the reference, which makes me automatically involved with the article, so that we might need one more couple of eyes there for several days.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks to our Italian-speakers for checking this out. If the reference is unreliable or inappropriate then it should certainly be removed, and as that was the principal point of contention, hopefully the removal avoids the need for page protection. The article content seems unremarkable, but apologies that due to language barrier I coildnt check the ref directly. -- Euryalus2 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  @Euryalus2: Google translate does a reasonable job on major European languages. Should enable at least a reasonable idea of what is printed. Mjroots (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Harassment

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

---

The user User:Lugnuts seems to be harassing me on the grounds that I’m a “troll,” particularly with this thrice-reverted edit to WT:NCF [168][169][170][171] and these edits to his own Talk (note the edit summaries) [172][173][174]. I’m not sure where to take this, but ANI seemed to make sense. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Take a closer look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review_request_for_non-admin_closure_at_WT:NCF - where this IP simply wont let an RfC go. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you take a closer look at what you “closed” on that Talk page. It’s only related to the RFC insofar as it would have been moot if the RFC passed. It’s a perfectly legitimate question that stands on its own, with or without the prior discussion. I’m surprised the answer wasn’t already on that page, but that’s beside the point. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No, ANI does not make sense. You've had your answer, including at Wikipedia:AN#Review request for non-admin closure at WT:NCF. Please stop forum shopping. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I’m not forum-shopping. I’m asking for this user to stop harassing me. The AN discussion is ongoing, and the linked edits have nothing to do with that. (But these two—both again crying “troll”—do: [175] [176].) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want to be called a troll, stop trolling. 199.47.73.100 (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

About the above closure: The most forum-shopping I did was contesting a closure request at WP:ANRFC, and then contesting the actual closure at WP:AN, neither of which had anything to do with this discussion. I don’t see how any admin intervention on this issue could have any effect on that RFC, especially with AN in favor of its closure. I came here about a WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, and that alone. Whether my efforts have been in good faith can be a matter for a separate discussion, if need be. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@174.141.182.82: Here we discuss the submitter as well as the accused. Just leave it. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Duplicated articles, admin needed to fix

A new editor, Riahlynn923 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has created three articles that all have essentially the same content: E-dura spinal cord implant, E-dura spinal cord implants, and Wikipedia:E-dura spinal cord implant. This is clearly a result of newbie incompetence rather than malice, but it will take an admin to fix. I'm bringing it up here in hopes that somebody with buttons will take charge of dealing with it. I'm not going to notify the editor because she is already quite confused, clearly, and bringing her to ANI is not the way to reduce her confusion -- it would be better for her to deal with a single admin on her talk page. (Let me also note that the basic article content appears legitimate to me, so deleting all of the versions is not the right solution.) Looie496 (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think an admin would be needed. Just decide which article title and/or article itself is the best, and convert the other two to redirects. (If you don't know how to do that, I could take care of it.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The one in "Wikipedia" space shouldn't exist even as a redirect. Looie496 (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I just deleted the one in Wikipedia space. Checking the others too. JodyB _talk 15:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Very good. So the question is, which of the two remaining articles should be the "primary" and which should be converted to a redirect? (That's assuming the article merits existence.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I redirected to the singular one, kind of arbitrary but that made sense to me. There is a question about whether the article is promotional. I'm still thinking about that and would appreciate other eyes there too. It seems to be a proprietary surgical device that has received a good report. JodyB _talk 15:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Just as a followup, I've proposed moving the new article into Spinal cord injury#Research. I think that would be the most appropriate place for the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JodyB (talk • contribs) 17:46, 11 March 2015‎

That might be best. The current article does look rather like a coatrack for advertising this particular procedure. It could merit a sentence or two in the Spinal cord injury article, with the current article being changed to a redirect to that section of the Spinal cord injury article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I did bit of gnomish work on the article, and after reading it I agree with Jody and Bugs, merginging seems like the best course of action. Also, I'm concerned about some of the language, which was either written by an expert, or is perhaps lifted from the two articles cited. If anyone who has access to Science and Medical News Today could check for copyvios, I think that would be a good idea.BMK (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for IvanOS

User:IvanOS is routinely reverting mention of alternate official names and spellings from lead section on articles about setlements in Croatia. In the latter case of Trpinja author for the several times overturned my contributions. At first I thought that it was a misunderstanding or content disagreement so I started a conversation on article talk page See here on March 6, but user ignored and continued. Than on March 9 I invited him on his talk page to take part in discusion See here that he also ignored and continued with edit waring. I would like to point out that editor has already been blocked over issue of edit waring and/or minority languages: One, Two, Three, Four. This time editor again take part in edit war, failed to discuss with the other party even asked to do so and forced his POV that is not in accordance with usual standards of Wikipedia community and prevailing opinion of the editors at WP:Croatia. Since I do not want to suggest blockade (editor aslo make some useful contributions) I suggest that IvanOS should be baned from engagement in topic of minority languages ​​in articles regarding geographic units and other entities in Croatia.--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a general look over at a particular article....

...which I see as plagued with ownership, NPOV, and civility issues. (With a little canvassing thrown in, come to think of it.) As I also see it, a particular editor has used the prospect of reporting here as a club; the civility level is either (marginally) acceptable or not, as, are, too, the other problems mentioned. I may or not even be able to respond to any questions this raises there in the short term, but I think a quick run through its recent activity will speak for itself, and in my absence I trust to the good judgement of the people here. Given that I am naming no particular editor, I don't wish to notify anyone or name the article until I have an answer as to whether such a review can be done here. Can it? General review, aimed as much at my own conduct as anyone else's.19:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs) 15:47, 11 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Not only have you not named an editor, it appears that you have not named the article, or signed your name. BMK (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd guess, on the basis of the OP's (Anmccaff's) edits, that the article in question is General Motors streetcar conspiracy. See the talk page for some elucidation. Deor (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd thought that autosign was suppressed in here. (Obviously not.) I've notified, based on this, the other editor who might feel himself singled out; should I also do so for everyone else who has posted recently?20:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs) 16:29, 11 March 2015‎ (UTC)

I don't know if autosign is suppressed or not -- I signed it with the "xsign" template. Please sign your edit. Trying to be anonymous when editing from your account is silly, it's clearly indicated in the page's history who made the edit. BMK (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there's that. That said, back to my original question: is there a mechanism here for taking a look at the article in general, or is this strictly aimed at particular point events? "Incidents" is a clue, of course, but, then, any pattern is just a pile-up of individual incidents.Anmccaff (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If the issue is neutrality problems with the article in general, I suggest opening a thread at WP:NPOVN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri 88

I can understand that editors disagree [[177]] amongst other issues, but this post here by User Hijiri 88 crosses some lines [[178]].--Catflap08 (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Um, the second link is to a talk page thread. Which specific comments, if any, are you finding objectionable? John Carter (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

this one here "It should be pointed out that Catflap08 apparently has a history of writing what he wants on Wikipedia and pretending to cite sources, even when the sources don't actually say what he claims them to. All material added by Catflap08, even if it appears to be sourced, should therefore be taken as suspect, and unless material has actually been verified by independent users checking the sources it should not be included in the article. I'm saying this having interacted with his POV-pushing on a bio of a poet who's been dead for over eighty years -- it only applies about 8,000,000 times more for this article.

(And yes, I did "follow" him here, but only after he and his friend effectively forced me to. I was not involved until Catflap08 and company wrongly equated this article with the Miyazawa Kenji article. (Catflap08 didn't directly support the linkage but he deliberately avoided correcting his friend when the link was made.) Since Catflap08 appears to be showing the same disruptive pattern here as he has on those other articles, and I've already admitted to believing that this is a recurrent CIR issue with Catflap08, my coming here is also policy-based.)"''--Catflap08 (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, the two edits here and here. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What lines do you believe he's crossing specifically? If you read WP:HOUND, he can follow you around if you're violating policies, in this case WP:CIR. @Hijiri88:. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

John Carter told me that it was my responsibility to investigate Catflap08's entire edit history before complaining about his edits. When I did, I found him engaging in the exact same abuse of sources on another article as he was on the article he first interacted with me on. This user should be indefinitely blocked, since he seems to only be interested in writing what he wants on Wikipedia, regardless of what the sources -- the sources he cites -- say. Get Catflap08 to cite the specific diffs where I "hounded" him, and you will see me citing diffs clearly showing Catflap08 engaged in disruptive behaviour. The relevant edit I made in which to which he was referring in his OP is here. John Carter also seems to think that my scrupulously scouring a source Catflap08 cited to see if it actually says what he says it does (it doesn't) is also problematic, although Catflap08 himself made no reference to this edit.

Someone please block this incompetent POV-pusher like he deserves.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that Catflap08 appears to have realized that no one agrees with him on the talk page and has decided to forum-shop the dispute to ANI. Wouldn't be the first time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Um...you have forum-shopped too, Hijiri88. Maybe y'all really do need an IBAN (that, or at least avoid starting an ANI thread about each other every week). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Um, the fact that totally unacceptable language like "jackass" and "jerk" have been used in recent conversation might support that contention. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Which side are you referring to, JC? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, in his hatting of some earlier discussion now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive876#User:Catflap08. Honestly, given the nature of the discussion here, and some of the related discussion now taking place at WP:BLPN#Daisaku Ikeda, including apparently unfounded claims about what sources do and do not say, I'm thinking there is a real chance that individual might be more deserving of sanctions than the other. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Roscelese

I am not able to get this user to understand that a discussion and subesquent Rfc about sources needs to be resolved with consensus before cite tags repeatedly are removed [179], [180], [181] [182] [183](with personal accusations just about every time) from the article's text. Much stronger claims about the sex life of that biography's subject person have recently been added to the article. I have no objection to that (contrary to repeated personal insults made against me in that discussion, alluding to my own sexuality) as long as those allegations are clearly and reliably sourced, which I do not believe is the case now, at least not yet. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing Talk:Christina, Queen of Sweden the overall consensus appears to be the claims are adequately sourced, and given a 1654 death year WP:BLP does not apply. NE Ent 23:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusion as NE Ent. It's SergeWoodzing himself who began the ANI and POV-worded RfC which he is appealing to in order to justify edit warring over adding citation needed tags where there is evidently a citation. A discussion looks merited, but why not leave the article alone while the discussion is ongoing (like you've requested Roscelese do with your own version)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• An RFC is absolutely warranted, for that issue and probably a couple of others. But Serge's "RFC" is simply a list of his opinions and a demand that we all acquiesce to them. Any suggestions that is the case are met with accusations of "personal slurs". Nobody, for example, has "alluded" to his sexuality. Serge seems to disagree with what is in the article because he personally disagrees with those who wrote it like Crompton (regardless of their reliability) and agrees with the opinions of others like Stolpe (regardless of their reliability). All of that is perfectly fine (he is entitled to his personal opinion) but of late it has manifested as edit-warring and talk page tactics that have ground all meaningful discussion to a halt (with a POV he has been pushing unsuccessfully since 2012). Last time people simply gave up arguing with Serge and allowed the WP:WRONGVERSION to stand and it stands to this day (without LGBT categories; he simply edit-warred until everyone else gave up). St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I agree with everyone else; and for the record, SergeWoodzing, telling you to abide by consensus isn't exactly a personal insult. (I think I see a kangaroo...) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)