Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jurriaan (talk | contribs) at 22:22, 28 March 2015 (Formal complaint about User:Bobrayner). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    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))[reply]

    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))[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)"[reply]
    I am not seeing anything ANI worthy there. Sorry Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I am not a WP:SPA, I edit other pages and have other interests. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    Proposed Block for QuackGuru

    There is no concensus for a block of QuackGuru at this time. HiDrNick! 20:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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).[reply]
    How many warnings will QG get for harassment? AlbinoFerret 13:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the same amount of WP:ROPE you've been given to continue your obvious advocacy. BMK (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious advocacy? You are incorrect. That is a baseless false charge. AlbinoFerret 15:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I don't have time to count the total number of past warnings against QuackGuru, so I'll simply list the notices given recently:
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I am not an SPA, and I suggest you strike out that comment. -A1candidate 13:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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))[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
        • "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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
            • 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))[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support block per John Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future -- making clear my priorities. !vote changed, preceding comment added, QG-specific parts of below comment struck 05:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) 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, o 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @ 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Comment: The question of why this has not been elevated long before this... Jim1138 (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • (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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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))[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Any open-minded uninvolved editor will see precisely what I mean, despite your Wikilawyering. BMK (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to provide evidence for serious accusations, not unsubstantiated insults. You should probably also read WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT.Levelledout (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Disability policing" is real, and damaging, and an issue on Wikipedia: see the unsolicited comment on my talk page from an editor concerned about that exact thing. For obvious reasons, I wish someone other than me had posted about it (or that someone other than QuackGuru had made the offensive comment). I'm done commenting in this thread on the merits of a block but "disability policing" needs to be taken seriously on WP. ... P.S. Just to make my intentions clear I've changed my !vote above to "Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future". [18] --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 04:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC) added P.S. 05:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors are blocked when bad behaviour needs to be prevented; editors are not blocked as punishment when there is very little chance of a problem being repeated. QG has acknowledged the error, albeit not very clearly, and there is no reason to debate the issue—if there is a repeat, QG will get a lengthy block; if there isn't, a block for a single bad comment is not warranted. The comment is not part of a series of similar issues. Johnuniq (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Johnuniq -- I read WP:BLOCK specifically before commenting. In a case like this, per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT, #3 would apply: some offenses are so bad that we block automatically. (#2 could also apply when an editor has a tendency to push the envelope: they may not make this mistake again, but a block may get their attention. But #3 is the main thing.) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that your considered opinion as an independent editor with a good understanding of Wikipedia's procedures, or as an acupuncturist who is very keen to have QG removed so you can promote your product unimpeded? Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Very much the former, which I think should be obvious in light of my !vote change to: "Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future". [19]. Look just a little bit above and you might even see that I mentioned this previously. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 11:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Middle 8, I'm not sure if you've seen the conversation starting after this comment by AlbinoFerret [20], but it does appear that AlbinoFerret is trying to justify their focus on e-cigs because of their disability (or extremely misunderstanding BMK's point). I'd prefer the topic of disability never even entered the conversation and focus solely on behavior here, but this kind of justification really concerns me. This is very different from questioning whether someone actually has a disability, so are you suggesting we shouldn’t question this kind of behavior I’m describing, or moreso not do what QuackGuru did specifically? This becoming a really strange situation. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingofaces43: Not all that strange, really. The case against AlbinoFerrett as a SPA and civil-POV-pushing advocate is quite strong, and he's feeling the need to counter it with whatever he's got. So, even though he called for sanctions against QG for bringing up his physical disability, he obviously feels no compunction about using that physical disability as an explanation for the amount of editing he's done on e-cigarettes. What he seems not to understand is that by comparing oranges to oranges -- i.e. by dealing with percentages of his own edits as opposed to comparing the count of his edits against those of other editors -- that factor is eliminated, and has no bearing on the question. Whatever his physical disabilities are is irrelevant, because they exist when he edits an e-cig article and still exist when he edits an article on any other subject. So when I report that 67.07% of his article edits and 85.08% of his article talk page edits are on the subject of electronic cigarettes, there's no way in which any disability enters into those stats. BMK (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I just dont like numbers and innuendo being used to discredit me. AlbinoFerret 17:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Kingofaces43 - QuackGuru's insult/innuendo that AlbinoFerret was lying about being disabled was completely gratuitous. All AF had said was, essentially, that their post count in the e-cig area is high partly because they're disabled and thus at home and in front of the computer a lot. There was no reason to dispute this and it was dickish and invasive to do so.
    Note: I think AF's volume of posting by itself doesn't require apology, so their disability is actually irrelevant in terms of examining their edits. What matters are the kind of edits and where they are made. Re the kind of edits, I've expressed concerns over AF's persistently not grokking MEDRS. Re where edits are made, BMK is correct that what is germaine to SPA and WP:ADVOCACY is not how many total posts AF has made about e-cigs, but rather what percentage such posts comprise of his total mainspace edits. ... That said, even if AF's disability is ultimately irrelevant to this inquiry, the baseless accusation that they lied is still wrong. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Meta-comment, seed for possible essay: Disability among editors on Wikipedia needs to be addressed with common sense and respect; it should neither be used for twinkie defenses nor as a way to discredit people in any way -- including suggesting that a person is lying about it. As lie-accusations go, this is an especially bad one. When a person is simply asking for a reasonable accommodation, and not attempting to justify gross incompetence -- or is simply mentioning their disability by way of explanation of their editing style (as AF was, in above case) -- the burden they are imposing is low. Therefore it would be stupid to demand proof, and more stupid (and dickish as well) to accuse that person of lying about their disability, with no basis and with such low stakes; cf. "disability policing" (which may be one of those things, like getting called an epithet, that sounds bad but which you have to experience to know what it's really like). I hope that our norm becomes one of rejecting "disability policing" in any form. Demands of proof are bad and outright lie-accusations worse. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying, I pretty much agree with you entirely. No reason to ask of actual proof, but in cases like these I'd prefer not to even worry about disability and just chalk up relatively innocuous editing quirks as just that, and if something truly disruptive, it's disruptive. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose QuackGuru questioned a personal comment made by AlbinoFerret which he should not have done. But, in my judgement, this comment does not rise to the level of a block/ban. For the record, QG did not reveal or attempt to out AF in any way. Counsel him to use caution and move on. JodyB talk 12:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block, but QG should face some admonishment for the disability-questioning comment. This is probably something that should be referred to ArbCom. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as it looks like QuackGuru was fairly neutral in what he added, and all of it was well cited. I agree that that was a very offensive comment he made, but he already received an admin warning for it, so I would consider it closed. If, however, QG does continue with personal attacks, especially of that nature, I would support a block or a referral to ArbCom. Iwilsonp (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret

    User:AlbinoFerret has agreed to voluntarily walk away from the topic area for 6 months after a discussion on my talk page. [21] AlbinoFerret can still engage in legitimate dispute resolution (eg. the Arbcom request) but will otherwise be taking a break from editing anything related to e-cigarettes. I feel this is an acceptable compromise to the differing views expressed in this thread, and it will give AlbinoFerret time to gain editing experience and perspective in less controversial areas.

    I have left the primary thread open for now because I'd like to let the discussion about Discretionary Sanctions run for another day before closing to make sure the community really wants that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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.[22][23][24][25][26] AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] AlbinoFerret claims "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[35] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support per Doc James. BMK (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    hatting personalization of the discussion. Out of bounds and distracting from focus of Albino's behavior Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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).[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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).[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    hatting discussion no longer relevant with indef blocking of sock BMK (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    comment removed per WP:EVADE

      • @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)[reply]
        • comment removed per WP:EVADE
          • 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)[reply]
            • comment removed per WP:EVADE
              • Oh, I think pointing out your very interesting, if short, history is quite constructive indeed. BMK (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • User:Beyond My Ken, InfiniteBratwurst is actually CheesyAppleFlake. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:CheesyAppleFlake. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • 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 [36] -- 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)[reply]
                  • @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)[reply]

                  • 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)[reply]
                    I must have you confused with some other editor, sorry. Yes, an editor's history matters to an extent if counting !votes, but otherwise their comments rise or fall on the merits. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 04:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    !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)[reply]
    None of the diffs presented violate any of WP's policies, as far as I can tell. -A1candidate 13:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    again hatting squabble between 2 main antagonists here Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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.[37][38] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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."[39] 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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))[reply]
    How is resisting the POV-pushing by QuackGuru a form of advocacy? Please explain. -A1candidate 14:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [40][41] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [42] (just as Mallexikon showed QG did with GERAC, which you were one of the only editors to grok). Except: AF explains [43] (supported with diffs) that the passage they wrote was originally sourced to a different source [44] 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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    yeah the thing about lobbying was really frustrating. [[45] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    side discussion that went sideways and has become distracting in-fighting Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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": [46]; 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.[47][48][49] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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))[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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).[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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))[reply]
    • (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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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))[reply]
    • 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 141.; 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)[reply]
    Here's the same data presented in a different way:
    BMK (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Wonder why you left Cloudjpk's data out? They have 112 edits (80.576% of mainspace edits) to e-cig articles and 176 edits (100% of talk space edits) to those articles talks. In total 83.965% of Cloudjpk's edits have been to e-cigarette articles. Significantly more than even AlbinoFerret. SPACKlick (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit count cool was acting really wonky when I tried to search Cloudjpk's history. It essentially said the user had no edits whatsoever yesterday, which I knew was incorrect. Today it looks like it is working now. No idea what causes that, but I've heard to tool can act funny sometimes. I've updated the info on my post and made the minor change to BMK's table as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @AlbinoFerret: If QuackGuru cannot, and should not, bring up your physical status in his arguments, then you, also, should not cite it as a mitigating factor -- not that it makes any difference, really. Presumably you have the same difficulties while editing an article or talk page on e-cigarettes as you do when editing an article or talk page on some other subject, so the percentages I cited above, which are not "raw numbers" -- 67.07% of article edits and 85.08% of article talk page edits on the subject of electronic cigarettes -- have nothing whatsoever to do with your physical state. Please don't bring up that red herring again. BMK (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats wrong, QuackGuru made harassing statements about my disability. But its a fact of life, one you obviously dont want discussed because it shows that your numbers have no basis for comparison. What you have are large numbers and innuendo. Please point me to the policy or guideline that speaks on the number of posts one is allowed to make.
    They are raw numbers because they dont take into account the number of edits I make to the same comment or edit. Your comments are bordering very close on harassment if not going over the line by trying to say that my physical status has no bearing on my editing here. It is something you cant possibly have knowledge of.
    Number of posts do not equal advocacy. AlbinoFerret 02:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you not understand percentages? Unless you edit e-cig articles differently than you edit all other articles, the numbers are not raw, they're relative to your overall output. BMK (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you ignored this, I will ask a second time. Please point me to the policy or guideline that speaks on the number of posts one is allowed to make. Number of posts do not equal advocacy WP:ADVOCACY neither do percentages. AlbinoFerret 12:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, percentages are a good measure of advocacy (and SPA) by showing that an editor is focusing too much on one topic. Using a percentage would account for your tendency to make copy edits and simply show what area you edit the most relative to your total contributions here. There's really no arguing with those numbers. Physical disability should be playing no role in this specific conversation because it should not be making you focus so much on one topic like this. It's one thing to have a lot of time available (which we've discussed on my talk page), but it's that your time is concentrated into one area that is the problem people have repeatedly brought up here. Maybe you're not seeing that, but BMK is actually being pretty well reasoned above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that I am editing an article that is interesting to me, and that some people want me to edit other articles more. Where might I find the policy or guideline that says you must edit x number of articles? I dont think editing articles that dont intrest me is something that should be forced. When I find a subject I find interesting, I edit the article. But I think you are misapplying advocacy. Advocacy isnt posting to much to one article. AlbinoFerret 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Gimme a break, AlbinoFerret. A lot of my edits consist of correcting my own typos or copy editing my own comments to make my thoughts clearer. That is common. But any objective uninvolved editor can look at the totality of my edits, and they will conclude that I am a generalist editor. Then, they can look at the totality of your edits, and they will see with crystal clarity that you are here to advance a certain point of view about e-cigarettes. Please do not try to deny what is obvious to any intelligent objective person. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, they show I post a lot. I have been editing Bitcoin for a month and have made 216 edits to the page and talk page. About 7 a day, when I am interested in a topic, I post and discuss it and try and improve the article. I am not here to advance a specific point of view on e-cigarettes, and the number of posts doesnt prove that. (added afterwards - This no intelligent person is starting to sound like No True Scotsman argument) AlbinoFerret 02:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really not interested in marginal topics like e-cigarettes and bitcoins, so I don't feel like reading this megillah. Can you show me a link where QuackGuru harassed you about your stated handicap? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you asked, its easly found under his topic with plenty of discussion on the topic, but you can find it here. AlbinoFerret 03:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bugs: See the section above this. My synopsis: QuackGuru make a remark that he absolutely shouldn't have, was roundly criticized for it by editors from all sides, and got warned by an admin who told him if he did it again he'd be blocked. The End.

    Oh, wait a minute... the e-cig and fringe science advocates seized on it as a sideshow to distract everyone from the proposed topic ban against AlbinoFerret, inserted a new section calling for QuackGuru to be blocked above the topic-ban section, out of chronological order (so innocent editors would come across it first) and have been trying their best ever since to whip up a frenzy to block QG, not only because he is one of the stalwart editors preventing fringe science from infecting WP, but because it helps keep people from focusing on the topic ban necessary to prevent AlbinoFerret from continuing his advocacy for e-cigarettes. Up there (the section above) is a sideshow, down here is the real deal. BMK (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    QuackGuru's comment was rude and condescending, and shouldn't have been said. But it's possible he's thinking back on some users we've had who claimed to be handicapped (ItsLassieTime comes to mind) and it was one of that prolific sockpuppeteer's many lies. So it's not unreasonable to have suspicions like that. But it's best to keep those suspicions to oneself until or if an appropriate time arises. However, disabled users shouldn't expect any special treatment, and in fact they probably ought not even bring up the subject. "TMI". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's better for people to keep unsavory information like that in the closet.[sarcasm] Or, wild idea, we could afford people with disabilities reasonable accommodations (as is done in many civilized places to varying degrees) and not be dicks to them, including not engaging in "disability policing". --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about keeping "unsavory" information "in the closet". It's about not using one's handicap as an excuse. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If I recall correctly, AlbinoFerret didn't bring up his disability in such a way as to suggest he should be excused for anything. If I recall correctly, QC did bring up AFs disability, and did it in a manner that was intended to discredit AF, distract, and wave a red herring like a giant flag at a sporting event. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that, that's just an example or scenario that can happen and it's why users ought not be bragging/complaining about their handicaps. QG seems to have seen something in Ferret's comments that suggested he might not actually be handicapped, and the memories of abusive users like ItsLassieTime may have overwhelmed QG's good sense at that point. There are better ways to explore that question than QG did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw what happened when it happened. QG did it to discredit AF. What's more, AF has never "bragged" about having a disability. It doesn't matter what QG saw/thought/or had a memory of. His comments were beyond the pale and WAY out of line. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, AF has been mentioning their disability in what appears to be justification for the editing habits not too far above. [50]. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    off-topic discussion of User:QuackGuru; belongs in subsection above
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Oh, wait a minute... the e-cig and fringe science advocates seized on it as a sideshow to distract everyone from the proposed topic ban against AlbinoFerret Have you actually read the discussion above? QG is a problem editor. People seized the discussion of a problem with QG to advocate trying to fix the problem with QG, some people leapt on the one comment (That I personally think should have been a straight 48 hour block but it's now dealt with) Others are discussing his edit history and while there may be some fringe science and e-cig advocates in there, there are also editors who want to see articles present accurate sourced information in readable English rather than garbled walls of repetitive text. The original post was about QG. QG tried to use boomerang to distract from the issue of his own editing behaviour.SPACKlick (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've concluded that the best way to have any productive discussion of QG's conduct -- or that of any disruptive editor who is perceived as being on the "right" side of content disputes -- is for anybody perceived as being a fringe-sympathizer to refrain from calling for sanctions. (Sorry for shouting in bold itals; I didn't want BMK to feel alone in using that style ;-).) Go ahead and collect diffs and present them; just keep it as uncomplicated, neutrally-presented and red-herring free as possible, and let others decide what to do with it (and needless to say, let someone else initiate the process: this needs to be done properly and not rushed). That will pre-empt the incorrect/disingenuous/GAME-y objection that "it's just fringe-pushers who want him sanctioned".
    AFAIK this has never been tried before. There are, IMO/IME, just enough objective editors on WP that some will still look at the evidence fairly and !vote accordingly. And if none do, it can be fairly assumed that it really is only fringe-pushers who want sanctions. In QG's case it has always, from the very beginning, been about 50% perceived-fringe editors and 50% perceived-neutral ones calling for sanctions.
    It really is true that the louder perceived-fringers complain, the stronger QG's position becomes, and this will only get worse with time (as will QG's shenanigans as he becomes emboldened: we're already seeing this with five warnings in three months). The community really should have learned this in the past from similarly disruptive/woo-bashing editors (whom I'm not going to mention by name now because they're more or less behaving themselves). The philosophically-inclined should ponder wu wei. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 13:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a reminder, this section is about imposing a topic ban on AlbinoFerrett due to his obvious advocacy in the 67.07% of his article edits and 85.08% of article talk page edits on the subject of electronic cigarettes. BMK (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you ignored this above, I will ask a third time. Please point me to the policy or guideline that speaks on the number of posts one is allowed to make. Number of posts do not equal advocacy WP:ADVOCACY neither do percentages. But since you like percentages, the edits above that QuackGuru posted to try and show a problem account for only 0.02% of my edits to e-cigarette articles.. Those edits were reasoned, discussed, and not the product of advocacy. AlbinoFerret 17:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Even assuming that AlbinoFerret's conduct is not advocacy, the edits linked above and conduct in this discussion suggest that some distance from this topic may have a healing effect on someone with a lot of energy and dedication to give to editing Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban as a clear example of persistent advocacy. Moral support for whoever has to read all the way to the end of this whole huge mess of a thread. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, for a month at minimum, for advocacy and so that AlbinoFerret can move on from this and contribute to the project. All the time we are wasting arguing here is time that we are not spending helping Wikipedia expand. Based on his actions and the personal attacks made over this, I don't think that AlbinoFerret can contribute in a neutral way to the E-cigarettes article, for now at least. Iwilsonp (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (involved editor) Originally i intended not to comment, because the pile-up of involved editors was already bad. But now it seems that i have to: By !voting to topicbanning AF, on the premises presented, we are creating an environment where editors will not dare to disagree with editors like QG, no matter how wellfounded the arguments to disagree are, or how little QG actually responds to good faith objections on the talk-page. We are also sending the signal that: Do not dare to only edit areas that you are interested in, because you will get banned. Do remember that being an SPA is not against policy, being interested in a topic is also not against policy..... Because no matter how we slice and dice it, the main argument here is not that AF is breaking our editing policies, or his POV, but instead that he is not conforming to some editors view of how multifacetted you must be to pass the bar. This is not the encyclopedia that anyone can edit anymore ... it is the encyclopedia for people who conform to certain characteristics. --Kim D. Petersen 11:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify: I do not see policy violations to back up a ban. --Kim D. Petersen 11:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    hatting discussion no longer relevant with indef blocking of sock BMK (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    comment removed per WP:EVADE
    You've only been here since December. How do you know anything about someone's alleged "long history" of anything? Unless you used to edit under a different ID? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    comment removed per WP:EVADE
    Since you have no more than 100 edits in your two-plus months here, many of which appear to be advocating for e-cigarettes, I assume the rest of your time here has been to try to figure out how to get rid of a user who stands in your way? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    comment removed per WP:EVADE
    I'll take that as an affirmative. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    comment removed per WP:EVADE
    Keep telling yourself that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    comment removed per WP:EVADE
    You might check this out There is a bug in the visual editor. One of the reasons I stopped using it was because it was so buggy on my Linux distribution. If you look at the history instead of doing a date to date search, each of those edits comes up with the "Visual editor" tag on the edit comments. There is nothing between those tags, its basically a tag and another closing tag with no text. This is a AGF problem, nothing between the tags, not asking me about it anywhere, and it the result of a bug in the editor, but right away jumping to negative motives. AlbinoFerret 19:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's something interesting. If we accept for the moment, for the sake of argument, the premise that "involved" editors, from both camps, are too prejudiced to cast a !vote in a neutral fashion, then we should look more closely at the opinions of the presumably uninvolved editors, the ones who have no or very few edits to the e-cig talk page.

    As our data source we can Use Kingofaces43 list above, and add to it the four !votes which have been posted since: Mendaliv (0 edits), Opabinia regalis (0), Iwilsonp (0) and Kim D. Petersen (780). We throw out all the high-numbered editors, which leaves us with thisL

    • Oppose - 8, including three based on procedure or venue
    • Support - 15, includng one "very weak support"

    So of the presumably uninvolved editors who !voted, 65% (15/23) are in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. If you want to throw out all the editors with any edits at all, that takes away 2 supports and 2 opposes (13/19) for a 68%. True, one of the supports is "very weak", but bear in mind that three of the opposes are based on procedure or venue, and not on the merits of the case. Throw those out (the "very weak" and the procedurals) and you've got 80% (12/15).

    So it seems anyway you slice it, the uninvolved editors are in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret.

    But what about an overall state of the discussion, counting all editors whether they're involved or not? Then you've got 21 support !votes and 13 oppose !votes. That's a 62% majority in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret, not all that different from the percentage of the uninvolved editors.

    Of course, the closing admin -- and I really think it had better be an admin in this case -- doesn't count the votes (or, at least, doesn't just count the votes), they evaluate the strength of the various arguments as well. I'm well aware of that, so there's no need to remind me. But the count is still helpful as it gives a thumbnail representation of the state of play at this moment. BMK (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • InfiniteBratwurst has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of FergusM1970. Therefore, these results change:
    • All uninvolved editors: 68% (15/22) in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret
    • All editors commenting: 64% (21/33) in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret
    With no new recent comments, I believe it's coming to the point where an uninvolved admin should closely evaluate this sub-thread and determine whether a consensus exists for levying a topic ban concerning electronic cigarettes on AlbinoFerret, due to his obvious advocacy in favor of a pro-e-cig POV. BMK (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There is strong support for a topic ban. Numerous editors support a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. For example, please read the comments above by User:Cloudjpk, User:Doc James, User:CFCF, User:Jytdog, User:Bishonen , User:Johnuniq, User:Formerly 98, User:Cardamon, User:JzG, User:Kevin Gorman, User:Cullen328 User:Zad68, User:RexxS, User:Softlavender, User:Mendaliv. Only a voluntary break from the topic area is against the community consensus. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret. QuackGuru (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @QuackGuru, You've had your say. Please don't WP:Bludgeon. I took the liberty of removing the <big> tags from your comment. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret

    Not helpful ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Of course KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. That's because User:KimDabelsteinPetersen has also made many controversial edits to the safety of electronic cigarettes page. Let's review some of KimDabelsteinPetersen's recent edits.
    Revision as of 13:05, 30 January 2015 This edit deleted text and sources from two reputable organisations. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Positions. The sources are reliable per WP:MEDORG. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Discussion on positions. The sources are reliable per WP:SNOW according to the current discussion.
    Revision as of 13:11, 30 January 2015 This edit deleted text and sources from two reputable organisations again.
    Revision as of 11:20, 26 January 2015 This edit mainly deleted text from a formal policy statement written in a peer-reviewed journal.
    Revision as of 19:20, 7 February 2015 This edit mainly deleted text from a review and text from reputable organizations.
    Revision as of 06:27, 25 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS.
    Revision as of 10:00, 25 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
    Revision as of 22:47, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
    Revision as of 23:46, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again. KimDabelsteinPetersen does not see policy violations to back up a ban. KimDabelsteinPetersen, aren't you also deleting a lot of sources against WP:MEDRS? This diff shows AlbinoFerret is making many counterproductive edits and deleting of a lot of reliable sources. KimDabelsteinPetersen is also deleting a lot of reliable sources which suggests he/she is promoting a certain favorable POV for e-cigs. Should KimDabelsteinPetersen also be topic banned? KimDabelsteinPetersen has earned a topic ban from the e-cig pages IMO. Does the community prefer a topic ban for KimDabelsteinPetersen for 6 months or one year, an indef topic ban, or just a warning or no action? QuackGuru (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I assume from the title, that is "KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret", that the intention is to punish KDP for voting the wrong way by topic banning them? There is no wrongdoing in the diffs you've provided I'm afraid, most of them appear to be reverts on the basis that ongoing talk page discussions, RFCs, have not yet concluded or principles such as WP:BRD, all valid ones of course.Levelledout (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret because he/she is also making a number of controversial edits, including deleting numerous reliable sources that he thinks was okay to delete at the time. But it is not reasonable to continue to delete pertinent information about of the safety of e-cigarettes. Both KimDabelsteinPetersen and AlbinoFerret are the main problem editors IMO. There is also a discussion at Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Removal of mammoth edit. No reasonable argument has been made to delete so many reliable sources after over a week. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Community authorized discretionary sanctions for Electronic cigarette articles

    Proposed: The community authorizes discretionary sections for all articles related to electronic cigarettes, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working within this topic if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to: page banning, topic banning, semi-protection, pending changes protection, or blocking any editor so warned. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.

    • Support as proposer, and thanks for Hasteur for the verbage. This dispute has devolved, and would benefit from some extra attention to get it sorted out. DS should expedite this process, and, in my mind, is sorely needed. HiDrNick! 20:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Does Hasteur support this too? I would think so, given that he edited it for you, but I would like to check. Iwilsonp (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no. Sorry, I should have been more clear. I just cribbed his wording from the Gamergate community sanctions. I didn't intend to imply his endorsement. HiDrNick! 21:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well after the fact (no User Pings or talk page notices) Couple points: Make sure there's an appropriate log page to log the warnings/sanctions. Make sure there's a venue for editors to neutrally report what they percieve as violations in the sanctions without calls of ADMIN-shoping. Hasteur (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as this is not the solution to the ongoing deletion of reliable sources. Admins don't need this to topic ban an editor anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as proposed, as E-cigs are in any case a contentious enough subject that this kind of dispute is liable to flare up between another few editors (not just QuackGuru and AlbinoFerret) in the future, and this would let an admin deal with it without this sort of mess all over ANI. Iwilsonp (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Although I suspect it will end up at WP:RFAR before it's over. — Ched :  ?  22:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Unfortunately this is unlikely to lead to anything substantial. There are a number of WP:SPA or near-SPA accounts involved and this would only limit the time needed to address issues, but the problem would still remain. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - The proposed discretionary sanctions could be avoided with an immediate block of QuackGuru for multiple counts of disruptive behavior in the above sections. If discretionary sanctions are authorized, it is likely that QG will look for a new topic area to disrupt and antagonize a new group of editors before being brought back to this noticeboard, as has happened countless times in the past. -A1candidate 22:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We have proof of meat puppetry among these articles. We know that the e-cig manufacturers are unhappy with the medical community's position on the known and unknown health effects and safety of e-cig. One advocacy group has contacted my university to attack me personally. We need to make sure that we uphold high quality sources. Not sure if this will make that easier or harder since some involved are using throw away accounts / SPA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have proof that AlbinoFerret, or any of QG's perceived opponents, have engaged in meat puppetry? Most probably not. -A1candidate 22:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes User:FergusM1970 linked to his twitter feed which include his efforts at meat puppetry Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose not sure this will help . Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - I only recall discretionary sanctions being put in place by ArbCom, I can't recall a solo admin or the community doing it. Can someone provide a precedent where the community placed discretionary sanctions on a subject? (Not that the lack of precedent necessarily means it can't be done, but it would certainly make it easier to stand up, should this receive a consensus.) BMK (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure thing! You're looking for Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community-authorised_sanctions. HiDrNick! 01:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! That was very helpful. BMK (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - After careful reconsideration of the issue, I am changing my !vote based primarily on the comment of Robert McClenon and some of the information provided by Bishonen. I still believe, though, that a topic ban for AlbinoFerret would be the best first step in guaranteeing that the e-cig articles are balanced and NPOV, which to me is the primary concern, more so than the "atmosphere" of the editing environment. BMK (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - if editors misbehave despite warnings, then uninvolved admins can sanction them anyway, right? -- so what does this add? Is it a way of saying "don't worry, sanction as needed, it won't be seen as controversial"? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 14:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exactly. For example, without discretionary sanctions (DS), administrators lack the authority to topic ban editors, and may only block editors in a limited set of circumstances outlined in the blocking policy. Once DS are authorized, administrators are given much more latitude to enforce community norms around a particular topic. Furthermore, sanctions placed under DS cannot be undone without a clear community consensus (or a motion of the Arbitration Committee), while ordinary blocks can be lifted by any uninvolved administrator. I think that about sums it up. HiDrNick! 14:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Middle 8, for my money the big difference discretionary sanctions make is that they allow a single uninvolved admin to topic ban an editor (on their own discretion, hence "discretionary" sanctions). Much easier than schlepping the person to ANI and trying to raise consensus for a topic ban, indeed perhaps a bit too easy in this case. I'm dubious about instituting DS here. Admins should probably be more ready to block disruptive editors in the area, something they can do without DS. (Take that as a weak oppose.) Bishonen | talk 22:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support - There have been too many threads about electronic cigarette, and community discretionary sanctions will work as well as ArbCom discretionary sanctions to get a few contentious editors off the article. If the community doesn't do this, the ArbCom eventually will, because this will eventually go to the ArbCom if the community doesn't impose general sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Robert McClenon's arguments above. I still think that ANI is a fine place to bring clear, well-formed cases for anything related to these articles, but these sanctions should help calm things down. Good thinking! Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support it can only improve the environment. All too often things are reremoved or readded without discussion, and discussions are being ignored or answered with non-arguments. And i'm not talking about a particular "side" in this. If the article is to be improved, then it will require editors to cooperate, and seek consensus, instead of acting on their own, and a strong oversight may just force editors to do so. May end up in some blocks/bans - but if that is what it takes, then that is the way forward. --Kim D. Petersen 02:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Weak support partially agree with KimDabelsteinPetersen. I also think that anything is likely to be better than some of stuff that has been going on at ANI recently which doesn't reflect well on any of the involved parties. However Striking my initial weak support for an oppose in light of comments from Middle 8 and Bishonen. Was never quite sure about this, but in light of those comments I agree and don't think that this would be the best way to proceed. Whilst there are probably one or two problem editors out there that no doubt need dealing with, I'm no longer convinced that ANI does not remain the better method for doing this. I also would have thought that getting the involved parties to work together would be just as important. Which would perhaps mean article restrictions in addition to editor restrictions such as a 1RR rule for instance.Levelledout (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notification. I started an ArbCom discussion. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground on e-cig articles. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (That request has since been declined.) HiDrNick! 12:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support E-cigarette is a battleground. It will remain so for a long time because of content disagreements and lack of discussion. The main article has been protected multiple times. When its protected very little discussion happens, and edits are stockpiled for the next round of problems. AlbinoFerret 03:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per AlbinoFerret. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Unless the tide changes, it looks as if this thread is moving towards a consensus in favor of community-imposed discretionary sanctions. I would like, however, to address the closer of this thread: please do not be tempted to think that closing this in favor of that consensus -- if that is what you find -- obviates the results of the sub-thread above concerning a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. That is, if there is a consensus in that thread for a topic ban -- and I believe there is -- it should be enacted, whether or not discretionary sanctions are approved or not in this thread. Failing to impose a topic ban if there is a consensus for one simply puts off the problem to another time, and possibly yet another repeat of this discussion. True, discretionary sactions would allow an individual admin to impose a topic ban on AlbinoFerret if the admin thought it was required, but the mere possibility of that occurring in the future should not negate a community consensus for a topic ban for AlbinoFerret here and now. BMK (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The difficulties with these articles are intractable at the moment and the editing environment is uncollaborative. Community-authorised discretionary sanctions will be insufficient, because of all the AGF and second chances and other handwringing that drives away editors with good judgment and maintains our high levels of Dunning-Kruger effect across the encyclopaedia, but they're probably better than nothing.—S Marshall T/C 13:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Where do editors report an editor who is causing problems when the community-imposed discretionary sanctions are enacted? QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding is that any admin can impose sanctions under DS, so I suppose you can either bring it to an admin of your choice, or you can post a thread on AN/I. BMK (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Notifications & sanctions will be logged on a subpage of Wikipedia:General_sanctions. Since any uninvolved admin can impose sanctions, you can bring it up here or ask an admin directly. HiDrNick! 23:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, because this will not get to the root of the problem, which is the number of relentless obvious WP:SPA e-cig manufacturer advocates (one of whom has already been banned from Wikipedia, period) who have infiltrated the articles and made them impossible to edit constructively without constant disruption. The most egregious of the lot is AlbinoFerret, whose entire edit history from September 30, 2014 to present speaks for itself. The problem is not the "toxicity of the atmosphere", or the fact that the SPAs have made it a "battleground", but rather the problem is the (paid) SPAs themselves, and the solution is weeding out and eliminating (via permanent topic-banning, indeffing, or community banning) the clearly paid advocates. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very weak oppose per Softlavender. I do think admin attention can be good at the article, but I don't think discretionary sanctions will address the core problem here. Sanctions are good for addressing acute misbehavior that's readily identifiable such as incivility, edit warring, etc. I would be concerned sanctions just end up banning whoever slips up slightly first without addressing the real problem. What's going on here is more systemic WP:TENDENTIOUS and advocacy-like behavior that isn't readily identifiable by outside editors without taking a close look at each user's overall behavior in discussions and cannot easily be summarized in a few diffs. That being said, I am overall neutral on community discretionary sanctions, but just with the caveat that the underlying issues will likely not be addressed by the sanctions, but hopefully stem the tide at best. If the sanctions are intended as an actual solution, I think that would become a distraction. Short of an WP:RfCU type look at certain users here (I don't think ANI is structured enough for that), ArbCom seems to be the only other option to really sort things out at that level at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The editors at this article are not the problem. It is the subject itself that is controversial. Having discretionary sanctions in this article would not be effective because a significant number of single purpose accounts edit at this article. Applying sanctions on an article where highly experienced Wikipedians edit as single purpose accounts is not effective in controlling controversy because the editors using them are not invested in protecting the reputations associated with those accounts or in using them long-term to build an online identity. It can be right to use WP:SPAs, and I am not critiquing the use of WP:SPAs or suggesting that anything inappropriate, like socking, is even happening here. I am only suggesting that the Wikipedia community gives a bit more weight and protection to established users with established accounts with varied history of participation, as opposed to limited use accounts managed by talented editors. Sanctions is a tool for controlling established accounts, and not for SPAs. Its use here would would empower SPAs and disempower established accounts, which is not a desirable outcome in this space. Taking no action to control the e-cigarettes space is an acceptable response to the controversy. The controversy can persist in this space as it has been for months. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm not sure I'm understanding the logic of those who write that the behavior in the topic area is bad, or that the subject area is controversial and generates SPAs, but then vote to oppose discretionary sanctions which would give admins the tools necessary to deal with bad behavior (from anyone) and to reign in the e-cig advocates. This is especially odd to me because if community-imposed discretionary sanctions are not implemented here, it's more then likely that someone will request an ArbCom case, which will be opened this time because the community has failed to act, and the result of that will almost certainly be, among other actions, ArbCom-imposed discretionary sanctions. So, in the end, the probability of there being discretionary sanctions for the e-cigarette topic area seems pretty high, in my opinion. BMK (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'll clarify, but based on where I've seen discretionary sanctions work, it seems to be when specific diffs can be pointed out as problematic. I don't think a single admin overseeing the articles would be suited for the specific behavior problems discussed here though that require a close look at long-term behavior. Looking over the definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS, how do you think an admin would identify tendentious or advocacy-like behavior compared to easier things to identify like incivility? To me, that doesn't really seem like a judgement call for an admin can easily make (I could be convinced otherwise), but rather for a comprehensive case about the editor to be examined either here or by ArbCom. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, an effective AN/I thread in a non-DS topic which will convince an admin to close it with sanctions to the subject party takes a lot of time and the input of a lot of people. An ArbCom case takes even more time, although the number of participants is typically smaller. Both of these methodologies are generally inefficient at taming a wild subject area -- in fact, ArbCom results can engender more hassles, although they tend to shift to the Arbitration Enforcement area. With discretionary sanctions in place, however, admins can more easily put a stop to misbehavior with non-draconian blocks and bans leading (if necessary) to harsher sanctions. It empowers every admin to use their best judgement under the circumstances, which means that more gets done, and gets done faster. If, as everyone seems to agree (but for different reasons) the e-cigarette subject area needs to be brought under control, discretionary sanctions are an extremely efficient tool to get that done. BMK (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Inasmuch as the Arbitration Committee has deferred to the community, at least for now, it seems this is the only reasonable way to deal with the probems. JodyB talk 02:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already voted to support in your previous post. Why are you voting again? -A1candidate 09:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct, my oversight. I've stricken it above. JodyB talk 10:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. -A1candidate 23:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not relevant to this discussion. Start a new thread if you'd like. BMK (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is relevant because it is evidence of the complete futility of these proposed sanctions. Feel free to disagree, but don't remove or modify my comments. -A1candidate 01:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not relevant because this thread is about providing admins the tools to deal with any editor who misbehaves in this topic area, and not about the current misbehavior (if it is that) of any specific editor. If you've still got a thing about getting QG blocked or sanctioned or whatever, even after the effort failed just above, and you think his current behavior warrants it, then start another thread, but don't try to hijack this one. BMK (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question If this passes, do people have an opinion on how long the sanctions should last? Presumably the topic should become less controversial with time as new and reliable studies come out, but I have no idea what that timeframe is. I think "indefinite" is kind of a default for this kind of stuff, but I thought it would be good to at least ask what people think about an expiration date. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC) pinging User:HiDrNick 16:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say six months would be the absolute minimum, but that a year would be more likely to be helpful in waiting for the research to catch up to the questions. BMK (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This may not be necessary to have proposed sanctions. This was an overreaction to the above threads IMO. We can try one month if there is consensus for the sanctions. I think three months would be the most. QuackGuru (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A year is the default in most cases, and given the duration of the dispute already I say we go with that. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure where you're getting that conclusion from. Right now, just on pure count, I see 14 supports and 8 opposes, which is 64% (63.63). In any case, if there is no consensus for community-based sanctions, as you contend, then there will be no community-based sanctions, not for a month, not for any amount of time. BMK (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I oppose this without a sunset clause. (Note also that admins effectively have the ability to take these types of actions without DS.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC).
    • True, but most admins are loathe to hand out topic bans etc. without the support of discretionary sanctions either from the community or from ArbCom. (Incidentally, 1 year of DS is a "sunset clause", so why isn't your vote "support - 1 year"?) BMK (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the opposing position seems to be based on the fact that sanctions probably won't fix anything but the worst I can see them doing is not being used. They certainly won't make it worse. SPACKlick (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Community authorized discretionary sanctions will allow any uninvolved administrator to topic ban an editor who is disrupting the e-cig article(s) without first seeking consensus here at ANI. More accurately, if this passes it shows that there already is consensus at ANI for such a topic ban. And of course if an admin misuses DS we have procedures in place for dealing with that. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment based on Bluerasberry's comment and Doc James' oppose, I wonder if the best alternative might be to full protect the article for a good long while, processing new edits through consensus on the talk page. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Electronic cigarette is already fully protected until March 30, but there's also Safety of electronic cigarettes and Legal status of electronic cigarettes to consider. Certainly these could be fully protected as well, but that puts the onus on admins to judge whether every suggested edit has consensus behind it. Surely it's better to allow free editing of these articles, and let admins sort out who is being disruptive from who is being helpful in their editing? BMK (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Involved editor) I would support long-term protection of at least the main article and possibly forks as an alternative to discretionary sanctions. We have recently had issues with a user managing to get full-protection removed, almost immediately making large-scale changes including 16 other edits in 2 hours. Then when protection was re-applied, immediately trying to have it removed again (in fact they successfully managed to get the expiry date moved forward to March 30th this time despite opposition from two other editors including myself). Such desperation to have protection removed clearly demonstrates an intention to do something that can't be done with protection instated, most likely grossly violate WP:CONSENSUS. So yes, I think there's a clear requirement for long-term full-protection. At the very least very close long-term monitoring by admins against consensus and edit-warring violations is required but that would not be as straightforward as protection.Levelledout (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Full protection is, generally speaking, a step to be avoided if at all possible, since it's inherently contrary to the Wikipedia ethos of free editing. It also essentially freezes the articles into their current states, as getting a consensus to add or subtract something through the protection is going to be very hard to do, and admins should not accept any suggested edit which does not have a talk page consensus behind it.

    Again, I'm not sure why opponents of discretionary sanctions are trotting out other possible solutions when it hasn't been settled whether this one will be put into effect or not. Tallying !votes once more, I see 16 supports and 9 opposes, which means that 64% of the respondents here are in favor of community-imposed discretionary sanctions. That's not a landslide by any means, but it is a healthy supermajority in favor. BMK (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose discretionary sanctions. Too often cudgel for the maintenance of House Point of View... It takes two to tango and I expect the anti-e-cig advocates are every bit as tendentious as the routed pro-e-cig peeps... Carrite (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what about the third possible group, those editors who wish to keep the article neutral and supported by reliable sources in line with MEDRS? What do they do when the pros and the antis are duking it out, making it nest to impossible to edit the articles effectively? BMK (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As written and how written (without any explicit sunset provision). Writing an explicit sunset provision only tells disruptive elements how long they have to wait before they can start being disruptive again. The language that this proposal was cribbed from was specifically designed to not have a sunset provision (i.e. indefinite in the same sense that we have indefinite blocks) because either the sanctions will fall into disuse and forgotten or a WikiHistorian will see that we still have the sanctions on the books and a simple consensus vote to revoke them can be accomplished at a later date when it's clear that the authorization has outlived it's purpose. As it stands right now the e-cig field is far too disruptive in it's current state to explicitly state when the sunset will take place. I'd rather have positive action to deprecate the sanctions than positive action necessary to maintain them. Hasteur (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Vaguely worded. Elohim55 (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet of a blocked user. Mike V • Talk 17:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are, of course, free to !vote whatever way you wish, for whatever reason you wish, but this:

      Proposed: The community authorizes discretionary sections for all articles related to electronic cigarettes, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working within this topic if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to: page banning, topic banning, semi-protection, pending changes protection, or blocking any editor so warned. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.'

      is in no respect "vaguely worded." BMK (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Behaviour of Walter Görlitz

    The user Walter Görlitz (talk) has been involved in various edit wars and ignorant reversions/discussions on articles of and related to Adam Young. This user refuses to accept fact as grounds to edit the article and has taken it upon himself to "preside" over the article and undo any new edit that he deems unworthy. Perhaps worse than this is he will then post "warning" messages on other users' talk pages not to start edit wars (which he has begun by serially reverting).

    I completely understand Wikipedia policy referring to edits/sources, but this user is instantly deleting anything that doesn't comply with his literal translation of policy - completely undermining the spirit of a community edited encyclopaedia. Instead, I am left with no choice but to raise this as an official incident in the hope that he will be told to, in so many words, "let others play".

    I hope I haven't come off as disrespectful, but when a user is as persistent in making other editors' time on Wikipedia totally non-enjoyable, I feel a strong approach is needed.

    --Samcooke343 (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Samcooke343: You must notify the person you are starting a discussion about on their Talk page. I have notified Walter Görlitz about this thread for you, but in future please notify them. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Samcooke343: My apologies, I see you've done this already but it was removed from the Talk page. JMHamo (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This interpretation of events is novel at best.
    First, let's look at his current issue. Template:Infobox musical artist#instrument, says
    Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using. The instruments infobox parameter is not intended as a WP:COATRACK for every instrument the subject has ever used.
    He was reverted by two separate editors: I was the first and this was the second.
    Also, I did let him play. He made multiple genre changes that I saw and didn't revert. I'm not sure why he thinks that Wikipedia is a playground though and why he, as a musician, is more capable of recognizing a genre than other editors. See WP:GWAR.
    Second, "facts" are not the ground for Wikiedpia edits, WP:V is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Third, I spend multiple hours on Wikiedpedia and know various policies and guidelines and come into contact with casual editors. My goal is to educate them on those policies and guidelines. It's clear not all of them appreciate being told that they're not editing according community consensus. That brings me into conflict with them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On the instrument issue, this is more or less as difficult as genres and associated acts. But yeah, only most well-known instruments. I don't know Adam Young very well, so I wouldn't know. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Samcooke343: As Walter Görlitz said, "fact" alone is not a justification for anything on Wikipedia. It's one of the more counter-intuitive but fundamental principles guiding the project: Verifiability, not truth or what an editor declares truth, is what matters. In other words, if you want to add something, just add a source. On the talk page it looks like you included a couple sources, but they're just videos that include Young playing the instruments you said he's "known for" playing. That's not sufficient. It's a primary source and it's original research to say that he's "known for" playing them just because there are videos of him playing those instruments. Again, all that's needed is to support your claim with reliable sources. WP:BURDEN is a particularly relevant part of the Verifiability policy here. The other issue is stylistic. You added the word "sophomore" to refer to his second album. Walter pointed you to MOS:SOPHOMORE in his edit summary, but then you restored it. I understand the frustration of being reverted, and I don't know that I agree or disagree with Walter's revert here, but restoring the word that's even included in the link MOS:SOPHOMORE suggests learning about best practices for writing might not be a priority -- or rather, I could see how it could give someone that impression. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Rhododendrites, which is not an uncommon situation in which to find myself. I understand that it's frustrating to be reverted, but both combatants should probably try to communicate a bit better. Maybe we could try to deescalate the conflict and take the debate to the talk page. There hasn't been a post there in six months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone can add a page to their watchlist, without claiming ownership of an article. I wonder why this was even being discussed. Elohim55 (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user. BMK (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Question regarding user space page

    Is it really appropriate to compile diffs for presentation to ANI or AE, as is explicitly stated is being done at User:Tgeairn/NPA diffs, or considering the fact that the content is under DS, should any such complaints be raised at the appropriate locations as the concerns are raised, and could such a collection of material be seen as being a form of WP:ATTACKPAGE? John Carter (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:USER, but so long as the compilation intends to be used before any of the diffs go stale, I'm pretty sure it's allowed. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your second sentence might be the more relevant one here. As it's purported purpose is to raise concerns at AE and ANI, which are more or less intended for immediate response, isn't it some what inherently dubious to basically collect grievances which one is apparently not willing to act on, or which perhaps are not worthy of being acted on? Collecting evidence for ArbCom is certainly well-precedented and acceptable, but I don't know that I've ever seen a collection specifically intended for ANI or AE, as is explicitly stated here. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the rule of thumb is a week or two before a diff goes stale, so the timeline remaining on this is running out (oldest diff I noticed is from 10 days ago). It could possibly get WP:CSD'd or WP:MfD'd once any of the diffs on the page go past 14 days, despite the 90-day notice on the page. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 22:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:POLEMIC The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. ANI and AE are part of the dispute resolution process (albeit the tail end), so it's OK for that. "Timely" is subject to interpretation, but if you believe it's been around too long without being used, or unlikely to be used soon, bringing it to MfD would allow a consensus to determine whether the "timeliness" factor had been breached. BMK (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that Arbcom frequently simply blanks userspace evidence pages after closing the case. For instance, User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence (at this revision) contains some diffs that are years old. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just curious, BMK, what do you think about User:DHeyward/My Fan Club? If the information is not actually used for the DR process, should it be proposed for deletion in two weeks? Right now, it seems like an enemies list even though the wording is exceedingly polite so it can't be seen as an attack page even if that is its purpose. Liz Read! Talk! 16:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: It looks to me like an "enemies list" which are strictly forbidden. It should go to MfD after DHeyward is asked on his talk page to delete it himself, which I will do now. BMK (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left DHeyward a message asking him to delete the page. [51]. BMK (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not optimistic that he'll choose to delete the page but I appreciate you assessing the situation and offering your perspective on it, BMK. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    DHeyward deleted my request without comment, so I've nominated the page for deletion here. BMK (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the information. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence page under discussion here is a list of diffs and quotes with little or no interpretation, has a clear intent, and has a deletion date (with a clearly stated request for any admin to delete after that date). --Tgeairn (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to nominate the Ebionites 2 page for deletion if you so see fit, but I think it is also true that user pages which are actively used in arbitration cases, such as the one you link to, are different as they contain some of the evidence used in the arbitration. I also note that your comments do not address the matter of the use of the word "timely", even though you seem to have perhaps somewhat arbitrarily decided 90 days qualifies as timely, and I think, under the circumstances, as the person collecting the material, you are probably not the best person to determine how to apply the relevant policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely (although I'd suggest a better title e.g. "sandbox3"). . There's a falsehood on the page: The page is not linked elsewhere by its creator; see link on WP:EW. NE Ent 22:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you NE Ent. I have corrected the (already closed) ANEW filing and notified the closing admin of the mistaken link, with a recommendation that they reconsider the outcome of the filing if appropriate. Given that the ANEW report considered an editor that was edit warring on my user page and on the subpage we are discussing here, it is likely that the closing admin would have seen the page anyway. That does not change that it was an entirely inappropriate mistake on my part to link to it as evidence in the ANEW filing. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean at WP:EWN, right? John Carter (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct - WP:ANEW and WP:EWN are both shortcuts to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thanks for making sure. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack by Nagakura shin8

    Whilst I am not afraid of robust debate, I was shocked by the vitriol in this edit by Nagakura shin8 (talk}. I have seen editors receive lengthy blocks for far less. I would think a 24 hour block might be appropriate as a shot across the bows. - Nick Thorne talk 00:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that's pretty nasty, but it's hardly unprovoked. As to the dispute, the Australian pronunciation of "emu" may be dominant (as a Canadian, I pronounce it as you describe - even though I say "jaguar" with two syllables and otherwise agree with American pronunciation in many respects), but I don't think I can support calling any pronunciation "incorrect" if it's the established pronunciation of a major body of speakers. It's just variant pronunciation, just like variant spelling. And heaven knows Wikipedia has seen enough arguments over that. It hardly surprises me that another editor might take exception to that, even if the response is disproportionate. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not bring this matter here to resolve the content dispute. If I have over stepped the line on conduct, I will take my licks, but I at least tried to keep my comments civil. However, Ns8's response is way out of proportion to anything I said and is disparaging and deeply offensive. That is the matter I brought here. - Nick Thorne talk 09:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a great deal of civility in your comment, Nick, I see anti-American insults. If you attack Americans (or any other nationality) in that way, you should not be surprised to see them fight back. And you shouldn't come complaining if you can't take what you dish out. Squinge (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you can compare the two editors' remarks. While neither is civil, Nagakura shin8's second comment is a completely over-the-top response. Additionally, it was he/she that first brought up the American vs. Australian comparison that Nick Thorne then responded to. Liz Read! Talk! 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, been busy IRL. I apologise unreservedly for for any offence caused by my comments. BTW, the content issue is largely resolved, I think. However, I am disturbed by this. I am not perfect but I have heard and heed the advice given here and on my talkpage, I will strike the offending words. - Nick Thorne talk 05:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Gotta love the social norms around here. WP:NPA is policy, but has no bearing if both parties are insulting each other. Just go on your merry ways. Sigh. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • No one said NPA has no bearing if both parties are insulting each other. But we have to remember that there are living, breathing people behind every account. Disputes can get heated. Most people will get offended if they feel insulted, and many will respond by returning fire. It just happens. In this case, both parties provoked each other with very serious and cutting insults. While Nick's comments were certainly more passive-agressive reserved I don't think they were any less offensive to Nagakura, and he has no grounds to come here and ask for a one-way block when he's equally at fault for escalating the dispute. I recognize and appreciate him redacting his comments and apologizing, that's the civil thing to do and the correct course of action. But it doesn't change the fact that he's partially at fault for the situation blowing up to begin with. We could certainly dish out blocks here in terms of severe personal attacks, but I think both editors have already cooled off and the actual dispute seems to already be resolved. I don't think a block would serve as a preventative measure in this case. Swarm X 18:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • While this level-headed approach seems wisdom on the surface, I've been here long enough to know it's a failed way of handling such disputes. It simply doesn't work. A polite tap on the wrist saying "please don't do that again" doesn't work. If someone is able to be riled up by what a completely unknown person (to them) says about them or something they care about, they've got serious problems with being able to hold their tongue. The behavior exhibited in such cases will happen again; the characters in question will have too quick of a trigger finger. In this particular case, we're seeing it continue right before our eyes. With this edit we're seeing not only continued gross incivility after this thread here on AN/I had begun, but a threat to continue in the future; "don't include insults to other countries ... and your country won't be insulted. It's not really very difficult" Meanwhile, just the mere beginnings of a cursory review of Nagakura shin8's edits show other incivility [52]. I'm finding other evidence of incivility on his part as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC:)

    Agree with Nick Thorne on this one. I don't think that kind of nastiness is acceptable, no matter what was said before. I do not agree with the above response by the IP user that it was "hardly unprovoked." I saw what Nick wrote and, as an American, was not offended in the least. Additionally, responding this way makes Americans look a lot worse than anything Nick Thorne said. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing conflict in Talk:Foie gras

    This section seems to have been superseded by this one. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There is a conflict among a number of editors, which is becoming quite heated among at least two of them, of them at Talk:Foie gras; sections restoration of duplicate content, detailed Legislation section and RfC. The underlying issue is whether a passage should be placed in Foie gras or in Foie gras controversy. It's morphed from a discussion of that point into an additional argument about how the conflict should proceed, and has now gotten to the name-calling stage.

    I don't see any sign that the more vocal editors will calm down any time soon. As I mention above, the discussion involves two pages, and my concern is that in the crossfire, the information may be inadvertently removed from both and made difficult to restore as further edits are made to the pages.

    I do have a position in the underlying issue and have stated it on that talk page, and am otherwise now staying out of the discussion, because I don't have anything further to add and don't want to fan the flames.

    The two most vocal editors are DrChrissy (talk · contribs) and Jytdog (talk · contribs). I am placing a notification of this discussion on the Talk:Foie gras in addition to the individual talk pages of the above-named editors, due to the number of editors involved. TJRC (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    i haven't edited the page since March 19 (last dif), so there is nothing to do worry about me from me with regard to article content. i am frustrated with drchrissy's behavior, but i know how to use ANI and other boards and have not chosen to bring this anywhere, at this time. i do wish he would withdraw the flawed RfC that he pre-emptively launched (he had never done one before), and have asked him several times to do so, but he has so far not chosen to. I see no need for admin action at this time. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the launching of this ANI extremely curious to say the least. TJRC launched the ANI but was also the editor that removed the disputed content within 48 hours of my instigating an RfC [here] - way, way too early for any consensus to be reached.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not edited the article page since March 20, 2015 [here], so I am also not actively aditing the article page. Again, what is the motivation behind this ANI being launched?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    DrChrissy the motivation, i reckon, is to get you and i to start working together instead of fighting, which is disrupting the Talk page and making us both look like assholes. a good first step would be for you to stop publicizing the RfC and to withdraw it, so we can frame one together that we both find acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are free to describe yourself as you believe others are perceiving you, but please do not include me in that sort of description. I launched an RfC because it became apparent that you and I are unable to work together at the moment. I launched the RfC for outside comments, not for bonding. Instead, this RfC is being hijacked by inflammatory remarks, moving/changing other peoples' edits, removing the material under discussion, questioning the faith of edits and so on and so on. It is as if someone is deliberatly trying to sabbotage the RfC with unnecessary, unwanted and distracting edits.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If conditions at this RfC are as disruptive as you describe, DrChrissy, perhaps admin intervention is called for. Liz Read! Talk! 17:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so again instead of just making this simple, drchrissy, and withdrawing the RfC, you are making drama. (just like with the content you too-closely paraphrased despite 4 editors, including MoonRiddenGirl, telling you it was problematic as discussed here). In the case of this RfC:


    The discussions and arguments on the talk page are layered, splintered, and in some cases, it seems, even recursive. It's not only difficult for an outside party to get involved, but also has not shown to produce even basic agreements on which to build upon (at least not recently). Stripping away the specifics and the behavioral issues, the crux of the matter seems to be to what extent information about the critical aspects of foie gras should be covered in the foie gras article, and to what extent they should be covered at foie gras controversy (and only summarized in the main article). DrChrissy has stated that he does not believe they should be separate articles, which to me explains some of his edits and arguments others have taken issue with.

    It seems like the first and foremost question should be whether foie gras controversy is a viable and appropriate fork.

    If the answer is yes, then next we'd have to determine what is considered "controversy" such that it should primarily be covered at the controversy article. And furthermore what topics relate to the controversy but should be weighted similarly (if covered differently) at the main article. ---- (The latter comes from DrChrissy's point -- and please correct me if I'm paraphrasing incorrectly -- that legislation concerning foie gras is central enough to the subject of foie gras that even if it's covered in the controversy article, it should not merely be summarized in the main article).

    Once we've determined the domains of each page, the scope and venue for each of the arguments becomes a bit simpler. It's not a fix for everything, but it seems like a good place to start. As of now, the controversy article is all but neglected while these heated disputes take place in the main article, which doesn't make sense to me. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    that is well said. this is some of the stuff i was considering with regard to framing the RfC, before drchrissy launched his RfC. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Soon after you started to request I withdraw the RfC, I invited you to post an alternative RfC [[53]] so that we could discuss this. You declined to take up this opportunity of a collegiate approach to resolving this dispute.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    you don't run 2 RfCs at the same time on the same topic. i will ask you again, just like i did in reply to that: Please withdraw the RfC already. Why will you not just withdraw it? Please answer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk)
    • Comment: There may have been dueling threads on the Talk page, but there is only one RfC there now, so no actionable items exist at this time that I can see. There's no prohibition in creating an RfC (a public discussion to engage more outside opinions than the current page-watchers), and that seems to be what was done. Some folks claim the RfC is not neutrally worded, but I don't see that it isn't as it merely asks a brief question and states how long the material in question was previously in the article. I think the presence of the RfC should give a forum to the discussions under way, and also invite outside input, which should calm the situation down. Again, at this very minute I don't see anything actionable. Softlavender (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    i agree there is nothing actionable. the RfC is not neutral and doesn't capture the debate, nor the larger issue of moving. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Before_starting_the_process drchrissy should have discussed it before launching it. that is what i had said i was going to do; i had just not gotten to it yet when he jumped the gun and launched his, without discussion. I keep asking him to withdraw it ( and now, why he will not withdraw it) and he doesn't respond. what i want is to work together to frame a useful RfC that will provide helpful guidance going forward. the current one, does not do that. i don't think his launching of the RfC is actionable, nor is his refusal to withdraw it, nor is his refusal to say why he will not withdraw it. it is just ugly behavior. i am about ready to give up trying and just let the damn thing run. waste of a month. you know, i will give up trying to get him to withdraw it, or to say why he won't. so.. done with that. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yesterday, I gave an explanation why I will not withdraw the RfC. This explanation is under a thread which Jytdog created themselves. It is not up to me to do thread-watching or research for another editor.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    i already asked you twice (here and here[ to provide a dif because i looked for something that looked like an answer and i couldn't find it anywhere. but don't bother now. i am done with this. it is a complete waste of time. (btw i suspect that drchrissy doesn't know how to provide a dif and is afraid to ask how. i run into this sometimes with academicish editors who just cannot say "i don't know" and cannot back down, ever) Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (mistaken per below. striking Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    well I am wrong about that and have struck. drchrissy does know how to make a diff! see here where he is building up a nice record on me. so, he has skill and time to put diffs there, but not here. OK. priorities are very clear. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog's message makes it clear that they are monitoring my sandbox where I am preparing an ANI. I appreciate this type of monitoring is not illegal, but to then make negative comments about me on here does rather smack of harrassment.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    i find drchrissy's behavior to be incomprehensible. he goes from being very on point and seemingly knowing what he is doing, to being completely lost on Wikipedia basics (from the launching of the RfC and subsequent refusal to discuss it per above, to stuff like this and [[54]] and especially here and other stuff, and i have no hope of working through controversial content to reach consensus with this editor - their behavior is just baffling to me. I am unwatching Foie gras and walking away.. Jytdog (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (striking. since I was drawn back against my wishes, I am sticking around. Will do my best to avoid dealing directly with drchrissy but will do if needed.) Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Gleekified repeated unsourced material

    Indeffed by Nakon. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user has been repeatedly adding unsourced material to various articles, such as List of Melissa & Joey episodes and List of Young & Hungry episodes. Warnings have not stopped the disruptive editing. Callmemirela (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) S/he hasn't edited since the last warning; let's see what happens. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has continued their behavior. Please help. They aren't listening. Callmemirela (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Again]. Please help. Callmemirela (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Listed at WP:AIV. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In the last hour, they've posted unsourced content 6 times. Think it's definitely time for a block. I've reported at WP:AIV as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Closure of talk-page discussion

    Would someone be willing to close Talk:Laurence Olivier#Infobox to put this argument to rest? Alakzi (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't need closing, it just needs you to hit the road and it will cease to exist.CassiantoTalk 19:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) This article's Talk page makes it clear that there's a long-running content dispute going on at Laurence Olivier. I suggest ANI steer well clear of this. --IJBall (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is "long-running" but it is still an active discussion. I know a couple admins are checking in on it and it is probably better that someone who has been following this dispute close the question about hidden text. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit warriors on that page, on such a trivial matter as an infobox, fer cryin' out loud, should be put on ice for a suitable interval. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I don't quite get the battle over infoboxes, ←Baseball Bugs, but this dispute is actually about placing hidden text on an article forbidding editors from placing an infobox on the page. It's the wording (and the all caps) of the text that needs changing. Liz Read! Talk! 14:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And that debate is even sillier. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No close, the article's been unprotected and the usual suspects are back to edit warring. What can I say? Alakzi (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The "usual suspects" are a cadre of malcontents who band together to defend each other's behavior. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested mass rollback

    All finished. Nothing new to see TheMagikCow (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I mistakenly unlinked (using Twinkle) all backlinks to WP:Sandbox. I'm sorry. Request a mass rollback. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's done. May need to be checked. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It managed to trip quite a few edit filters so attracted quite a bit of attention. Edits to templates have been reverted (manually). Amortias (T)(C) 20:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, looks like a trout is in order. Maybe not village stocks, but no one has offered our favorite seafood yet? --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Konveyor Belt: Yes, you may! SD0001 (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor with recent breaches of policy

    Editor has been indefed, with talk page access revoked, due to repeated attacks and copyvios (non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Royalmate1's recent history has some concerning edits that are, at best, bitey but could be an indication of a general disregard for Wikipedia's policies as indicated by this edit's edit summary [55]. Some of the recent problematic edits starting with the most recent: personal attack, personal attack, accusing editor of vandalism in a content dispute, and personal attack. The user is currently in several permission groups that involve frequent user interaction, specifically rollback and pending changes reviewer, and because of what is at best a lack of understanding of policies that apply to user interaction I think these rights should be removed. Note that the user was recently blocked for the first personal attack. PhantomTech (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably deserving of an indef imo. Another gem. Blackmane (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have increased the block to indef, as the user either does not understand copyright law, or has no intention of obeying it. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The user in question here clearly understands Wikipedia policy. Have you even looked at his userpage? I think the problem here was with the admins' refusal to be intelligent about the incident here because of some supposed personal attacks. Increased blocks here is really just stupid, seeing as he is a rollbacker with thousands of extremely helpful edits and article creations. Shame on the admins, honestly. Elohim55 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Royalmate1. BMK (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    use of COI as a weapon in content dispute

    Am seeking 24 hour block for DePiep for violating WP:NPA in which he used claims of COI as a cudgel in a content dispute. Admins may find this trivial - it is not a death threat or calling someone "fucking stupid" or the like, but this stuff is very ugly to me and should not stand.

    It is not "lol". As I said, I am seeking a 24 hour block for NPA. User was well-warned. Using COI as a cudgel is not OK in WP. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (fix bad dif, sorry)[reply]

    Distorted approach. Telling detail: my "lol fix" edit summary was with a minor sp correction -- bad faith by Jytdog here. Jytdog did not engage in talk, instead added opinion-by-template from their edit 01. Etcetera. Is what I said. Of course someone template-threatening without talking is not welcome in my userspace. -DePiep (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I was expecting. No insight, no remorse. Wikilawyer tactic. Flinging charges of COI is not OK... period end of story. (and thanks for pointing out that my dif was bad - will fix that removal of my strike by you, pronto. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]


    I'm the user primarily involved with DePiep here (of course my first version fails to send and is deleted). Here's a summary of what's happened so far. Essentially, they began an edit war attempting to insert new content into the lede. Diffs:

    1. [56] DePiep added new content to the lede
    2. [57] I remove it due to WP:RECENTISM and weight issues to explore in the body of the article first expecting more discussion to occur on the talk page. Instead followed by a revert from DePiep.
    3. [58] I revert reminding DiPiep to come to the talk page per WP:BRD to discuss the new content they want to (while avoiding additional reverts). They in return revert saying "No: you are to talk first"

    They then posted on my talk page the 3RR template while also including the text I added as well referring to BRD.[59] This seems to indicate the editor lashes out when called out on problem behavior with edit warring. Within that template, they also included, "Fuck off and don't think your "warning" has meaning. You did not talk. " After finally getting some discussion out of them on the talk page, they instead lash out by casting aspersions accusing me of COI [60] and another user for paid editing [61]. Another user removed the personal attacks which DePiep reinstated, [62]. Another accusation occurred that was also removed by another user. [63]

    The point isn't getting across from anyone at the article that edit warring and personal discussions are not ok, and that if your newly proposed edit is reverted, that's the time to follow WP:BRD and discuss on the talk page rather than edit war the content back in. Hopefully a warning would get the point across, but judging by the comments here and at the article, I don't think a temp block (i.e. 24 hours) is a bad idea either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)So Jytdog says: 1. this es: "strike, ANI", and 2. this edit says: "agree", about the very same source added. Safe always. -DePiep (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What is this, by Jytdog: [64]? coordinating action? -DePiep (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    absolutely - his post was way too long. you are not a genius to see that. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't seem intended. I can get a little wordy sometimes trying to lay these cases out, but my diffs are largely different instances of the edit warring and behavior problems laid out relatively concisely.
    (edit conflict)One more note and then I'll log off: I find the introduction of weapon by Jytdog aggressive. -DePiep (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    your behavior is very "internetz", DiPeip. We are not about "lulz" here. I am looking for a swift, simple block here from an admin. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think an I-ban would do better here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note I've never interacted with this editor before a few hours ago. I'm not interested in an ban this early on if the behavior will just stop now and in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to act unilaterally and block just to punish anyone. But I see a clear battleground mentality from DePiep here. I do not see any desire or effort to work with others, to reach consensus or to compromise position, to discuss to work out what is best for the article, or any of that. I see someone who only wants to "win" the battle, and isn't interested in collaboration. Whatever anyone wants to do with this is fine by me, I would support any sanction (interaction ban, topic ban, etc.) which will prevent this behavior in this venue. The requested 24 hour block is not a method to stop the problematic behavior, and would be purely punitive, and thus not a useful means to stop the problem behavior here. Some sort of indefinite ban which will curb the behavior is needed. DePiep does good work in many areas (chemistry, for example), but this kind of toxic behavior is not useful in building up the encyclopedia, and something should be done to see that it stops. --Jayron32 02:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron32 the point of the short block is not punitive - it is educational, to make it clear that the behavior is not OK. If Depiep continues, the next one can be longer, etc, until they end up at an indef. I would not support an indef now - it is way too much. I would appreciate it if you or another admin would do this simple, clear thing. I think the evidence is solid and I have no interest in this turning into a drama-fest. That is the worst thing that can happen, as there is no lesson offered, much less learned. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying it's educational is the same as saying "I hope he learns from his punishment." That's not why we issue blocks. We issue blocks to stop imminent harm to the encyclopedia. The issue is, will a 24 hour block have any effect on stopping the behavior once the block stops. Unequivocally no. If the user is contrite and also understands what they have done wrong, and indicates no intention to commit the same mistakes again, we wouldn't do anything. If the user shows no signs of understanding why their actions are harmful, than an expiring sanction is useless, because they would just restart their disruption again. We need to 1) have a sanction which last the duration of the problem and b) have a sanction which minimally affects the users ability to edit in other areas nondisruptively if we believe them to be capable of that. A full indefinite block is excessive because DePiep shows positive contributions in many other areas. An expiring block is inadequate because it does not stop the problematic behavior once it expires. That means the appropriate tool is a targeted ban: either a topic ban, or interaction ban, which removes the locus of the disruption, and allows DePiep to continue positive contributions in other areas. --Jayron32 12:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for replying, Jayron. I understand your interpretation of WP:BLOCK and the way you choose to implement your powers, but there is clear justification per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT that other admins may choose to act under. I have no interest in turning this into a semi RfC/U dramafest to examine broader patterns of behavior, which is what it would take to pursue a T-ban and these users have not interacted before as far as I know, so there are no grounds for an I-ban. And an indef is unwarranted, i agree. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indef I-ban or T-ban broadly constructed. The problem seems to center around these two but Wikipedia is a big place, lets try one of these first before an outright Indef behavioral block. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) A Topic Ban in this instance is a very bad idea, in my estimation. Long-term editors should be given more benefit of the doubt than that... --IJBall (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    completely inappropriate for the evidence presented. no. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Content isn't really the problem, but behavior. The reason why I went here at least was become it doesn't seem apparent DePiep understands the how problematic their behavior was and attempts to alert that to them were shrugged off. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Kingofaces. It doesn't matter where the content goes. The problem is offensive behavior. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support warning and 24-48 hour block. Just clarifying from above. As the person who's been receiving the brunt of this behavior, I just want it to stop and make sure it stays that way. It's too early in the process for an I-ban or T-ban given no previous history. If the behavior stops, all is well. I don't think a warning alone would get the point across that the behavior is inappropriate, so the temp block seems the logical next step. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My fears are reaffirmed DePiep is not taking seriously how disruptive their behavior is given some comments below. Saying the equivalent of just kidding or no big deal with respect to slinging around COI accusations can't be taken seriously in the context of the diffs. I'd ask the community to just look at the diffs provided for behavior problems while avoiding the drama fest below, and at least settle on a warning that gives very little WP:ROPE. Folks can discuss things like the appropriateness of bans as a what-if if it looks like the behavior will continue after that if they really want, but can we at least settle this bare minimum request? This should not have to turn into a stereotypical sprawling ANI post. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support 24 hour block or IBANThis sort of thing is deeply offensive and it is far too often ignored as some sort of "boys will be boys" issue that does not need administrative attention. As a result, personal attacks have become an argument of first resort for certain editors, and I think we really need to start enforcing NPA, which in principle is a pillar of wikipedia.

    • "Are you sure you have no WP:COI?"
    • "Lucky you get paid for edits here."
    • "Kingofaces43 arguing 'newishness' about a scienctific publication needs to check the COIs"

    This is deeply offensive stuff that does not contribute to a collaborative editing environment. I strongly support a 24 hour block. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Boomerang -- Jytdog is using COI allegations that are not even about him to gain the upper hand in a content dispute and control of the article by attempting to block a new editor to the page who has a different POV, no different than the ANI used against me. Unfortunately, the behavior goes unchecked.David Tornheim (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So is your position then that personal attacks and allegations are an appropriate behavior on the article Talk pages? Formerly 98 (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The diff has nothing to do with Jytdog. -DePiep (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    John I have not edited for pay. Kingofaces, against whom most of the personal attacks were made, is an an academic insect guy who has studied pesticides. Formerly 98, against whom DePiep flung the charge of "paid editing", discloses that he is a former med chemist for pharma and says he abstains from editing where he might have a COI based on his past work. No evidence of paid editing by any of them. Please implement the short block. DePiep was just spewing allegations in the content dispute to discredit those with differing perspectives. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it came up, I will reiterate I have absolutely no COI here as I have nothing to do with herbicides from a research perspective. I lay everything out very clearly on my user page to try to prevent exactly the kind of situation we have here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise for misreading which editor was being accused of being a paid editor. Regardless of who was being referred to, the use of an unevidenced slur to win a content discussion seems reprehensible to me. I will not block as I have recently been in an unrelated dispute with DePiep, but I have to say that if this was not the case I would consider it. Certainly a warning needs to be given that this behaviour is not acceptable. --John (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI keeps surprising us for its chaotic timelime & logic. Expect discovery of America soon. -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Breeze in a teacup? Kingofaces43 twice reverted an edit [65] [66], and only then started a talk. Then he comes to my talkpage to tell me about edit warring, using 3rd person btw. I just copied (mirrored) this. No reason to be surprised. Pot & kettle, tit & tat, case closed. Then we met on the article's talkpage. So far so good.
    Clearly my COI mentionings are tongue in cheek, and a mere reference to POV -- just a sidenote to my argument.
    Then Jytdog enters the arena removing my argument [67] (keyword: recenticism; and again later [68]). So I reject the judgements by Jytdog. More: after these misjudgements, Jytdog claimed to know about COI [69]. And he still not corrected their wrong "lol fix" conclusion I mentioned here @01:10. (To spell it out: the fix was a closing strike-tag, the lol was that the whole section was stricken. funny typo = lol to me).
    Jytdog applied words like "weapon" (see last diff), and this ANI post was opened (titled even) with "weapon" and "as a cudgel". That is introducing aggressiveness, and not reflecting my posts. -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    your behavior was unacceptable. you absolutely used COI as a rhetorical weapon to discredit 2 editors with different perspectives than you, and you mocked our efforts to get you to stop your personal attacks. You continue to do so now, calling it "tongue in cheek". It is not funny, it is destructive and disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are evading my points re your judgements. -DePiep (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the point here is the inappropriateness of personal attacks on article Talk pages. Whether the discussion that went before that was contentious or not is arguing off point.
    Do you understand that this is completely inappropriate behavior, and are you willing to apologize and refrain from such attacks in the future? That is what this ANI is about. Yes or No? Formerly 98 (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Re Formerly 98 (diffs are already in; can be repeated by request). The before-discussion was brought up here by someone else, so I am entitled to respond and correct that one. If it is off point, the original post should be addressed, not me. Also, that discussion has direct effects on the followup topic because Jytdog deleted my talkpage arguments. Next. I repeat that multiple statements here (by John, by Jytdog) are incorrect. For example, Jytdog mis-presented my es "lol fix" and still has not corrected themselves (which makes his statement false). And introducing words like "weapons" and "cudgel" sets the wrong tone, as does Jytdog's canvassing. This attitude might also have mislead other contributors here. I am entitled to correct all errors and wrong music. And I can call that bad judgements. Now of course I understand that my COI-remarks did not fall well with readers. Even though they were clearly meant as an over the top "POV" note, and added as an aside to the core argument. So I understand that, as you ask, even oblique I better not make them again. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    again this is more wikilawyering distraction. You made three personal attacks and ignored two very clear warnings and you show no sign of understanding the problem with your behavior. Again, a short block per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT is in order here. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    re Jytdog: Stupid fucking warmongering illiterate. At this point, you are to apologise to me for keep making a beetlefart into a Hisoshima. You still have not addressed your own bad judgeents. I wasn't even responding to you. -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block. It would make more sense to focus on why the edit to the lead about the March 2015 World Health Organization report was reverted. WHO has reported that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans." Kingofaces removed it from the lead citing UNDUE, because other sources disagree, but the solution is to add the other sources to the lead, assuming they're as authoritative and reasonably up-to-date. What has happened now is that the WHO report has been restored to the lead, but a 1991 EPA report has been added too – saying that glyphosate displays "evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans" – but without indicating in the text that it's from 1991. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is off-topic and does not address the behavioral issues raised. Flinging charges of COI is not an appropriate response to a content dispute. The issue here is DePiep's behavior, for which he was warned twice, and persisted nonetheless. SlimVirgin if you would like to open a separate thread on Kingoface's behavior, or open a case at COIN on him, if you believe that his edit was driven by COI, please do so. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that they're separate issues. The Monsanto suite of articles is likely to end up at ArbCom, because there have been repeated claims that editors are acting in the company's interests. That needn't be because of COI; it may simply be that they agree with the company. And perhaps editors on the other side are too quick to believe that large corporations try to control content on WP. But there does seem to be unusual editing there. Trying to keep a recent WHO report out of the lead on the grounds of UNDUE, then equating it to an EPA report from 24 years ago (without alerting the reader to the age of the latter), looks odd. I urge all the editors on those articles to double their efforts to "write for the enemy" to head off the inevitable. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @SlimVirgin: Can you explain the last sentence further? Working on the articles is hopeless because these same editors rule them with an iron fist and will successfully get one blocked, ibanned, etc. if you stand up to them? David Tornheim (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    David, I've left a question about this for Jytdog in the section below entitled "Close". Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    David this is yet more campaigning by you - you were warned about this at the ANI you cited: "There is also some agreement that Tornheim seems to regard Wikipedia as a battleground where there's always a pro and a con side, and partisanship rules. " and, by the way, SlimVirgin has arguably made herself WP:INVOLVED in these articles by her comments here. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I made it pretty clear that I didn't think the content was appropriate specifically for the lede quite yet because it was already in the body of the article where it belonged while details were being hashed out there per WP:LEDE. That people resort to drama and insinuating COI rather than hammering out the finer details needed to make the content accurate according to the sources (including the WHO source and other up to date sources) is disruptive both at the article and here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Slimvirgin, really. This thread it about DePiep's behavior and your "oppose" doesn't speak to what DePiep did, at all. (On the other matters, I would be surprised if those articles end up at Arbcom anytime soon. They may do, but we are very far from there now, in my view. The articles have generally stayed off ANI and there have been no behavioral blocks for any of the editors who work on them regularly. Outside the occasional campaigners things proceed generally smoothly and we are able to talk through content disputes, generally reasonably. And I don't know any editors, including me, who "agree with the company". I generally do "write for the enemy"; that does not mean that pseudoscience holds sway over WP. There is a difference. What I do above all, is follow the reliable sources. For example, I was the first one to add content to the glyphosate article on cancer when the recent meta-analysis was brought up on Talk by another editor. It was a good source; it came in as did content based on it. ) Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a similar situation here in September when you and Kingofaces43 sought to have an editor topic-banned because she said or implied that there was COI editing at two agriculture-related articles. Kingofaces43 was arguing that the funding of a source didn't matter, when of course it often does. The way forward is for you and Kingofaces43, and everyone else at these contentious agriculture articles, to do everything reasonable to correct the perception of COI or POV editing. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing out the ellenCt case. What you just said to me is blaming the victim here- "it is your fault you were attacked". Personal attacks based on bias are not OK - not when you have an ax to grind like EllenCT does (who strongly believes that neonics cause CCD and the science be damned (or be blessed only to the extent it supports her POV)) nor when they are used as a sloppy cudgel like DePiep used it - both are ugly and biased attacks. These are personal attacks. Smearing me or anybody else as a corporate zombie whore is not acceptable behavior, period. It is very true that this attack does not have the weight of systemic societal bias that attacks based on race or gender do, but here inside WP there is a very strong anti-corporate bias. We don't shrug when someone is attacked on the basis of their gender; this behavior should not be shrugged off either. I get sick of being spit on and seeing others spit on. I am a good Wikipedian and editor; Kingofaces is better than me in some ways. This behavior is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But this takes us back full circle to the quality of the editing. Removing the recent WHO report from the lead on the grounds of UNDUE is odd. Arguing that the funding of scientific sources doesn't matter is odd. People see that editing and put two and two together, because of the presumed corporate interest in those articles. They may be wrong to jump to that conclusion, but there does appear (at first glance) to be something amiss. I'm asking that you and Kingofaces43 take those concerns on board, even if they seem unfair, rather than seeking blocks and bans. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarah (SV), part of the problem is that you are misrepresenting my statements, which I directly explained to you and asked you not to do at the ANI you mentioned. I'm just going to assume you forgot. My comment on funding source was that as editors we need to rely on other scientists in the fields to comment on the reliability of findings. We as editors are not experts who can assess that, nor can we use funding source of peer-reviewed studies as a proxy for that. That is the actual context of what I said. If you want to discuss scientific publishing, this isn't the place. Also, please don't modify other people's threading as you did here [70]. Jytdog did not respond to me, so please restore the threading to how I responded to you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, SlimVirgin, it does not take us back anywhere. Content disputes happen all the time and they can get worked out calmly. This ANI is about DePiep's behavior in the midst of a content dispute -- and now has broadened to his behavior here. This is about behavior, not content. Again, if you think Kingofaces behavior during that content dispute is actionable, please open a thread on that. I don't see it is as actionable: he didn't break 3RR, he made no personal attacks, etc. Content was getting - and is still getting - worked out. The WHO report is brand new and it is being contextualized and worked into the article even as this ANI drags on. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingofaces43, it's clear from the indenting who's responding to whom. I don't really want to discuss this further, or the previous case, but as you feel you're being misrepresented, this is what I was referring to. It was in relation to a suggestion that this paper be used as a source in Neonicotinoid, an insecticide. The paper says (just above the references): "Funding for the development of this manuscript was provided by Bayer CropScience Ag Research Division". Bayer CropScience makes this type of insecticide. You wrote, in response to an objection: "Funding source is not relevant in assessing scientific studies, it's the content that needs to be addressed." [71] That was one of several posts that the other editor felt were red flags, which led to your request that she be topic-banned for expressing concern. I'm not arguing that people be allowed to make accusations without evidence. I'm asking only that you and Jytdog do more to counter wayward perceptions with good editing before seeking blocks and bans. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I already asked you to refrain from misrepresenting those statements. You've been told multiple times I was not proposing that source for within the article but that is was being used while discussing the many reviews available (all the others did not have such funding). It's well past time to drop the stick. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support warning and 24-48 hour block. Statements like, "I disagree with you, are you sure you don't have COI?" (my paraphrase of a diff given above) are an ad hominem attack and a cheap attempt to "win" a content dispute and should not be tolerated. A 48 hour block is not unreasonable given the damage this sort of thing can do. Geogene (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question – Is the proposed interaction ban here between Jytdog and DePiep or Kingofaces43 and DePiep? It appears the COI concern/allegation was made against Kindofaces43 by DePiep, yet it appears the animosity is mostly between Jytdog and DePiep, so it’s unclear to me what interaction ban has been proposed.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The actual conduct dispute at the article is primarily between myself and Depiep, so those looking for an interaction ban would I imagine mean a one-way one banning DePiep from interacting with me. Jytdog's involvement really only came from warning DePiep and removing the personal attacks on the article, so things definitely can look confounded to an outside editor. Given recent comments by DePiep though [[72]], I'm really not sure what action is best anymore given the scaling up of attacks towards other users than myself now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    there is no proposed interaction ban. not a live option here. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron32, John thoughts on the remark diffed above? Again I am not advocating a long block. What I am advocating is a short block to inform DePiep that this behavior is not OK. If he does this elsewhere, and/or continues after the block, the community can take further action later - and a longer one, to show that yes, we really mean it. I am so, so not interested in drama. I am interested in a clear statement from an admin or the community, that the unrepetent, continued behavior is not OK. Wikipedia is not the internetz where we flame each other for lulz. This is not complicated. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, regarding the inappropriateness of that statement. Honestly, DePiep, if you want people to hear your side of this, whatever that might be, you should really strike that and come back when you can state your issues without profanity etc. Otherwise a block here would seem inevitable. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) re BoboMeowCat: I don't need to be "heared" any more. That's useless by now. No one reads, no one listens. It was when this thread started, but is has gone beyond its borders. Everyone can say anything and there is no check. Today I responded carefully to a serious post by User:Formerly 98 (search 16:11). What happened: Formerly 98 restarted their position elsewhere saying 'got no response'. All reset. That is WP:ANI 'discussion' level, this is why I have no confidence in any serious outcome being balanced. That is why I say that arguing here is useless (making an exception for you here ;-) ). And to Jytdog: don't be a dick. -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    re Jytdog I think I would now recommend a warning as DePiep has stated an intent to stop acting out at this venue. I would hope they have learned their lesson. This is about preventing disruption, not about punishment. --John (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    {[u|John}} About the dif you link to - that is 20:34, 26 March. That was him getting mad and stomping away. He did not stay away, he has come back and had plenty more to say:
    none of that is clueful, or steps back at all from his behavior. But look, I did not come here for extended drama. To me this is cut and dry shitty behavior in the face of very, very clear warnings. It goes beyond heat of any moment. But if you will give a warning, fine, please give a warning and put this derailed ANI out of its misery. I will be grateful that action was taken. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, I would support some sort of interaction ban, but, in all honesty, the ones given out by ArbCom tend to be more effective than the ones imposed here. That being the case, I think it might make more sense to file a request from ArbCom if an i-ban or topic ban of some sort is being sought. Regarding the repeatedly attested to personal attacks, I can see that there are grounds for a block based on some of the comments such as those linked to by ScrapIron above, possibly longer than 24 hours. So I guess I would support block of 24 hours or more, and also suggest that ArbCom be considered for possible imposition of DS. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for supporting the short term block. no topic ban or interaction ban is being sought - there are not diffs to support that; it was not the goal. We do not need discretionary sanctions. DePiep rarely edits that article - he showed up and made of ass of himself for one gloriour evening, which he continued here. That's it. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block. Doesn't seem necessary. Administrators have too many priviliges here and they just too often love to block people for trivial and vindictive reasons. Elohim55 (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet of a blocked user. Mike V • Talk 17:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What about the quality of the edits?

    Given that we just had this Newsweek story, would anyone like to look at the quality of the edits made by the various accounts involved here? The above is more reminiscent of WWE theatre than an editorial discussion in an encyclopedia project. Andreas JN466 15:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This thread has nothing to do with content. Personal attacks are destructive to the process of working out good content and in my view flinging charges of COI is an especially pernicious and all too common personal attack in content disputes. And adding that link about a business school is yet more sloppy throwing around of COI. This is a specific issue, well documented. DePiep acknowledges above that he used it "tongue in cheek". COI is a serious issue here, and if people have concerns about it, the way to deal with it - and how not to deal with it, are clearly documented in the COI guideline, here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest Jayen if you care about COi then read WP:COI carefully and come help at COIN, where I work every day. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Andreas does have a point though, this is looking more like a "WWE theatre than an editorial discussion" with the (you idiot, re: no you) kind of talk. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    the discussion above is not an editorial discussion. ANI is for issues about behavior. if you are getting distracted, there is nothing I can do about that. The behavioral issues and difs I raised above are sharp and clear. There is a real problem with COI in WP - see the thread the just below this one for an example. What DePiep did is ugly behavior. I am looking for a short, clear block. The behavior is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What would it solve though? I can see Jayron's point above, once the block is up you are still going to have to deal with each other. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    please read WP:BLOCK and especially WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't know much about people, do you? Sending him to his room for 24 hours to "think about it" doesn't actually generate contrition and understanding. It compounds the problem and causes the punished user to set his heels and become even more intractable. We don't do it, not because we don't feel like it, or because we have some "belief" against it, or because it offends us to do so. We don't do it because it doesn't work. Purely based on empirical evidence, from years of humans being humans on planet earth, this is not how you manage disagreements between adults, because it doesn't produce the results we're after. We're not arguing for no sanctions, per se. We're arguing for action which has been shown to have effective results. 24-hour "cooling off" blocks aren't done because they don't work. People do not cool down when you block them for 24 hours. They don't come back ready to work and cooperate with others. The reason we are offering other options is those options have been shown to reduce the problem. 24-hour blocks don't stop long-term disruptive behavior, so we don't issue them. --Jayron32 19:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there are a range of possibilities here, the only one that I would strongly oppose is to do nothing, thereby sending the message that this sort of behavior is accepted. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    re Formerly 98 all: I did reply to you at 16:11. What's wrong with that? -20:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    re OP User:Jayen466 (Andreas): in a cleaner environment I would like to converse with you and others about this. However, this thread is spoiled, even by the lower ANI standards, so I won't engage. Hope to meet you elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron32 I replied to you above, and said that I understand your perspective on BLOCK and how you choose to use your powers. I do understand it, really I do. I just don't agree with it. You don't ask me any questions (your first one is rhetorical, not authentic) so I will say nothing further. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There is something terribly amiss about the title of this section. How is that so many want to discuss editor behavior on article Talk pages and argue content at ANI?. Lets stay focused on a discussion of behavior here and not try to justify personal attacks based on a content dispute. This is something we have to get right if we are going to work together effectively. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. You, for example, could have sticked stayed with 16:11 reply. -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ecce ANI

    Moved here

    Arguing is useless by now. Given the unending one-way hammering by Jytdog, what caused multiple more cool editors to get a distorted view, I will not spend time on responding. Plain responses are not read or used, simple questions ignored. That's the way ANI rolls then? If I'm blocked from this 'discussion', I pity wiki. Jytdog: don't be a dick.
    I unwatch this page. DePiep (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)/-DePiep (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    DePiep since you address me directly. This all goes away if you say "Yeah, i got carried away in the argument and said some stupid things. I get it, it was bad, I won't do it anymore" -- this all goes away. Pushing harder in the middle of it, is ~kind of~ understandable. Everybody (including me) gets hot sometimes. But persisting, the next day, and digging yourself deeper - showing you really do think Wikipedia is the internetz, for lulz and flaming? You dig your own WP:HOLE, man. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    DR:TL. duh. When I did not address you, you responded in bold. Ask help, recompose. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    yep, more internetz. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked

    • Blocked. I have blocked DePiep for 48 hours for this personal attack right in an ANI report complaining of their personal attacks. This block isn't meant to put a cork in further discussion of topic bans/I-bans; no need to close the thread if people wish to continue to discuss those matters. Bishonen | talk 23:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • Endorse block I'd have indeffed him, and was about 30 seconds behind you to do so. Still, good block, and I hope he'll prove me wrong and a short block will be an educational experience. Good one. --Jayron32 23:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron32 about your revert of my non-admin close. There is no serious discussion of an interaction ban (all the players above said that they had rarely interacted before, and I-bans are for long-term problems). I see no serious discussion of a topic ban (which would essentially be a site ban since pretty much of what DePiep does is chemistry). What other bans are under real discussion here? (real question) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My revert had nothing to do with your not being an admin. Non-admins don't lack any rights that admins do here. Anyone can close any thread when it is ready to be closed, and not being an admin doesn't mean you don't have that right. So that's a non-starter, and has nothing to do with what I did. The reason I reverted was that several people above were discussing responding to behavioral issues with longer-term sanctions. I didn't feel that discussion needed stopping merely because he cussed someone out during the actual discussion of his behavior. --Jayron32 00:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you knew it was non-admin, and I knew it was ok for me to do it. :) i just don't see any real momentum for anything longer and i reckon that what bit there was will die, especially now that a block has been done. Now that you have reverted me i will not try to close this again, but I would appreciate it, if you would mind this and close it if no further momentum for that develops. (in my view, it would be a shame if it did. It would be too much, at this time, on too little evidence of there being a sustained problem. ) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You do what you gotta do. It's a free world. --Jayron32 01:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Considering this not even an hour after the block, maybe the block should be extended to indefinite after all? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

    Endorse Close, at the very least talk-page access should be revoked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I meant to suggest that too. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Look, this guy's done a lot of good work. There's no question he's a "hot head" (I've seen it personally, on one occasion), and he's lost it here, but I really don't think an Indef block is the way to go this time. Go with a longer block (say, 1–3 months), let DePiep hopefully cool down, and then hopefully he can come back and do good work after a break. But I really don't think an Indef serves the project in this case... --IJBall (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block and revocation of talk page access if necessary. An otherwise productive editor lost his sh*t but nothing suggests it'll be a long term thing. Give him the weekend to have a couple of beers, mow the lawn and come back on Monday. St★lwart111 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opportunity Knocks: Now that Jytdog's more successful "cudgel" has taken down his opponent's more pathetic "cudgel", he is free to use his "hatchet" to the article in question unopposed by DiPiep as he pleases (16 edits to Glyphosate since the block), and that pesky mention of cancer can be buried deep in the article, so hopefully no one sees it. David Tornheim (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We deal with one editor making personal attacks, and now another pops up. Really, David. You you were warned about this already by Drmies just a bit over a week ago, and you are stepping right back into it, here at ANI! Not only just above, but here at DePiep's talk page ("Yes, "they". They don't mess around. ") and here and here. You just keep WP:CAMPAIGNING instead of simply editing. And do you really think I am not well aware that the glyphosate article is under increased scrutiny now? For pete's sake. I was so busy with work and this yesterday that I had no time to even deal with the new content that had been added. we are working that through normally, and the cancer stuff is still in the lead, with a good, collegial talk page discussion going on. no drama. no need for drama. just editing Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I also endorse this block. The content dispute? Take it somewhere else. ANI is not the place to hash out this kind of issue, which has parallels with the EU's classification of mobile phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic" (which in scientific terms means it is unlikely to be carcinogenic, but we can't rule it out, and in crank terms means it definitely causes cancer and therefore so does WiFi and your Apple watch). These arguments involve deeply held beliefs colliding with careful science that, oddly, never says what those with deeply held beliefs would like it to. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock. I think the block was righteous, but I also have to acknowledge that DePiep, before he went over the top and made the remark that got him blocked, had written. "Now of course I understand that my COI-remarks did not fall well with readers. Even though they were clearly meant as an over the top "POV" note, and added as an aside to the core argument. So I understand that, as you ask, even oblique I better not make them again" I admit that I stopped reading that remark before I got to the end (tl/dr). Hopefully, he meant that. I am sorry that I didn't see that and respond to it. I also supported unblock at his Talk page, here. Bishonen would you please consider unblocking? he is not a clear communicator which has gotten in his own way, but I think he "got it" which was the point of the ANI. Thanks for considering. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about unblocking the editor who wrote this response to my block notice? No. I do tolerate blocked users venting, more than many admins do; I'm not one to impose extra time for it, or to remove talkpage access in other than extreme cases. But neither will I be extra nice about being told I'm sniffing your farts. If you're prepared to be Patient Griselda, Jytdog, that's up to you; I'm not. I'll leave this block to uninvolved admins. If one of them is willing to unblock the user, I have no objection. Note also that what I gave DePiep was a short block of 48 hours — there are now only a few hours remaining of it — so I'm not sure why you're agitating quite so urgently for an unblock at this time. (You have pinged me on DePiep's page as well.) He was lucky I hit the block button first, placing a 48-hour block just a few seconds before another admin was going to indef him.[74] Bishonen | talk 16:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    thanks bish. seeing how he just deleted my remarks there, i cannot argue with you. it is just that i realized he did acknowledge the problem, before he created another one. that's all. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'd in fact written up a short note for you for DePiep's page as well, for posting immediately after my reply above, just to emphasize that uninvolved admins needn't consult me. But I was too slow; DePiep had already removed your unblock appeal to me as "harassment". I'm not really comfortable posting on that page at all, and now I guess I won't have to. Good. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Close

    The editor involved has been blocked for 48 hours, unless there is a clear consensus for an indef here I suggest this be closed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    well, now David is almost begging for a block, per his comment just above... Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Split it off into a separate section then if you feel strongly about it so this doesn't turn into confusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm OK to let this sit a bit. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever closes this, it could be helpful give a summary or warning in closing rather than just saying the editor was blocked. If this does need to be referenced again (I hope not), that helps other readers by not needing to have them read the whole post. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    How to deal appropriately with COI concerns?

    Jytdog, this is at least the third editor (EllenCT, David Tornheim, DePiep) for whom you and Kingofaces43 have sought topic bans or blocks, after the editor expressed concern about pro-industry COI editing. Yet I know you've been concerned about COI yourself and its impact on WP. We're already hamstrung because of OUTING. It means editors often can't produce the evidence, but if they express concern without evidence, someone will seek a block. What can be done about this? Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, someone will seek a block...probably the person being harassed by COI witchhunt. It's unfortunate that an expectation of having some sort of evidence first is too constraining for some. Geogene (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin, one reason I have not been keen to participate in policy discussions heretofore is seen in this very thread. There may be a better venue for this discussion, where drama cannot impede the process? petrarchan47tc 23:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I started it here, Petra, is that it's about the role of AN/I in COI discussions (people seeking sanctions), and there's a degree of momentum. But we can certainly continue it elsewhere. WT:COI and WP:COIN are two possibilities. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Sarah (SV) raises an important question here regarding COI concerns and what can be done about this. It seems one potential way to deal with this would be for ANI to differentiate between COI concerns raised as vicious allegation/personal attack vs civil reasonable COI concerns backed up by diffs. For example, calling someone a “fucking asshole shill for Monsanto” vs someone saying “these edits (with difs provided) appear non-neutral and this WP:BITE / WP:BULLY behavior toward editors with a different POV (again provide difs) suggests to me a COI”. The former seems block worthy while the later doesn't seem to be block worthy. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bobo, I agree with your suggestion. I'm pinging Smallbones, Coretheapple, Gandydancer and Petrarchan47 too, as they've been involved in many discussions about this. We need a safe way for people to express these concerns. Issues can be taken to COIN, but if you're not allowed to produce evidence because of OUTING, there's no point. Editors should at least be allowed to say that they believe it is happening, without risk of sanction. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They should not be able to say it over and over again, over a period of months, without producing evidence. That's harassment intended to suppress opposing views, and should be dealt with the same way that NLT is dealt with, for the same reason (squelching speech). It should absolutely not be "safe" to do that. Geogene (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One question comes to mind, in an incident of which I am aware. I am thinking of an admin who had not previously been involved in the related discussions, who stated here in wikipedia he had "seen evidence" of a COI problem off-site. The editor with the alleged COI has, not surprisingly, vociferously denied it. And, FWIW, having seen the information (I think) myself, I think it, well, reasonably good evidence, but producing it here might involve OUTing. Any ideas on how to deal with cases of that type? John Carter (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that rules should allow someone with CU rights to be shown that evidence and to dispense sanctions based on it as they deem necessary. That doesn't worry me at all, because there's evidence, even if the rest of us can't see it. Geogene (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    John Carter, with an outing concern like that, maybe our existing policies and guidelines such WP:NPOV, WP:BULLY, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:BITE, WP:OWN etc can used in lieu of any evidence which would constitute outing. Outing seems like something we should work to avoid. Also, it seems to me that even if an editor does have a COI, it is still the edits and/or behavior that are the real concern here. With offline evidence like that, looking closer at that user's edits and behavior seems warranted to assess the problem, but if someone who works for Monsanto or who works for a political campaign etc comes here and actually edits neutrally, civilly, and collaboratively, maybe we shouldn’t worry about that.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think COI-tainted participation is a dreadful thing that mucks up the consensus forming process and distorts the encyclopedia, and it needs to be fought. On the other hand as I see it there are a number of problematic editors that starting throwing around COI allegations as soon as an editor makes an edit - be it ever so good - that they personally don't like, particularly in the fields of corporate politics, medicine and fringe science. I've been on the receiving end of it myself. I certainly do not want to see that bad behaviour encouraged. In Jytdog's case, as I recall, the pitchfork brigade previously stirred up such a fuss with regard to Monsanto that Jytdog was effectively forced to subject themselves to vetting at COIN by an independent third party ... and yet even that doesn't seem to have satisfied some people ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In my experience, all one has to do here to elicit accusations of COI is to add any favorable statement about a corporation, pesticide, or drug (pharmaceutical that is, its ok to laud the unrecognized curative powers of psychedelics), or remove a negative claim about one of the above topics. The quality of the sourcing does not matter, nor do arguments based on NPOV, the accusation will follow about one such edit in 3. Its rude, tiresome, and I believe it inhibits many editors from even thinking about participating on the more controversial articles. We have a COIN board, and if someone has actual evidence, that is the place for such discussions. Jytdog has shown the effectiveness of dealing with real COIs by this board, which was established for exactly this purpose. There is a clearly enunciated policy against making unsupported accusations on article Talk pages and it needs to be enforced. Unfortunately some editors seem to be unable to get their heads around the idea that others might honestly have a different pov than their own, and such accusations become an argument of first resort. This is completely unproductive and violates the basic principles of Wikipedia. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I would comment here that I have noticed that these accusations are disproportionately aimed at people that have, or appear to have, some technical or scientific understanding in the relevant subject area. In effect, you know too much to be trusted to write this article. I'm not sure if that's the usual experience, but it sure isn't beneficial to this encyclopedia. Geogene (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin I want to start out by noting that per your note above your question to me, is a response to David's request to you: "Working on the articles is hopeless because these same editors rule them with an iron fist and will successfully get one blocked, ibanned, etc. if you stand up to them?"]
    • David was warned to stop campaigning. yet he continues. And now you aid him. As I wrote above, you are now arguably WP:INVOLVED and I will look for you to not act in an admin capacity on matters related to GMO or pesticides.
    • There are three icky parts of your question that I will address. The long part, I will not.
    • The first icky part is that your post is a thinly veiled accusation of COI; in your victim-blaming here (as you did above here and here you are making a claim that editors deserve to have adolescent flamers (DePiep) and POV-pushers (EllentCT and David) attack them.
    • The 2nd icky part is your lumping three distinct cases together. Besides the differences I just mentioned, the DePiep thing was one foolish evening, on one article; with EllenCT there were at least two articles where there were extended content disputes in which her personal attacks arose; with David, he has barely edited in the topic at all, but instead has been WP:CAMPAIGNING his personal attacks across WP. Each one is different.
    • the 3rd icky part, is your acceptance of this behavior. These accusations of COI arise when the attackers refuse to accept that people with different perspectives can be acting in good faith and in accordance with WP's mission and PAG, and instead, personalize the dispute and ascribe the difference to corruption. This is intellectually sloppy, mean-spirited, and corrosive. None of that, is what we are about here. I ask you to reflect on your acceptance and support of that.
    • The long part is how to deal with conflicted editing; and with its corollary problem, WP:ADVOCACY (which you do not mention, but which is as damaging - maybe more? nobody knows as there is no data). ANI is not the place for this and it is too bad others are taking this venue up with answers; if you want to discuss that please raise it at WT:COI. If you do, I would appreciate it if you would uncouple the question from your continuation of the accusations against me.
    • One thing I will tell with you absolutely clarity - acccusations - especially persistent accusations - of COI made without on-wiki evidence of off-wiki interests, are corrosive personal attacks that violate AGF and OUTING; editors who make them should be warned and if they refuse to stop, they should receive a block per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT, and if they continue through further, longer blocks, they should be banned.
    • Per Drmies's advice to David in her close, he should stop campaigning and start editing - and he should edit better when he does. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Response to ping It certainly is a continuing problem. Policy doesn't appear to provide a remedy, which presents a vulnerability that can be exploited by special interests and their PR firms, or by editors who just happen to be big fans of some given industry. Perhaps a new category such as "COI-like editing" can be introduced. Sure, it's just another form of POV editing, for which we have guidelines, but on Wikipedia, obvious pro-industry editing is running rampant. When this POV editing is coupled with well-established alliances, a penchant for drama, bullying and downright abusive communication, this activity ends up taking its toll not only on WP's credibility but it is running good editors off the site (and perhaps ridding WP of honest editors is the goal). petrarchan47tc 23:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    You wrote that, as I recall. I think it's very problematic. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, are you saying that Jytdog wrote the COI policy to which he is linking? Can you expand on what you find problematic and how? petrarchan47tc 00:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Petra, the part I disagree with is in bold: "If an editor directly discloses information that clearly demonstrates that he or she has a COI ... raise the issue with the editor in a civil manner on the editor's Talk page ..." I recall that Jytdog and Kingofaces used that against EllenCT (they argued for a sanction because she was raising the issue elsewhere, without having approached Kingofaces on his talk). Jytdog added it in July. But in my view it's sometimes important not to interact directly with the editor, and sometimes people simply won't want to; that person might be aggressive, for example, and the editor with the concern might feel intimidated. So I think it's bad advice. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarah, thanks for clarifying. There are many editors for whom this would be far too confrontational, especially for those who find 'colourful language' distasteful, for that is surely what faces them in some cases. Furthermore, editors who are gaming the system have a lot to loose and will stop at nothing - editing, monitoring, stalking day and night, 24/7 - to win disputes, since the truth alone will not suffice. It does no good to interact with a liar directly. petrarchan47tc 01:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    so dark, petrarchan. so dark. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Slimvirgin, the problem with EllenCT's behavior was that instead of dealing with her "concerns" in any considered way, that would get the community involved and get her concerns addressed, she just hounded and hounded, and tried to use that as a weapon in the content dispute to win her point. She never brought the claim anywhere for the community to act on it. That is ugly, disruptive behavior. The point of that section of the guideline is to guide people away from that. That is not OK behavior. Please tell me at what time in the history of WP that chasing somebody through talk pages with any kind of personal accusation was ever OK. Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    yep i worked on that, and i believe you were working on the page at the same time SlimVirgin - i'm surpsised that you let it stand so long if you long if you find it problematic.. And no one fucking owns any fucking guideline or fucking policy in WP and the claim that it is "mine" is unbefuckinglieavable. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, in spite of Jytdog's somewhat colorful language, a search of the history of the guideline shows that his first edits were in June 2014, and mainly dealt with paid editing. The sections requiring civility and instructing editors to bring COI concerns to COIN predate Jytdog's edits. So we should try to keep this rational and lose both the insinuations and the language. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • SlimVirgin, I am repeating what I wrote above, and I would be interested in a response from you. "These accusations of COI arise when the attackers refuse to accept that people with different perspectives can be acting in good faith and in accordance with WP's mission and PAG, and instead, personalize the dispute and ascribe the difference to corruption. This is intellectually sloppy, mean-spirited, and corrosive. None of that, is what we are about here.". Please explain what you disagree with about that. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Break

    I don’t think it’s off topic. There have been multiple ANI complaints regarding COI concerns as personal attacks, with users requesting blocks. I think ANI needs to make an attempt to differentiate between concerns which are PA vs reasonable concerns as I stated above. To reiterate, calling someone a “fucking asshole shill for Monsanto” seems to be block worthy, but saying “these edits (with difs provided) appear non-neutral and this WP:BITE / WP:BULLY behavior toward editors with a different POV (again provide difs) suggests to me a COI”, that seems reasonable. Other editors have also brought up good points. Having a different POV is not COI-style-POV; however, I’d say having a different POV while bullying others off the page and engaging in WP:OWN, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYTNTH etc and violating NPOV to keep stuff you don’t like off that page might be. Having scientific knowledge is definitely not COI-style-POV. Additionally, refusing to let WP:ADVOCACY editors “balance” WP:MEDRS sources with blogs is not COI-style-POV, but when editors remove WP:MEDRS sources that do not support their POV, for a laundry list of questionable reasons, that might be COI-style-POV. I think Andreas brought up a good point above when he asked “what about the quality of the edits” [75]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On your very last note, I don't think anyone was removing MEDRS sources in this specific case. I get the vibe Andreas might have been asking that question towards my edits though. For those that didn't follow the diff summaries, I only removed the single sourced content from the lede because it and other competing sources were still being hashed out in the body. There seems to be some insinuation I was wanting to remove the WHO source (probably from skimming the first diff) so I just wanted to clarify that wasn't the case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    • BoboMeowCat has suggested that we take more of a DUCK-like approach to COI, as we do with socks. We don't (always) agonize over socking when it's obvious, but with COI we not only require strong evidence, but we often don't allow people to post it because of OUTING.

      I understand the desire to AGF, but the result is the situation described by Newsweek on 24 March, which is heart-breaking. The claim is that 15,000 students in India signed up to a bogus course, because Wikipedia was allowing the college to be promoted by a COI editor. One of the student's parents re-mortgaged their farm to pay for it. This happened even though lots of people on WP knew there was a problem with the editor.

      We have to make it easier to express concern about COI, and impose topic bans when a sufficient number of editors in good standing have a COI concern, particularly where money is involved. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It is very easy to post at COIN. People do it every day. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "What about the quality of the edits?" is certainly, or should be, the most important question here. Is anyone willing to spend hours surveying these edits? I quit editing here in June '14 after coming across Formerly98, and nearly loosing my lunch as a result of glancing at just two days' worth of his work. In that time he had thoroughly spun three articles about different pharmaceutical pills. No one was watching, no one confronted him, and he worked in complete peace. Wikipedia provided an environment perfectly suited for such activity. That's when I knew that fighting special interests here is a lost cause, and I told him as much here, just prior to leaving. For an example of this 'spin', I surveyed his work on the Antidepressant article, which you can peruse here (note the comments from Doors22 as well - apparently multiple editors have left the project because of F98). This took at least four hours, and it is far from exhaustive, but it may shed more light on the activity some are complaining about. I really don't care about why this person has a POV towards pharmaceuticals - the reader doesn't either. The point is, WP's articles are being decimated because no one is standing up to this gang and this POV editing. Those who do end up paying dearly for it.
    Also worth a look, Atsme assessed problematic behaviour with regard to Jytdog here. petrarchan47tc 21:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't looked at this too thoroughly, but it appears User:Tjmayerinsf is a non-communicative serial copyright infringer. Most recently [76] was copied from [ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2287170]. I'm seeing a string of copyright warnings e.g. [77][78] dating as far back as 2007, with some of them possibly contested. MER-C 12:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I found a couple more things: a copy vio plot on The Satin Woman, and material in Mikhail Petrenko (bass) copied from here (this one is not certain, as the Wayback Machine archived it on the same date the content was added here). That's with spot checks back to the beginning of January. I don't think there's enough to warrant opening a case. I will post on the user talk page and will monitor his contribs. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Creator of article repeatedly removes WP:SPEEDY tag even though he is specifically instructed not to on the tag.

    Discussion continues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table-lookup synthesis. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Table-lookup synthesis was created about a month ago by User:Clusternote as a content fork. The editor wants to establish, using Wikipedia, his own spin on terminology that does not exist in the discipline. No one else had made substantive contributions to the article. It is OR. It is worthy of a discussion regarding whether or not the article should exist at all. But, rather than have the discussion, the editor is doing everything he can to quash it. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, the one trying to avoid discussion is you, since you keep battling to have the page speedy-deleted. This page does not qualify for WP:A11 speedy deletion: it is neither obviously invented by Clusternote (despite your unfounded allegation) nor does it fail to make a credible claim of significance. I have sent it to AfD - feel free to discuss there. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mishandling of an SPI

    An SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhanzhao has been mishandled two times now.

    About 20 days ago, I had figured some objectionable edits on an article,[79] that would be exceptionally backed by other account[80] in order to avoid previous account from breaking 3rr. Though this account(DanS76) hadn't made any edits in last few months. After seeing the similar attempts to WP:RGW, I would find a lot of similarities between these two accounts. I went to open an SPI.[81]

    Evidence was so strong that Zhanzhao,(the puppeteer) claimed that it was his brother, similar to some people claiming that their account was operated by their little brother. Salvidrim! took his words and let him go, despite he was blocked back in 2009 for evading his block, and he had affirmed to have read WP:SOCK#LEGIT. In his own words:

    "I just hope I'm following the right procedure regarding WP:SOCK#LEGIT : "openly declared alternative account to carry out maintenance tasks" when doing so."[82]

    Even after that, he had been socking since 2010 with this account(DanS76) for influencing many articles, discussions, and other procedures including accepting the own article submission, raising same votes in deletion review, AfD, ANI, etc.

    Question: Such a violation of WP:ILLEGIT wasn't enough for blocking him indefinitely?

    It took him hardly 7 days and he returned to violate WP:ILLEGIT. Now he was more prepared, I would report[83] again and he was sure that CU wouldn't confirm, despite he continued to admin-shop with these 2 accounts.[84][85] He attempted to reply every single word that he would see against him for confirming that he should avoid every single chance of getting caught.

    Now recently, after he made a long list of absurd explanations,[86] comparing himself with many others editors including Jimbo Wales, his explanations also included a personal attack and claims such as the creation of "3 words userpages" is not isolated, because I(me) have also created three words userpage, and he linked to this sandbox that has over 150 words. He actually affirmed it by saying "that is indeed a 3-word page, the rest of the words were formed from a template box".[87] DoRD closed the SPI saying that "this is getting out of hand". One day earlier he had found these accounts to be unrelated. However, I find the evidence to be just too big to ignore.

    There is another interesting thing behind these accounts that I have recently discovered. Same way Zhanzhao was reblocked for evading his block[88], other suspected sock was also blocked for evading 3rr with an IP in 2013.[89] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Two things: One, I said that the page was getting out of hand due to the numerous large additions of weak evidence to the case[90]. Two, the CU results are unambiguous, and I invite any CU to double check my finding that the accounts are technically unrelated. That doesn't rule out WP:MEAT, of course, but I don't see how the three accounts could be related, otherwise. Now, I'm going to be traveling for a few days, so I doubt that I'll have much else to say in this matter. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't need double check really because you are a very trusted member. I am more concerned about the mishandling of this SPI, including the first time. They are related because I cannot find even 2 of the listed similarities with any other account on here, while these accounts have relatively small amount of edits. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • : Since everyone's an admin here, I assume everyone here can run their own CheckUser on the suspected accounts. I have no idea exactly how CU works beyond the fact that it checks one's IP, but I am sure there are other checks as well. My confidence in me being vindicated can be simply explained by the fact that I know I am innocent of all charges, therefore whatever process/tech is involved in the CU, will find that I was not socking, even without me having to know exactly how it works. I had been willing to put this past me, and made that very clear to OccultZone on his talk page[91], even though he chose to remove my "olive leaf" twice. I have even asked JamesBWatson to ask him to cool down [92], since he seemed to hold JamesBWatson in high esteem, to stop what I sensed was a slow-motion-trainwreck, without any success.
    I know not the actions of my fellow accused (I'm frankly too tired to bother at the moment to see their contributions page), but the "admin shopping" OccultZone said I was doing, were mostly to ask how I could get CU expedited, and also what remedies I can pursue for being continually harassed by OccultZone. He can keep taking popshots for free at me, while keeping his hands busy but clean, while I am getting an SPI, and now an ANI against me. Since this has escalated to ANI, I welcome any and all to run an CU on me against TCKTKtool, Resaltador and Resaltador. I already volunteered that DanS was by brother in the same household so I am told that CU would not reveal anything other than show that we lived in the same household, so I don't know how helpful that is, but go ahead if you feel that is useful for your conclusions. Because either I am the world's greatest hacker, I hired an army of scary socks, OR, I am simply innocent of the claims OccultZone has yet again thrown at me.
    And since we're at ANI, I would seriously welcome any suggestions on how to stop OccultZone from harassing me further. My socking infraction came early in my editing career, and even then, I signed off on the edit with "Zhanzhao" as I had no intention of hiding my identity, and was merely trying to get an answer at one of the boards before the thread went dead[93]. His actions are clearly now running the gamut of incivility, personal attacks and harrassment. Cos what next, when this goes against him yet again? Am I to be continually subject to this misguided vendetta against me? Or whoever happens to have different opinion and edit against OccultZone? Please. Run the CU against me again. Let the evidence speak for itself. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As for OccultZone not finding anything similar from any other account other than me and my fellow accused, let me present this [94]. Which basically refutes his claim that he could not find anything similar. Its because he didn't want to, while, I have been pushed to the corner to prove him wrong.Zhanzhao (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I also want to highlight that even when DoRD pointed out the evidence was weak, OccultZone promtly removed [95] DoRD's comment with his collapse. So I am not even allowed to have someone else speak up for me. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know that you have just thrown yourself into the territory of WP:TROLL? First one you had lied to be your bro. Now history of these pointed socks explicits that you are abusing them occasionally. Whenever there be an edit war over the content of that article you will produce a new "army" of sock puppets. If that's wrong, why they are not coming to defend themselves the way you just did? Or you will just go now and log into each? VandVictory (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That would only be true if the accusations are true. But try to imagine if the accusations were false. As I said. Run CU on me before making judgement. Whatever DoRD sees must be pretty compelling, even though I don't know what that is. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why you are shouting the same absurd every time? There was firstly no need of a CU. You have clearly abused the multiple accounts for pushing your POV on a specific article, same way you were abusing DanS76. That is seriously enough for considering that only you can do it. That is also backed by great amount of similarities, that you share with these obvious socks. There are hundreds of SPIs where even new editors could evade CU.[96] That way you are still more experienced, already spending so many years in sock puppetry.
    If you are not a sock, why you even bother to bludgeon the SPI and bludgeon this ANI with baseless commentaries? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    We have to first make sure that what actually convinced Salvidrim that you both were brothers and not one person, when evidence was enough to consider you as one. Also we have to make sure that you weren't aware of the policy, even though you have clearly stated to have read WP:SOCK#LEGIT after you were blocked for socking.[97] Furthermore you were opening and contributing to SPIs.[98][99] It was a poor judgement of Salvidrim which is now up for review. Also reading the above editors comments that you intentionally retired DanS76,[100] because it was no more of use, you couldn't use it anymore on same articles, it is simply obvious that you are socking. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Fine. As Dan had suggested previously, point me to a high-level admin. I can email him a scan of me and my brother's identification which shows us living in the same address, and the email will also explain beyond doubt why thats our identification and not something I borrowed off 2 real brothers off the street. I will also furnish supporting evidence why I use StongVPN in the first place - Its not to sock - which will be very clear in my mail. Note, however, that I do this VERY RELUCTANTLY, as this is obviously leaving me to higher chances of identity theft which Dan had already pointed out I am very paranoid about, but I am sick and tired of these string of accusations. I had though that spending (wasting) my time showing why OccultZone's evidence was laughable (which DoRD already also mentioned was weak and circumstantial) would have been enough, but apparently this is not so. If I am really a sock, I wouldn't even need to resort to this, I can just retire this account as well, and start afresh from a new account. But I'll be very pissed (a very strong understatement) if OccultZone gets off scott free now, since there's nothing to prevent him from continuing to harass me and keep attacking the integrity of my account. And hence, I will now insist that some punitive action be taken against my harasser. Is that fair?
    The reason why OccultZone is out to get me is because he mistakenly blames me for getting him blocked since he's under the assumption that I was socking as the one/more of the accounts that here. Which was why he opened the 2nd SPI. And when the 2nd SPI showed that there were no relationships between the accounts through CU and otherwise, which means I was not the cause of him getting blocked, OccultZone refused to believe it and attempts to link it back to the first SPI which was totally unrelated and involved totally different accounts, to find any way he can in a misguided attempt to get back at me. You'll note that one thing OccultZone has not done up to now, which he very actively did in the 2nd SPI, was to report any overlaps of article editing in the accounts of the 1st(DanS76) and 2nd SPIs(Resaltador and TCKTKtool). The only single convergent point, was the article that got him blocked. Beyond that, he's rambling evidence like "Oh look, they capitalizing the "T"s for Talk in 2 edit summaries, they must berelated." Look at the evidence in the 2nd SPI he pulled out. Then what DoRD thought about it. (Unfortunatelty you have to check the history of the page because OccultZone removed DoRD's comments). Then my pointing out that the supposed common behavioral traits he identified between the socks, OccultZone was doing the same thing as well. Is OccultZone my sock as well? Zhanzhao (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be fine with confirming your identities as you propose (as I'm sure DoRD would), however I am afraid there is some likelihood that OccultZone would take our word for it anyways! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Salvidrim! He will show the identity card of his father and present him like his brother, and we will believe it? How come such fairytales don't fall under the violation of WP:ILLEGIT. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. We're both out at work now (Its morning now here), I'll scan and send them over via email to you ASAP. (I'll wait for DoRD's confirmation - as I said, I'll only send it out when absolutely necessary). I'll trust you to keep the information confidential, thanks. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a matter how much you can fake DanS76 to be your brother or not. You cannot show a video of both of you edit warring on same articles for one, forget it. You switched accounts, that's what we know. If you can show both of the accounts editing together at the same minute, that would really work. But you cannot. Even if you did,(which is impossible) that was still the violation of WP:ILLEGIT. It is not an assumption that you weren't socking. It is a fact that you are socking. If you are not a sock, then why you are bludgeoning this ANI with your garbage? Just like you had recently bludgeoned that SPI. It is also correct that I am investigating in this matter because we don't want any sort of trouble because you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one heaping wildaccusations after wild accusations at me, first at the 2nd SPI, and now here. The only thing I did was to defend myself, and you call that bludgeoning? Is that your ideal vision of wikipedia, slamming anyone you dont't like and just expect them to take it lying down? Cos I noticed that you did not even bother to notify me that there was an ANI here. A video of 2 guys editing in front of the computer would not mean anything. If I were really socking, it could just be a guy I got off the street to pass off as what you assume to be my fake brother. Our identity cards are issued by the country's authorities, which has info like name, address, birthdate, and other info which I will explain to the admin how they helped us decide our editor names, hence proving conclusively that there are indeed 2 of us. I will not scan my dad's card, because just revealing our 2 cards is more than I am comfortable with. But the birthdates shown on the cards are more than conclusive proof that its my brother, not father. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    These fairytales don't support any policy or even an essay that can be used for exempting you from socking, especially when you had admitted to have read WP:SOCK#LEGIT,[101] right when you were blocked for evasion. Similar to other sock, Resaltador.[102] Kindly stop trolling. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    IF I was really socking as Resaltador, and allegedly had alternate accounts of TCKTKtool, DanS and of course Zhanzhao, wouldn't it have been smarter of me to use one of these and pretend to be an uninvolved editor, instead of using an IP while posting in a manner that readily identifies me, even, as you pointed out, that would get it banned since I had that happen to me before? Unless you think I purposely want it to get banned? And you're claiming I'm spinning fairytales? Are you even thinking through what you are posting? Zhanzhao (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Resaltador also don't know the difference between banned and block, just like you don't know.[103] That's how it cannot be anyone else other than you. You socked with that account for supporting yourself,[104] and also socked with TCKTKtool[105] and IP[106] for edit warring, just like you were socking with DanS76.[107][108] There is a huge list of similarities. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I know the difference. I am just getting fed up from being harassed and victimized and am DEFINITELY not calm now, so pardon me if I make the mistake of mixing up block and ban. I was typing off a freaking ipad1 during lunch that crashes on me cos the thread is so long, and had to retype that 3 times. For me, in my mind, the 2 words might as well be the same thing now, because I am being hounded and not even allowed to defend myself, since any defense isbeing labeled as "bludgeoning the topic". A check user has already been run against me, Resaltador, and TCKTKtool that proved we were different accounts. And to VandVictory who asked why Resaltafor and TCKTKtool are not responding, only they can answer that. But one BIG reason could be because OccultZone did not bother to tell them about this ANI, which he was supposed to. He didn't even tell me. The only reason I knew is because I have this page on my watchlist. This time, run a Check User against Dan, Resaltador, and TCKTKtool. Check if/how Resaltador and TCKTKtool has ever "helped" me before the article that caused OccultZone to be blocked. Go all the way to when the accounts were started. IF a CU like that still shows that all 3 are distinctly different account, me socking would be the least of the concerns here. It would imply that I have actual inside information on how CU works from way way back, a severe implication that has huge ramifications: that Check User just cannot be trusted anymore at all and you guys should just scrap it, since you guys are unwilling to trust your own tools to tell you the truth and would rather listen to a conspiracy theory that's been noted as being flimsy and countered (or in his word, bludgeoned). I'll send Salvidrim! the info I promised that would show that me and Dan are indeed distinctly different persons, the crux of the first SPI. Any other admin can request the same and as long as I can trust that you will not leak the info back to OccultZone, I should be fine sending it to you as well. The 2nd SPI has already been closed, but anyone here, feel free to rerun the CheckUser to verify. In any case, I wish you all the best dealing with OccultZone the next time this timebomb explodes in the future. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reason behind first SPI was to get rid of your disruption, since you shamelessly sock and edit war for your edits. Same with my 2nd SPI, if first SPI was taken seriously none of the 4 editors would've got any malformed blocks that were quickly reversed. We don't need checkuser to confirm that you are socking, nor we need any of your identity proofs. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We have real evidence here:-

    Apart from abusing accounts on 100 percent same namespaces,[109][110][111][112][113][114] you have also abused them for bigger purposes. It took a few minutes to confirm that how you and DanS76 are not brothers, but one person.

    This is when you had made slightly more than 150 edits on other account. One wouldn't be convinced even if you claim that you both are conjoined twins, because there's only one sock puppeteer operating these accounts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan already said that he shadows me to see what/how I am editing, which explains a lot of the similarities, and has retired his account to avoid that again. And considering I was the one who introduced him to Wikipedia, so its unavoidable that he emulates me, what do you expect me to do, travel back in time and ask not to do so? And he already retired his account (willingly since he's so busy these days), so this issue will not resurface again. And the claim that I did not need him anymore since I had new socks does not hold water since the 2nd SPI's CU already proved that those were not my socks.

    Mass comparison with other editors
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    1) For the 100% talk space bit, the Lui Tuck Yew page history, particularly the April 30 2011 - May 5 2011 since thats the area we both appeared, we were both there, but doing our own stuff which is clear even from the edit summaries. For The interaction with Ahnan, I knew Dan was riling him up and was in fact trying to trcik him into making an error, while I was trying to cool Ahnan down and was in fact sent him a mail what Dan was trying to do. Again clear from the conversation thread. For the [Lim Biow chuan Talk page], although we were both there, I was doing my own stuff, Dan his own, we did not even interact, much less support each other there.
    2) I already said I have used every iteration of "TALK", "Talk" and "talk" before. Easily checked.
    3) I have used "possible vandalism" as well before. (note the "e"). I checked that Dan never uses that.
    4) One was used as "in my defense", the other was "you removing my defense", the wording is same, but the usage is totally different
    5) Do you know how commonly used "properly attributed" is? [151]
    6) Do you know how commonly used "more accurate to" is? [152]
    7) Do you know how commonly used "re-added" is? [153]
    8) Do you know how commonly used "overly detailed" is? [154]
    9) Do you know how commonly used.... do I even have to get to "my 2 cents"? Zhanzhao (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    10) [155] Other than me and my brother, which other accounts are you supposing to be part of the multiple acocunts? I suppose you mean Foxhoud since that looks to be the must likely culprit who has the unfortunate coincidence of being a sock. Again, please run a checkuser to ensure that we are not related. I already said before, due to living in the same house with Dan, there are instances of dinner-table talk so me and Dan edit with the same angle. And Dan already retired his account to avoid that.
    11) How the hell do you consider a "Merge" [156] to be similar to a "strong delete" [157]
    12) [158][159] My given rationale for these was quite different from DanS, and did you check how many were overwhelmingly voting the same as us? Are the rest all socks then? If I had a sock, I wouldn't even have needed it there.
    13) [160][161] For these 2, the vote was already overwhelmingly one sided, even supported by the admin you claim we were ganging up against. If I had a sock, I would not have needed to activate it. And yet you say I unnecessarily put my sock there.
    14) [162] I was answering different questions from Dan, and the end result was so lopsided (even Jimbo Wales voted there) that it wasn't even funny. Even if I had a sock, I would not have needed to use it there.
    In summary, the so called evidence of "similar phrasing used" are not as unique as OccultZone thought. Of Dan and me having worked on the same pages, most of the time we did not interact, we acted behaved differently, or in cases of voting the results were so overwhelmingly one sided that if I were socking, I would not have needed to unnecessarily expose it there. Do go to each and every one of those voting pages to check if everyone that voted similar to me were socks as well. And as OccultZone just admitted, he is blaming me for being blocked, caused by editors he claims to be socks of me. This conspiracy theory was already disproven by the 2nd SPI's CheckUser. OccultZone, You've been barking up the wrong tree all along. Don't you get it? Zhanzhao (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Update to Admins. OccultZone just hatted every single rebuttal I just gave to his raised "evidence". Please open it up to read. I know its a lot to digest, but that's what OccultZone threw at my feet so I had to go through all of them.

    Zhanzhao (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem is that you remember so much of Dan because you operate that account. Examples that I have provided are not all, it is just for confirming that you are a long term sock abuser. You gave same reasons in each of these AfD while no one else had them, with these accounts. You retired that account like it has been pointed here, so that you could use new socks. Exactly that's what you are doing. None of these summaries can be used by two persons that have socked for each other. Why you even have to type out all this garbage if you think that you are not a sock? I have just hatted much of it that you are typing only for killing the environment of this ANI, just like you did on SPI. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice. You "hatted" all my explanations just like that. Just like when you took out DoRD's comments at the 2nd SPI that your previous findings were frivolous. I just spent the past few hours looking through YOUR list, and typing that out using all the links YOU gave above, to explain myself. I didn't "need" to be Dan to remember, because its all so obvious by looking at the pages, just by looking at who was posting what according to the signatures to tell there was no interaction, or by counting the votes on the page to tell that the voting was lopsided. But you're discouraging the Admins from looking at it. And yet again, you're shutting people up everytime they say something that would prove you wrong. First DoRD, now me. Good Job. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did you prove anything wrong? These diffs are about you and about your block evading accounts that share similarities, show where they are wrong? You said "you're shutting people up everytime they say something", while Resaltador says that I "seems to attack anyone that disagrees".[163] You have now also capitalized the 'a' of 'admin' just like Resaltador.[164] Looking at some of your self admission[165], you also seem to be expressing that how much you socked when you were hauling an editor to RFC/UA, ANI. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to talk about analysing behaviors, try this. Thanks for bringing that link up, because it reminded me that DanS has a particular habit of using "Just Sayin"/"Just Saying". He used it again recently on talk of Rape in India, so thats at least 2 times used on wikipedia. Considering I have so many more posts than his, if we were the same, you should be able to find me using that phrase as well. You wont, because in real life, I keep telling it is a little presumptious and rude. You also keep assuming that Resaltador is a sock of mine, but despite repeated reminder, have you even notified him or any of my other alleged socks about this ANI? Isn't that what you are supposed to do when you file this? Or am I reading the notification at the top of this page wrong, that "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page."[To the extent that another admin has already assumed that they are staying quiet because of guilt]. I don't blame that admin, I blame YOU for mishandling this complaint about me. You just keep shutting every avenue of of defense (CU, comments from other admins, real-life identity verification) that could prove my innocence, because you are so fanatically wanting me to be guilty. I'm sick and tired of this. I just emailed you a link to a photo on A website, posted a while ago long before all this started, which has clear inference to my name and is clearly described as a picture of me and my brothers, with no edit history on the picture so it could not have been changed just for this. You can send me a message via facebook to verify that it is me. You forced my hand. I haven't had time to send the ID card scans to Salvidrim! because this has disturbed me so much that it distracted me from work in real life that I need to catch up on my work over the weekend. SATISFIED? If my real identity is revealed or if this is used against me anywhere else, I will now also know who to blame. So. I have a brother in real life who used to edit and retired, there's been people other than me pointing out that the so called "similar" behavior is actually circumstantial, and CheckUser had already exonerated me from all the other socks. Please, I'm begging you, stop directing your anger at me for being blocked, I WASN'T EVEN INVOLVED IN THAT CASE! Zhanzhao (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't notified them about SPI either, they just jumped in the same fashion like DanS76, it also confirms that these socks are either told off-wiki or their operator(you) just know where to abuse them. A dubious photo cannot be used for permitting sock puppetry. Your socking has been damaging for en.wiki, you are socking since 2010 and it must not be ignored. If you were not a sock then why you are bothering to bludgeon ANI, SPI with your garbage? You do because you are a sock. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again you describe defense against your accusations as bludgeoning, when all I have done is a point by point rebuttal of your accusations. Its not about the photo, its about me having posted about having brothers, somewhere else long before this. The timing, the subject, and the discussion thread about the picture from long time ago explicitly demonstrates that. People have been jumping into SPI randomly as well all the time. I have randomly participated in SPIs as well. So its supposed to be exclusive? Anything you start, you only allow invited guests to participate? You don't own wikipedia. You cannot NOT allow people to defend themselves. You cannot NOT ignore CU just because it does not justify your accusation. You still have to follow the rules, regardless your assumptions. Like following instructions about ANI notification. Even as you accuse me of breaking the rules, you break them on a whim. And you say I am damaging wikipedia. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Have added a lot of newly discovered evidence to this sandbox. We will see. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of incident

    Report has already been archived, so no action to be taken. The voluntary disengagement is appreciated. Renewed edit warring should be re-reported to WP:3RR. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Would an administrator kindly mark an issue as "Resolved" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive275#User:GeorgeLouis_reported_by_User:Purplebackpack89_.28Result:_.29? I removed myself from the discussion about the contested issue for a period of one week, and it has now been eight days. Thank you? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (Former name George Louis)[reply]

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

    Request to have unfair block reviewed

    Consensus is that the block is valid, regardless of the reason, due to repeated attempts to add WP:OR after numerous previous similar issues with this user. IP blocked for 48 hours as either block evasion or contributing fuel to the fire. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Whilst contributing to the Germanwings_Flight_9525 article I became aware of a closed discussion opened by Enchev EG headed, "It was suicide" but later renamed, "Latest reports point to suicide" on the Talk page. The author of the discussion had provided reasons why he felt suicide was the reason for the disaster. I observed that English might not be his/her first language and that he/she was finding resistance to his points made with the help of historical and technical data. I personally found this quite worrying as he/she was effectively being bullied. He was accused of pushing his agenda and later, further down the page he was called a troll and told to go away...how charming!

    It was my understanding that anyone is entitled to contribute to Wikipedia as long as it is done in a manner which adds to the article content. I feel this user was not given a proper opportunity to develop his argument which ironically as it turns out would appear to be the reason for the crash. He was in fact spot on!

    This morning I discovered Enchev EG had been handed a two week block and all because he/she had made an unacceptable comment out of pure frustration. I can empathize with him/her because I can see he/she genuinely wanted to add to the article but other users with their own clear agenda weren't having it.

    Please review this matter. 87.114.172.97 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Your editing histories are really remarkably similar. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't made any contributions to Wikipedia for well over a year so how on earth can our editing histories be similiar? 87.114.172.97 (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from 35 since yesterday on the German wings crash!!! lol Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And that constitutes the basis of your editing history claim? An admin with the appropriate permissions can verify that we probably aren't even on the same continent. Irrespective, I await with interest the blocking admin Mjroots justification for his/her actions. 87.114.172.97 (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User was blocked today for abuse that occurred over three weeks ago. This may have been the easy option but I don't think it was correct and/or in line with policies. User has had a final warning for using talk pages as a discussion forum and arguably was involved in similar on germanwings talk page but a two week block without a further warning seems harsh. Some useful stuff was being added. 95.151.99.246 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block. Seems to have done nothing wrong at best, not enough wrong to be punished like that at worst. An examination of some of the things written during this exchange proves at times unsettling and much of this is not from Enchev EG (who themselves wrote at least once: "I was not rude", perhaps in response to accusations of the same).
    • Enchev EG, the person blocked, was told "You have a better chance of being listened to if you make a rational argument" (which it seems s/he was doing).
    • Enchev EG was told what s/he was saying was "outlandish" (it wasn't).
    • A not untypical response received by Enchev EG (capitals included): "THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOUT!"
    • A particularly outrageous and immature quote from this whole sorry affair (given that 150 people are dead and untold numbers of family members are dealing with the aftermath) was even written partially in bold (needless to say, this was not the blocked user themselves): "So you in fact mean: IT WAS SUICIDE OR HIJACKING BECAUSE PILOTS BOTH WENT TO THE TOILET BECAUSE OF AN AIRLINE STRIKE! Great." I presume the last word to be sarcasm. Either way it reflects atrociously on the attitude of this User:Martinevans123, who in my opinion should be penalised given the seriousness of the situation.
    What penalty would you suggest? Would you like to inform this User:Martinevans123 that you are discussing a penalty? I thought (and still think) that was a fair summary of what had been posted and what would have made a more accurate heading for that thread (later carefully "adjusted" by someone). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless this editor had some kind of "special access" to the as yet undisclosed analysis of the CVR, or of the pilot's motives, (both of which possibilities seem extremely unlikely), I would regard the accusation that a pilot had deliberately flown an aircraft into a mountain, killing 150 people, as a wholly unreasonable defamation. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the general standard of some other replies (examples include "Blah blah blah" and "Go troll somewhere else" and "I'll not answer you again, don't have the time") and the goading ("can't see him lasting that long") of Enchev EG as "the problem" and his/her words as "grammatically incorrect" (we're not all blessed with good grammar and those who see fit only to mock might examine their manners) I am led to conclude that it is the most dignified person who has been punished here. --Greykit (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your comments, my sentiments exactly. Enchev EG made one silly comment, which he/she has since apologised for, after being harangued yet others get away with calling him/her names and making derogatory comments. I would go further and say he/she was ridiculed and made fun of because of his pigeon English. If he had an agenda it was to get to the truth, the agenda of those who taunted him might be somewhat more difficult to determine but I have my own thoughts on that. 87.114.172.97 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You think that almost incomprehensible and (at the time) wholly unjustified contribution was "one silly comment"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This was Enchev EG's post that started the current situation. It matters not that the claim has turned out to be correct. My reply was that an extraordinary claim required an extraordinary source, which was not provided. There was no way that such a claim was going to get into the article without one. I first came across Enchev EG at the talk page of the TransAsia Airways Flight 235 article. You will note the similarity of the post, an extraordinary claim not backed up by a RS, and also SHOUTING! The block was for this reply in response to this final warning. I've never had occasion to deal with Escape Orbit so have no dog in the fight there, so to speak. My impression is that Enchev EG is a SPA here to push an agenda. Unless there is a rapid improvement in their behaviour, I forsee the community losing patience with him before too long. Sorry for the delay in replying, but I'm a bit under the waether atm. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that the PA went undetected for 23 days is immaterial IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should have said yesterday that I went to Enchev EG's talk page to see what warnings had been issued in respect of WP:NOTFORUM, with the possibility of a block in mind. I didn't realise that the PA was as old as it was, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it should be allowed to go without any consequences. Mjroots (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block - At TransAsia Airways Flight 235, Enchev EG repeatedly engaged in WP:FORUM on the talk page and ignored repeated warnings about it. Here is a typical comment from them, from the archives of that talk page: For example, my comments are closely monitored by the CIA and each of them is interpreted by their analyst. Then their lies are coordinated in such a way with my comments, that they do not contradict with them - before being sent to the media. They received a one-week block and, thankfully, did not return after the block expired. They reappeared for this Germanwings article and started doing the same things again. They don't get the point of NOTFORUM and no amount of explaining can get through to them. The fact that they may have turned out to be correct on some things is completely beside the point, and it doesn't come close to justifying the disruption they cause. If the block reason is a problem, then by all means correct it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block - I think the community should show some good grace and acknowledge that blocking for personal abuse over three weeks ago was not appropriate. Blocking policy forbids retrospective blocking. There may have been other good reasons for blocking him but not for the reason cited. He should be unblocked and given another chance. His behaviour is not particularly disruptive. Mattojgb (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But don't you think maybe "Escape_Orbit you are fucking moron:))" sends out "slightly the wrong signal"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If he was to be blocked for that he should have been blocked at the time.Mattojgb (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he certainly should have been. But it's tricky to hand out a retrospective block, isn't it? Or is three-week old abuse somehow less offensive? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The "another chance" began when the first block expired. I think we've seen what this user does with "another chance". They will get a third chance beginning in about 13 days, and I have no doubt they will be at it again; if not immediately, then after another rest period. The question is how many chances they get before an indeff. As for "his behaviour is not particularly disruptive", you have not been involved in either of the articles in question, so it is not particularly disruptive to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Just to point out it was this remark on his TP that he was actually blocked for- not specifically any remarks about the crash: diff... 'fucking moron', anyone?!?! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 21:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On edit: sorry Martinevans123 didn't notice you'd just said that already. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 21:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that the editor in question has not protested his block or offered any reasons why it should be reversed. And to his great credit he has posted ".. I wish you all a nice day and I apologize if I have offended anyone". In my book that counts for a lot. But then I am just "outrageous and immature", apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn block per WP:NOTPUNITIVE - apologies for not noticing earlier that 23 days went by between the user's posting and the block being set. I'm having a hard time seeing how that was meant to prevent disruption rather than to punish the user. Blocking a user for a transgression that occurred three weeks ago, which wasn't repeated or ongoing, and for which they later apologized, is extremely inappropriate. That looks like hunting for an excuse to block. Now, if we want to talk about whether or not the user should be indeffed per WP:NOTHERE well then fine, but that should be a different block. Ivanvector (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support overturn, new block 23 days is a long time, but I don't think that a technicality should allow what seems to be a pattern of disruption to continue. Geogene (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block. Clear breach of WP:NPA. WWGB (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block, although WP:Forum would have been the more appropriate reason. Still, even the PA was not entirely singular, questioning the mental health of a user as recently as yesterday. Moreover, the user persistently failed to grasp the principles of Wikipedia and his contributions are explicitly not aimed at improving the articles. Whether his theorycrafting is correct or not is irrelevant. This is not the place. That being said a good part of his claims were 'outlandinsh', e.g. that the plane was hacked by someone with MS Flight Simulator, that it certainly must have been the pilot, or that the CIA is after him. And even if he was correct in all of that, does not matter this is Wikipedia, including the talk pages. A humble contributor (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruptive behaviour? Since when is it a breach of the rules to put forward some well thought out and well researched information? This member was attacked from the off by a group of established users who frankly should know better. I personally was appalled at the comments made towards him some of which are noted above. So tell me, what action is to be taken against the abusive bullies? 87.114.172.97 (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Since when is it a breach of the rules to put forward some well thought out and well researched information?" No original research has been a principle of Wikipedia since 2003. A humble contributor (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block. While the comment may have violated our NPA guideline, blocks aren't meant to be punitive, and should not be placed over 3 weeks after the offending comment. Besides, they apologized.

      Giving them a new, indefinitely long block would be another issue altogether. Epic Genius (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Block Right result, wrong reason. Enchev EG should have been blocked after their attempts to add OR onto Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525, as a repeat of behaviour they had been repeatedly warned about (and blocked) before on other articles. Regardless of whether this latest theory turned out to be right, it doesn't change the fact that it was, and is, original research and there has been no indication that Enchev EG won't continue this behaviour. Otherwise we may as well say that OR guesswork is OK on talk pages, just as long as you can be shown at a later date to have guessed right once in a while.
    I didn't report this abuse because I hoped it was just frustration, and that Enchev EG was finally getting the message. It resulted in he/she removing some other stuff from talk pages, so I hoped this indicated he/she understood exactly why he/she had been warned, and was slowly learning. But the same actions on Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525 just a few weeks later suggest that Enchev EG just can't help herself/himself. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So Enchev made a mistake by lashing out at his abusers. Now, what action is going to be taken against them or do they get off Scott Free being part of the 'gang'? 87.114.172.97 (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor making a series of personal attacks

    Making yet another scatological insult at the same time an ANI thread is going on about your personal insults is kind of stupid. Blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Marcos12 appears to be not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to make various personal comments and attacks against other editors, namely myself. They have edit-warred on other user talk pages to repeatedly insert said personal attacks. They have falsely edited my talk page posts in a juvenile and disparaging manner. This appears to stem from a disagreement as to sourcing in the Violet Blue article, but I am at a loss to explain their overtly-hostile response and their immediate resort to personal attacks rather than reasoned discussion. I have repeatedly requested that the user refrain from making these personal attacks, but they have thus far refused. I request appropriate administrative action be taken against the user. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe one of the particular insults in this is a reference to contents this suppressed edit. I might be mistaken though, as I'm working from memory. — Strongjam (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am Latino, and I am PROUD of that fact. It has no basis in what we are talking about here. Just to put things i perspective, I have a six year old son, and a twelve year old son. From time to time, they look at wikipedia. Today I was met by my 12 year old, Jeff, with tears in his eyes asking me "Dad, why does this man hate you so much?" and pointing to the latest comment NBSB made on my page. Furthermore I have NEVER edited NBSB talk page in a juvenile manner, and when I edited MY OWN TALK PAGE, I IMMEDIATELY realized my mistake and self-reverted. The level of hate being directed toward me is unbelievable. NBSB claims I have edit warred on other users talk pages to disparage him - RUBBISH. I was very clear that the situation I had outlined (trouser-fouling) had NO basis in real life. NONE. The disclaimer was in BOLD PRINT at the top and bottom of said comment. Can someone please gie me the benefit of the doubt here??? I STOPPED editing Gamergate in an effort to do the right thing and was met with immediate hostility.
    Furthermore, User:strongjam lied and accused me of making personal attacks (exclusive of anything dealing with NBSB) [167]. Why is he allowed to call me a liar with NO BASIS in fact for his accusations???? Marcos12 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcos12: That statement is referring to the comments you wrote about NBSB. — Strongjam (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Strongjam: Ok, I understand that. But Strongjam, please! I went to NBSB talk page and (I'm paraphrasing here) said "I am truly sorry for offending you in any way. I am going through a personal crisis, and sometimes y emotions bleed through to wikipedia. There is no excuse, however I would ask for your forgiveness as until last night, we have had eseentially zero interaction". I know of no other way to apologize for an argument that became too heated. I have stepped away from Gamergate. I have listened to your suggestions. And yet, this morning I had to have another talk with my 12 year old son about how hate still exists in this world, and that hate is magnified for people of color like us. Let's try to BUILD an encyclopedia here. I'm game! I will listen to anyone's suggestions provided they arent threats and intimidation. Marcos12 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a shining example of the Chewbacca defense by an obvious troll, and I trust that responding administrators will detect its transparent nature. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe that Marcos12 is here to improve the encyclopedia. --Jorm (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be willing to assume frustration from most of the diffs in isolation, but this one screams WP:NOTHERE if someone doesn't presents some evidence of that editor's usefulness. Looking through on my own, I'm seeing an almost singular focus on attempting to legitimize Gamergate (continuing up to yesterday), and BLP violations (one of them revdel'd) on an article about a female author who focuses on sexuality. That makes me suspect that we need to at least topic ban the editor from any pages relating to feminism, female sexuality, and any living women (even both transwomen and transmen, simply because they have become or were identified as women at some point). Given how broad such a ban is, and the personal attacks, a block would be less trouble. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed with Ian.thomson, I think that he should be blocked for [168] VandVictory (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Jorm for your opinion. NBSB - is it not true that I made FOUR separate attempts to apologize to you ON YOUR USER PAGE? All were reverted and ridiculed. Every single time I attempt to make a civilized overture I am met with scorn and contempt. Yes, I went to a community college - does that make me LESS of an editor???? I am the first man in our family to graduate from college. Yes, again, I am PROUD of that fact. Even if I could have gotten into to U Penn, I would not have been able to afford the tuition, but the point is this is all window dressing and distraction. There is NO" Chewbacka defense". I have been ridiculed regularly both on-wiki and more importantly OFF WIKI [169].
    My final request is this - find someone who is vehemently ANTI gamergate and ask them if ANY of my edits EVER have been in bad faith. Ask them! I trust my fellow editors will tell the truth. Yes, we have had robust discussions, but they never denegrated to hatred until NBSB waded into the fray. Marcos12 (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between other editors showing patience and your behavior being acceptable. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ian, I TOTALLY agree about this one, except that you are missing the fact that I IMMEDIATELY self-reverted literally 3 seconds later. It was done in frustration. I agreed to walk away from GG and I DID. Blocking me from all these other topics makes no sense man! I've been above-board the whole time, albeit my opinions go against the mainstream. Can I humbly ask for a week long block and then let me come back as a full user??? Marcos12 (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the purpose of blocks is prevention, not punishment. You've demonstrated little interest in anything except pushing a chauvinist POV, and a week long block would not fix that. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simom223: Simom, please, did you read the BOLD PRINT disclaimer I made at the bottom of the edit. I was very clear my statements did not refer to anyone in particular and that they were fiction. Also, did you see the off-wiki collaboration where I have been threatened, doxed, ridiculed, and accused of abuse?? http://sealionsofwikipedia.com/?p=335 Marcos12 (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    May I make one humble request? May I be allowed to resign? Marcos12 (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no such thing as resignation here. You could have stopped editing at any point, but you didn't. Even if you quit now, I still support a block of your account so you can't just waltz back here once you think we've forgotten about you. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For God's sake then PLEASE block me for a few weeks rather than indefinitely. PLEASE. Marcos12 (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A new diff. Refactoring NBSB comment. — Strongjam (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongjam, I can't stop other people from EDITING MY TALK PAGE. Marcos12 (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That wouldn't be a problem if you weren't a chauvinist troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Ok, that means obvious troll is obvious. I think we've got a clear consensus to indefinitely block Marcos12. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Resignation per se is always possible. You can put up a retired banner on your page. My view is that indef blocks and bans should be a last resort. That said there is no doubt that marcos has crossed the line and we need to address this. To which end I...

    ...support a 30 day block with a warning to stay clear of subjects that are likely to provoke intemperate responses and a very clear further warning that if this subject has to be revisited ever again, that he will be blocked indefinitely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)I'd be more open to that if he had demonstrated any interests outside of Gamergate and Violet Blue, or if his edits there weren't full of serious POV problems; and if he hadn't engaged in this sort of behavior after this thread started. The begging sounds like every other troll I've heard in the past who does that to lull us into thinking they won't come back under that account (and others) right.
    As it is, since he's been of little (if any) use to the site, and his behavior since this thread started indicates either trolling or terminal WP:CIR issues. Support block, preferably indefinite. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of this diff, I strongly support indefinite block. Already showed to have a bad attitude, the user deliberately vandalise while this discussion is ongoing, and then even have the nerve to come up with this [171]. The user is clearly not here to build a Wikipedia, and the last diff shows that the user has no intention of being honest with us. If there's a finite ban, I'd suggest six months.Jeppiz (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeppiz: Your second link should be this [172] I think. — Strongjam (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Strongjam: Of course, thanks for spotting it! Now corrected.Jeppiz (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, tusks, tusks, everywhere. Hear me out, I Oppose any sanctions if the user is genuinely sorry for their previous actions and promises they will not repeat their actions. From what I hear, the user is genuinely sorry for their actions, and they have stated they will make constructive edits if they are not blocked. Remember, Sanctions are preventive, not punitive. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Given the ArbCom's recent re-affirmation that they want their sanctions applied ridiculously broadly, and that NBSB has been widely covered in the sources as someone being targeted by gg trolls and therefore within a broad application of the sanctions, and given Marcos12's fixation on GG topics, and given that Marcos12 JUST GOT BACK from a gg related block, the "genuinely sorry" seems not applicable - a strong application of the tools available for minimizing disruption should be applied. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where was NBSB covered in the sources? Just curious. Other than that, I am going to go the fuck away, as I feel I have just done something horribly wrong. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unexplained blanking and original research

    IP user User:123.100.149.51 (Talk) has repeatedly made edits of unexplained blanking and original research with an apparent right-wing viewpoint over a period of several months in at least the following recent examples:

    10 February: Unexplained blanking: Christianity and politics (diff here)

    10 February: Unexplained blanking: Jehovah's Witnesses and governments (diff here)

    March 22: Original research: Christian right (diff here) Then repeated same edits after being reverted: (diff here)

    March 26: Unexplained blanking and Original research: Capitalism (diff here)

    March 26: Unexplained removal of image: Organized crime (diff here) Then original research: (diff here) Then unexplained removal of category: (diff here)

    The IP user has repeatedly ignored warnings posted to their talk page after each of these cases; then they blank their talk page after each warning (see their Talk page history), causing editors who provide further warnings to usually make only a level 1 warning. Let me know if I can do anything more to help. Prhartcom (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried to actually discuss the matter by actually writing a personalized, targeted message that explains the issues in detail? Templated warnings are basically useless in communicating with users, which is why they are ignored. If you want someone to change their behavior, being personal with them, and showing a willingness to ask about and listen to their explanations for their motivations is a good way to do so. Slapping a templated warning on a talk page does not cause changes of behavior. --Jayron32 19:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank-you for your suggestion. Yes, I had placed a personalized, targeted message today, the same day as this report. Perhaps we should wait a day or so to see if the IP editor responds to it, per your suggestion. I am uninvolved otherwise; I simply noticed that I had warned this user before and then noticed others had been warning them also, then saw the the pattern of ignored warnings and the continued POV-pushing behavior. I have been going through their edits and see several other similar POV edits that others reverted but did not warn. Prhartcom (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP's first warning was by Cluebot on March 8th last year. About 11 editors have left further warnings. Looking at the talk page blankings, most if not all would have encountered an empty talk page. I blocked the IP last May with the message ":Ignored warnings. Deletion and changing sourced text at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 May 24[173] shows this editor has some sort of agenda. I'm not arguing against it, but these sorts of edits don't belong here." Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Latest IAC meatpuppet

    User blocked for 31 hours(?) for WP:Disruptive editing by Favonian. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    122.162.28.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --NeilN talk to me 20:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealt with by User:Nakon. Might be worth revoking tp access if its anything like the rest of them. Amortias (T)(C) 20:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Alleasynet

    No need to revoke talk page access as no edits have been made since block. Sam Walton (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Abuse of talk page after block. Please revoke talk page access. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh... I can't see any edits made to the talk page after the block was put in place, the only edit I can see is the one before the block. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No edits after the one you reverted, just my block notice. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal Attacks by Poeticbent

    I appreciate that Admins are busy people and this is not a case if disruptive editing rather of personal attack, but to save an admin time Poeticbent continues the attack below, writing

    "In a frenzy of manipulations and lies he also vehemently objects to having a stake in the sales of this publication."

    I could just ignore this and hope it goes away but surely there is supposed to be civility on Wikipedia.Sceptic1954 (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are other specific instances where he implies that I and another editor may have COI

    Poeticbent’s insinuations

    [[174]]

    To Lightshow. If you happen to have a wp:conflict of interest, please state it upfront,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Man_who_Broke_into_Auschwitz#Edit_war

    To me. I would like to encourage editors with possible interest in improving the online sales of this book, based on our Wikipedia article, to please reveal your identity, and refrain from any further revisions to this entry with the aim of silencing dissent and independent critical thought. Thank you,

    Edit summary when reverting my edit on this article 26th March

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Man_who_Broke_into_Auschwitz&action=history

    (removal of sourced info based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, possibleWP:COI → back to referenced wp:lede)

    I don’t think he should make such insinuations without very good evidence. He provides none. The article concerns a book ‘The Man who Broke into Auschwitz’. written by a living person Denis Avey. We are both trying to ensure that the lead sentence is conservatively written, that is all. I can’t think that Lightshow has any connection with the publishers, I certainly don’t. Poeticbent needs to be at very least warned about his behaviour Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please would someone review the behaviour of Poeticbent on his/her edits today on 'The Man who Broke into Auschwitz' and his talk page. It is very strange. He has got it into his head that I have a COI, reverts edits without discussing on talkpage even though when requested to do so, and rather rudely deleted my comment on his talk page re his allegations of COI. Perhaps a warning rather than a block would be appropriate. Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Diffs? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, you neglected to notify Poeticbent of this discussion, but I did that for you. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I did notify him on his talk [ape] page, he removed the notification.Sceptic1954 (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Found it now. My apologies. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a frivolous report by a user who is up to his neck in WP:POV, deleting reliable sources based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In a frenzy of manipulations and lies he also vehemently objects to having a stake in the sales of this publication. Nevertheless, you can see him making a Freudian slip at least once, and admitting to the following when the truth about the fabrication was discovered and made public in England first (quote): "we are likely to get a retraction"... "We"? What "we"? Poeticbent talk 04:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: There's only one thing I can add to this unprecedented wave of new attacks and refactoring of all posts by User:Sceptic1954. He's been fighting tooth-and-nail since 25 September 2012 to have all references removed pointing out to the fact that the Auschwitz superhero story, fabricated in England, was refuted by Auschwitz Museum director already, on top of the leading Jewish organizations around the world. Poeticbent talk 13:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)    [reply]

    Even after I raise the matter here Poetic bent continues his insinuation that I am COI despite me doing my level best to put him right. "We" simply means the general public, perhaps in particular, as I am a British citizen, the British public. It's now got to the stage where I think he should be blocked for a while for making a personal attack. Sceptic1954 (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, this looks like another example of a seemingly evidence-less COI accusation being used as a WP:Stick in a content dispute. I request a warning +/- a short block on @Poeticbent:. Geogene (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Diffs showing this is a repeating dynamic in a content dispute: [175], [176], [177]. Geogene (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC) it' not even evidence less it in fact I'd contradicted by the evidence if Poeticbent were to examine my record on this and the Denis Avey page. That's the strange thing. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    CLOSED
    User page deleted under U5 by FreeRangeFrog. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This may be minor, but User:MitchOssimPants' user page says "...or you will be sued". An IP blanked/modified the page twice, and I reverted it with huggle until I saw it was a threat. This is from three years ago, I don't know the statue of limitations of the matter. Kharkiv07Talk 23:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted the page as WP:CSD#U5 and left a message on their talk page. Apparently the account was created merely to stake a claim to the name, which is problematic enough if they're not otherwise editing, plus the legal threat was just too much. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wikipedia:Rita Sullivan

    RESOLVED
    Situation sorted with article Rita Sullivan (of the venerable Coronation Street) by EurekaLott. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, Can someone with a mop move this back to Rita Sullivan. I think i've tagged all the other unnessecary redirects but i cant move it back. Amortias (T)(C) 23:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:86.145.107.226

    USER BLOCKED
    IP user blocked for 31 hours for Edit warring by Jayron32. All editors are reminded that WP:ANEW (and also WP:AIV) are the preferred forums for filing reports on Edit warring (and Vandalism, respectively). (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please block 86.145.107.226 (talk · contribs) whom I met edit warring on Promised land and according to his talkpage is involved in numerous other edit wars. His most recent edits seem to be the useless additions of spaces. Debresser (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. In the future, please use WP:ANEW for reports like this. --Jayron32 01:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Archival of Deleted Material

    I left this open for a while to allow comments and criticisms, and these were duly received. We're now moving away from especially useful additions, so closing this thread as the "incident" that generated it is resolved. Am happy to continue discussion if required, preferably on my talk page or somewhere like DRN. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello. Editor DHeyward (talk · contribs) recently created a page he used to store diffs of people he believed were hounding or otherwise attacking him. This came under discussion for deletion as a potential WP:ATTACKPAGE. While this discussion was ongoing, DHeyward blanked the page and then requested that it be deleted, which it was. However, he has archived the page here. Despite polite requests from myself and an attempt by Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) to remove this material, he has edited to preserve it. I would request that the material be deleted. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I archived what I no longer needed and didn't need wikidrama on a separate page so the page was deleted at my request. There is nothing negative and there is nothing unsourced and no policy violations. I would hope that PeterTheFourth (who argued at deletion that it should be kept, which is quite the opposite of claiming it's an attack page here - it can't magically become an attack page through archiving). PeterTheFourth needs to stop hounding me around Wikipedia. I don't know what his issue is. --DHeyward (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I stated that it should be kept if it were to be used in dispute resolutions, per policy (WP:POLEMIC). Apparently you weren't aiming to use it in dispute resolution, so I don't believe this material should be stored on Wikipedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POLEMIC isn't a policy. And since you brought it to ANI, it's now DR. Congrats. How petty a request.--DHeyward (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear. How should I refer to WP:User_pages and its contents? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    From his first edits he is an obvious GamerGate SPA (WP:DUCK) well aware of WP editing. As long as he was editing GamerGate articles, a SPA might be appropriate. Since then he has branched out to articles that I have edited [178] as well as admin space and arbcom space. I'd prefer he use his primary account if he is going to continue to WIKIHOUND me all these drama areas. His branching from GamerGate is a violation of our multiple-account polices. --DHeyward (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe just recreate the page and add PeterTheFourth to it since if anybody is, they are hounding and attacking you.--MONGO 03:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If DHeyward blanked the page User talk:DHeyward/My Fan Club after archiving its contents in his Archive 7, while the page was a subject of an active discussion at MfD, that's a pretty good example of WP:Gaming the system. BMK (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I requested to speedy delete a page in my own user space to end pointless drama. MfD actually says you shouldn't have even brought it for deletion but I did you a favor[179]. There's nothing wrong with the content. It's diffs. I can post them here if you like, but I'd rather let them archive away. I could put it on my main talk page or any admins talk page to ask for input too. I had hoped the hounding had stopped. --DHeyward (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The subpage was not deleted as an attack, but as a user request. However, had that request not brought the discussion to a close I would have deleted the page in any case as the definition of WP:ATP: "...keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody." DR issues need to be raised in a timely way, or the material stored off-wiki. Not the end of the world either way, but have deleted the material from the archive - in effect what would have occurred had the user requested deletion not proceeded. Happy to email a copy across if/when the stated DR process is due to begin. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What part about the page being a week old did you miss? Diffs showing attacks and snide comments against DHeyward are not attack pages!--MONGO 05:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Euryalus And MONGO's point is why it was failing at MfD. It was neither a list of enemies nor a list of everything bad. It was diffs of Wikihounding just in the last week. I can make it an RfC on my talk page if the diffs are examples of wikihounding. Why are you tolerating a WP:DUCK troll whose first edit was to GamerGate arbcom and only topic being GamerGate continue to stalk and harass me? --DHeyward (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well....it's not hounding until he files a sockpuppet claim against you to compliment his stupid AE complaint and this latest escapade and article stalking he did.--MONGO 06:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd like to start a dispute resolution process (or an SPI) against any or all of the people in your list, please do so. It's been ten days since you started compiling the list - not an infinite period but not a particularly short one either. To avoid falling foul of ATP, I suggest if you are compiling a DR case you maintain your diff list off-wiki until its ready. And per the above - its not the end of the world either way, but people on "the list" do have policy backing in asking that it be removed and it doesn't seem like much to ask. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe DHeyward was going to do that. I had a page onsite for two months linking diffs to prepare for an arbcom case...now if he wanted to take that to DR he has to start all over. There are users that have had links up to diffs of comments made by those they disagree with for years.--MONGO 06:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Euryalus Help! I've been attacked on a user page for over four years! [180]--MONGO 07:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Umm... isn't WP:MFD the place for this? If the page in question was deleted because the user requested it, then it doesn't necessarily count as a "consensus", and he/she is free to restore it at his/her will. I'm not saying the page shouldn't be deleted (haven't looked into it enough either way), but I don't think this is the right forum for this request. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Euryalus revdeled it before saying I should save it offsite or before anyone discussed it. Had I let it complete, the consensus was "keep" as there is no specific time limit and it's reasonable to keep diffs of harassing and wikistalking for DR. And as we are at ANI, the harassment continues. --DHeyward (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As above, if you need a copy of these diffs for an imminent DR matter please let me know and I'll send you an email of the deleted material. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Euryalus: Sorry, missed that. Yes, please email a copy of the deleted page. --DHeyward (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    DHeyward, your definition of harassment is so broad that even me just pointing out here that you have a broad definition of harassment constitutes, in your eyes, harassment (even though it is not a threat, an intimidation or a personal attack). If you still had your list, I'm sure this is a diff that would be added to it. Considering that your enemies list could serve to intimidate other editors, it could constitute harassment (see WP:HARASS). Enough, let's move on and return to editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for commenting. I'm sure you thought it was helpful. --DHeyward (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Where is this user copy/pasting this from?

    User:Apismell2015 is copy/pasting information into the European dark bee article [181] given the way it has clear attempts at in-line citation and speaks from the point of view "we" ("We have information also about the large populations of this bee in the Altai Region of the Republic of Udmurtia."), however, my Google-fu can't find it. How should I handle this? [182] --DawnDusk (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me add that now WP:3RR should be fully enforced (him reverting both myself and ClueBot, God bless), and that I've left several messages on the man's talk page before this, but he's bent on making edits to this article with no summary whatsoever. Judging by the username and style, he's definitely an eastern poster; I have a bit of experience with them already [183] so don't think I'm ignorant here... DawnDusk (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you'll find they are one of the authors from the sources they cite. If 3RR is exceeded report at AN3. Flat Out let's discuss it 07:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    From the username (Apis mellifera?), it seems like this is probably an SPA. I agree that the user is probably a researcher citing his or her own work, which would probably make this person a Russian scientist – but who knows. The lack of communication, poor formatting, and undue weight on Russian history are all problematic, but I don't see any evidence that this is a copyright violation. It's a pain to deal with these kinds of situations because you can never truly know what's going on. You could try DRN if you think the additions are undue weight. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IP Range 62.128.211.2XX

    Over the last week, this IP range has been following me around randomly undoing my edits on unconnected articles i.e. just to be annoying with no other apparent reason for the revert. It's happened on three IPs in the same dynamic range (see history on each of the above - undoing my edits is pretty much all that's in the contribs). It's obviously someone socking who I upset at some point. It's quite trivial but it is annoying. Any suggestions on what can be done? (It's a dynamic IP so only notified last one) DeCausa (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The range (62.128.211.192/26) is tiny, with only 64 IP addresses, but even so there's unrelated edits coming from the range. Not inclined to do a range block. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok - I guess I'll just have to put up with it. DeCausa (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    CANVASS by User:Green_Cardamom

    User:Green Cardamom has been convassed here by User:Mhhossein to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Woman's War: Da (Mother). After that, Green Cardamom did a personal attack, he has several edits unrelated to the AfD and makes it digress. But this is not the end of story, recently he made another edit completely irrelevant to the AfD and repeated it in 3 other AfDs: [184][185][186][187]. These edits are another convassing and a kind of disrupting the AfDs. Please tell me if I am wrong. Thanks ●Mehran Debate● 11:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I never asked User:Green Cardamom to support me at the AFD. In fact it was an appropriate notification. He seemed expert to me in this field and he had participated closely related topics in previous discussions. By the way, Mehran's serial AFD nominations of my articles also seems odd to me. After 50 days of absence in English Wikipedia, he began nominating my articles just after I had opposed in one of the discussions in Farsi project (where he is an admin). His Clumsy nominations makes me even more doubtful; One may refer to those AFD pages and follow the discussions to get my point. Mhhossein (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @

    This is the first time I see this user and I really do not understand what is the relationship between the above link and me. The link is really not my concern, this is another personal attack to me, the user tries to relate all the things together and make them personal. This is my right to nominate every article I feel is not proper for Wikipedia, that is why you can see there are lots of discussion about them in the AfDs. Such edits make the users disappointed from editing in Wikipedia, I would like to wait for an admin here. ●Mehran Debate● 12:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) The "personal attack" to which the OP refers appears to be an expression of suspicion of off-wiki canvassing, sockpuppetry, or something to that effect. The OP posted several times on the AFD between this supposed "personal attack" (which followed the "canvassing") and opening this thread. Clearly this is just a user who is angry that their AFD isn't going the way they want. I'd say close this thread, and I'd strongly advice User:Mehran to agree with me on this point lest their be a WP:BOOMERANG headed their way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I also find the "personal attack" not to be one. It appears to be questioning why something appears to be happening and not an attack. I also think a boomerang may be appropriate. AlbinoFerret 14:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First we are talking about a convassing here and second personal attack. ●Mehran Debate● 14:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the canvasing, its a pretty neutral post to an expert on the topic. That they participated in some discussions on the topic also negates the canvasing. Its just one person, if they had notified multiple people and only those that they knew would side with them, that would be canvassing. But in this case it doesnt appear to be the case when the edit is looked at is looked at in view of the specific requirements of canvassing and what is allowed and negates it. AlbinoFerret 15:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You can now see the result of this canvassing in the mentioned AfDs, some users came to the AfDs simultaneously and wrote on them. I still wait for an admin here. ●Mehran Debate● 13:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry. Missed that. Cardamon posted the same, perfectly reasonable, critique of your strange practice on all of the relevant forums. "Canvassing" can only have taken place if the person doing the canvassing was anticipating specific support for their position on the AFD. But none of the above diffs show Cardamon !voting in favour of keeping the pages. If you are trying to get Cardamon blocked in order to prevent him/her from revealing you have been hounding another user, then posting on ANI was the worst idea you could have possibly had. If you believe that you have not been the hounder but the houndee, then please specify that. Your canvassing accusation is clearly bogus. The wording of the "canvassing" message was fairly neutral all things considered. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, your statements are not neutral. I posted here to talk with an admin and will explain everything required for him, so please do not digress my edits with your theories. ●Mehran Debate● 13:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's obvious Mhossein has been hounded for a while now for his religious and political beliefs ("degenerate religious thinking"). Now the articles he created are being systematically targeted for deletion. Clearly there is a wider battleground spillover and it's sucking in myself and other editors. I worked with Mhhossein on some of these articles in the past and found him to be courteous and professional. I have never encountered Mehran before this (that I know of). In terms of the canvassing allegations others have addressed that (thank you), but I'd be happy to respond if requested by an admin. -- GreenC 15:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Fawiki RfA overspill

    This AfD has very obviously become a battleground for a fawiki RfA dispute, on the nomination of Sahehco User:Mehran, and User:Ladsgroup, both of whom support Sahehco's nomination, voted to delete an article by Mhossein who opposed the nomination (Mehran also nominated all other articles Mhossein has created for deletion, and Ladsgroup had voted to delete "per nom" on all of these AfDs). Meanwhile User:Sa.vakilian who opposed the nomination, voted to keep the article created by his fellow opposer. I know this is an extreme accusation to make, but there is no way the votes can line up like this merely from coincidence. Bosstopher (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This was an Iranian-related AfD and it is not strange to see Fawiki users. Anyway your theory was cool! ●Mehran Debate● 13:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the compliments on my theory. I dont think this is merely an everday occurrence of fawiki editors commenting on AfDs however. Prior to the Mhosseins AfD's, Ladsgroup had not commented on an AfD since 23rd of August, and Seyyed had not commented on an AfD since 18th July. You yourself, had not edited enwiki since 5 February, before returning to nominate Mhossein's articles for deletion. Regardless of actual motives, this comes across incredibly fishy. Bosstopher (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to reply you, someone (or more) here disobeyed the policies and I am waiting for an admin to comment. ●Mehran Debate● 14:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment)I have not had any contact with @User:Green Cardamom and do not know him. @Bosstopher made an strange claim about my vote. My vote does not relate to Persian wikipedia at all and he should provide evidence for his claim. @Mhhossein is my friend. He found me in English wikipedia about one years ago and asked me to help him learn wikipedia guidelines and policies. In my view he is a professional editor. Finally, I hope @Mehran's serial AfDs does not relate to the matters of Persian wikipedia. I do not endorse his action to follow a user and nominate the articles made by him for deletion, however, I do not want to accuse him. I just vote for one of the AfDs, which is deserved to keep based on wiki policies and guidelines, and I have neutral view in the other cases . --Seyyed(t-c) 15:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Several articles of Mhossein were subjects of AfD in fa.wp before Saheco's RfA. All articles of this user regardless of Wiki is highly related to Iranian government propaganda. We also blocked lots of users with similar behavior (fa:ویژه:سیاهه‌ها/block/Ladsgroup) due to WP:SOCK they are blocked also in Wikimedia Commons, it's strange that these users have exact same views and classic tag teaming regardless of Wiki. It's not unreasonable to think of undisclosed paid editing or at least volunteer organized work :)Ladsgroupoverleg 18:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • (Non-administrator comment) Comment and Disclaimer - For the record, and since I was/am involved in the AFD discussions being considered here, I have absolutely no Conflict of Interest here and do not know any of the other parties involved beyond this current conversation. I see what looks like to me serious systematic AFDs by several accounts targeting one editor's articles. Beyond that my interest is solely in the AFD process and notability, underrepresented voices, and not the content of this particular set of articles. HullIntegrity\ talk / 19:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment)@Ladsgroup: Mhossein's block log in Persian wikipedia[188] and commons[189] are completely clean. Your false reasoning about WP:SOCK mislead the readers. You are an admin and bureaucrat in Persian wikipedia. So, try to provide facts before accusing and blaming the others. Certainly, You had blocked him there, if there had been any proof against him. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sa.vakilian: I never claimed this user is a sockpuppet master. As I said it's a classic tag teaming case and people don't get blocked because of tag and that's why the block log is clean. :)Ladsgroupoverleg 04:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ladsgroup: Sorry for the delay, Could you please make more explanations on the following points:
    • You said that several articles of me had been subjects of AfD in fa.wp before Saheco's RfA. This is while I have created no article in fa.wp. What do you mean? could you please clarify your point and name those mentioned articles?
    • Could you please explain what you mean by "classic tag teaming"?
    • Is there any reasonable reasons behind your accusations? I would like you to see the pattern of my edits most of which are related to military history Wikiproject. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    it's being called tag teaming. :)Ladsgroupoverleg 08:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked you some other questions, too. Btw, how do you call it tag teaming? Mhhossein (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Issue with User:Verdy P

    verdy p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Please review the user Verdy P and the way he responds to users on wikipedia, as can be seen on his Talk page. I originally inquired why a page title was changed, in addition to some of its content. He did provide a valid reason for the former, but had no valid points for why he changed the content and made it more incorrect. I tried to explain this to him, but he instead chose to insist that he is correct, despite being proven wrong with facts, and continued to respond with arrogance, and then rudeness. As you can see in his latest reply on the issue, he proceeds to use inflammatory words and declares that he will delete any further replies from me, which he did.

    I don't think this is the attitude that regular wikipedia editors should be displaying; it also should not be tolerated because he can easily just continue with these questionable edits and dismiss everyone who tries to correct him.70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @70.51.38.110: You must notify users when you start a discussion about them on this noticeboard. I have taken care of that for you. Ivanvector (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. His response was heavy handed and haughty KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 16:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please clarify—which response was heavy handed and haughty? Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw some of the discussion (User talk:Verdy p has been on my watchlist since April 2013 when Verdy p provided some very helpful advice). The IP is completely misguided—we are volunteers and expecting people to argue indefinitely on their user talk page is very unreasonable. Verdy gave several detailed explanations (the section is now 1950 words), and the fact the IP does not like the replies does not entitle them to waste even more volunteer time at ANI. In general, if an editor thinks a page title is not correct and they not sure how to discuss that, they should ask at WP:HELPDESK. Harassing someone on their talk page is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you are volunteers, it gives you the permission to respond to people with arrogance and call them names? Because that is what he had been doing in all of his replies. It seems to me that you did not read the entire discussion, nor did you try to understand the details of why the discussion had been prolonged. Verdy had made some changes to the content of an article, which were incorrect changes. Despite my many attempts to explain to him why those changes are incorrect, using facts and clear evidence, he continued to insist that I am the one who is wrong (again, with invalid arguments); so you are saying that I should simply agree to whatever he says, even when he's wrong. Sorry, but being a volunteer does not entitle you to treat others with a lack of respect; it does not make your words and assumptions the absolute truth and it certainly does not label others who try to fix your errors as harassers. Also, the argument would not have extended "indefinitely" had Verdy at least tried to carefully read my replies and humbly accept that he was mistaken; not wanting to admit his mistake was a bigger priority to him.70.51.38.110 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing the IP has done is harassment. You've unfortunately shown a lack of neutrality here (which is understandable, given that it's your friend). Furthermore, in addition to the harassment claim, you told the IP that he was "wasting time here at ANI." You seem to have exactly the same civility and superiority complex-toward IPs issues Verdy has. I hope that's only because you're heated about your friend being brought up here at ANI. --DawnDusk (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeatedly posting to a user's talk page is a minor form of harassment. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No it is not a form of harassment when those repeated posts are replies to the user. If I had been posting a bunch of additions without any replies and simply filling up the talk page with provoking messages, then yes, that would be harassment. Don't tell me that users aren't allowed to post replies in an attempt to correct someone, claiming that such would be a form of harassment. If it's in the clause for you volunteers to have the right to be stubborn and unwilling to accept when you're wrong, then I'm sorry for the "harassment".70.51.38.110 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The moment I saw Verdy's message that included "IP accounts like yours have very low trust among Wikipedia users, they are frequently reverted," it became clear to me that we have a WP:CIVILITY issue as well as a lack of understanding of WP:IPs are human too. Verdy has certainly tipped his hand about his bad faith towards the IP that makes anyone trying to argue that he isn't being a WP:JERK and needs to take a step back here simply wrong. If the IP can produce his sources that show 1. The North American release is the only official one. and 2. It's referred to as "C: The Contra Adventure" by the game's own manual, then he's entirely in the right. However, even if he is wrong, Verdy has handled this quite poorly. Side note: other damning comments include " like you stupidely continue to do here" and "if you want trust you DO need a personal account". --DawnDusk (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to provide sources, but you're right, his talk page isn't the place to list them. I have plenty of sources that confirm what I posted; but even if I did try to provide them at the right page, as Verdy stated, he doesn't care about the game. That, I find rather contradictory for someone who claims they are correct on a matter that pertains to the game itself.70.51.38.110 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your reading is incorrect, and Verdy is a helpful editor, not my "friend". The advice given to the IP is completely correct—anyone caring about their privacy would make an account (see MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning which is displayed to the IP every time they click edit—Verdy's advice is merely echoing that official statement, with the extra and correct observation about reactions from many editors—whether those reactions are justified or not). Please don't conflate direct language with civility. The issue of the article title is not a matter to be settled on Verdy's talk page, as Verdy explained to the IP; also see my above reference to WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but correcting him when he's wrong is a matter to be settled because otherwise, that kind of attitude will follow him with further edits he makes on Wikipedia. Please don't tell me that you would condone such conduct. That has been the biggest issue with him.70.51.38.110 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree; you're right that this conversation absolutely should not have taken place on Verdy's talkpage. That is the fault of the IP, who wouldn't know better. That being said, Verdy still handled it awfully. His first response, rather than telling the IP to go to the right page, was to engage him with a lengthy reply (which already showed him getting heated in the last sentence and didn't mention the correct venue to use). Did you honestly expect the IP not to think to reply there? It wasn't until Verdy's very last reply, where he also said he would delete any new comment the IP posted (which is totally his right to do per user talkpage policy) that he directed him to the right page. By this time, Verdy had already been extremely rude and, as others have said, heavy-handed and haughty. And no, I honestly wouldn't say I'm "conflating direct language with civility". Check out the Avoiding Incivility section of WP:CIVILITY. He was intense, unprofessional, name-called, and became condescending - those are right there in that section. Furthermore, it doesn't matter that his "advice" about creating an account was correct. It had absolutely no place in the discussion, it wasn't brought up by the IP at all, and Verdy was clearly using the fact that he was an IP to condescend to him. Second, no, it isn't true that IPs aren't to be trusted, should be discredited in discourse, or "need" accounts. Like I said, I'm quite the fan of WP:IPs are human too as well as the plenty of other WP policies about it. The bottom line is that Verdy were going to respond in the uncivil manner that he did (as well as bringing up the user's IP status as a jerky point out of nowhere multiple times), he shouldn't have engaged the IP at all. The best thing he could have done was direct him to the article's talk page right away. You're making it sound like he did and, as you said, "explained it to the IP." He didn't (until the very end, as I said). --DawnDusk (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sad to say, I might not have been able to master the patience for so much tedious explanation as Verdy p did when the IP wouldn't take no for an answer. The only problem wrt courtesy on Verdy's page that I can see is that they were a bit short with BracketBot.[190] (That's supposed to be a joke.) IP, I'm afraid you expect too much time expenditure of our volunteers. @ DawnDusk: Golly, I recommend the parable of The Mote and the Beam to you, with your attack Johnuniq's integrity here. "You've unfortunately shown a lack of neutrality here (which is understandable, given that it's your friend)", "given that he's your friend". Twice, you say it, and it's made up out of whole cloth. You're a fine one to talk about assuming bad faith. Am I to assume the IP is your friend? (To be clear, I don't suppose so for a moment.) Don't make such charges lightly, please. Bishonen | talk 10:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Yes, Verdy is not at all out of line for his inflammatory responses. Instead, it is the fault of the IP user (me) for even having a problem with that. Because Verdy is a volunteer, right?70.51.38.110 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Close? Not close?

    With reference to this proposal. I feel like it needs more votes, but it's been open most of a month already...not sure the bot's not about to archive it. ResMar 15:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like there hasn't been any substantive debate since 19 March, so keeping it open would just drag it out for no reason. I think the bot will archive it but only when it's been inactive for (is it 2 weeks?) - you could request a close at WP:AN to at least get an evaluation of the discussion. The result looks fairly clear to me but I'm neither an admin nor an experienced closer. Ivanvector (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:COMPETENCE editor

    I strongly suspect some WP:COMPETENCE issues with Mavsfan123 (talk · contribs). I have warned the user at least twice that they are putting way too little content into their articles, but six days after their last warning, they created an article as lacking in content as their previous efforts. Other articles of theirs have been nominated for deletion for similar reasons, and they removed a deletion tag at least twice. The user has been here since last July, and yet they have made no attempt whatsoever to improve their article creation (compare this edit). They have also made no attempt to communicate on talk pages. I'm tired of cleaning up this editor's half-assed attempts, and I really want to get through to them, because it's obvious they're not listening. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There's nothing in particular wrong with this user's contributions, they're just short. A quick scan of their contribs shows that many of the short articles they've created have been kept and improved by other editors, and we wouldn't have these articles if not for this user having created them (even though they're stubs). Perfection is not required. Ivanvector (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's starting again (harrassment by banned IP)

    I hope I am not premature about this, but here goes. Starting in 2009, I began to be harassed by an IP editor (under my previous username, Yworo). This continued through 2012. To make a long story short, the user behind the IPs was community banned (see User:Skyerise/IP incident record which has links to the discussions and result). The IP's MO was to revert perfectly good edits I made, or to remove legitimate sourced content from articles repeatedly, falsely claiming that the source was not reliable. So, it's started again. Here are some diffs: [191], [192]. So yeah, it's only happened once so far, but I believe I recognize this user from long past experience. Personally, I am happy to give them another chance to continue editing as long as the leave me and the articles listed on my user page alone. In any case, the IP needs additional eyes on their activities. Skyerise (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Skyerise, It is premature, you've got the wrong person/IP. If you check the records this IP 104.173.225.10 got started on October 22, 2014 and has never made an edit connected to you (until yesterday). The edit you are disputing on Appalachia Rising was from a different editor -- so it's not connected to you at all.
    In addition, I'll re-post what I wrote to you on your talk page today, I sincerely believe it because Wikipedia like our society at large should be free from any harrasement: "Skyerise, Sorry if you feel that way seriously, I'm only curious about the source of the edit from a different user on Rising Appalachia. It's not personal. I discovered this band from the edits over at Game of Thrones. It looks very interesting. I hope we can keep Wikipedia from anything that's not professional or civil-minded. It should be fun. In all sincerity, thank you for listening". 104.173.225.10 (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever you are, you don't know Wikipedia sourcing requirements and you Wikilawyer. And you've followed me from one article to another simply to revert my edits. Please read WP:BLOG - only personal self-published blogs are a no-no. A multi-contributor news source is fine. So I ask you to just stay away from me and the articles I am currently working on: I've been here for ten years and I know what I'm doing. It's clear you are retaliating for my reporting you for edit-warring on an article which I was not editing myself. Just leave me alone. Got it? Skyerise (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First I will answer your accusation(s). I edited something on Appalachia Rising from a different user today at the beginning of this discussion. How is that connected to you? The point of Wikipedia is discovery. Discovery of music, art, and culture etc. There is nothing out of the ordinary about discovering a new artist through whatever means on the site. For someone who has contributed so much to Wikipedia please, why not let others do the same? Thank you. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Skyerise: I think you may be right that this is premature, but certainly worth pointing out. Other than the WP:ANEW posting and your talk exchanges, I don't see much evidence that this IP is hounding you. It seems quite possible you've simply crossed paths with a new-ish user who doesn't understand the WP:RS guideline nor the WP:EDITWAR policy.
    • However, 104.173.225.10, having been brought to an enforcement noticeboard by a user and then showing up in an article that that user edits to revert their contributions smells bad, if you catch my meaning. Please make sure you understand our harassment policy (especially what we call wikihounding) which explicitly forbids following a user from topic to topic just to interject in their discussions and cause annoyance. Skyerise has requested that you leave her alone; you are very strongly advised to respect that. Ivanvector (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, I appreciate your expertise in this matter. Could you do me a favor and officially request that Skyerise do the same? Specifically, on the Game of Thrones page. I want to thank you all for keeping the site civil and a place where we can all reach for consensus.104.173.225.10 (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editing userspace pages

    198.102.153.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) recently edited several userspace pages of different editors, the edits don't appear to be vandalism but s/he doesn't leave any edit summaries. I reverted three of his edits which were made to users' main userpages, it seemed like the right thing to do. I tried asking but it looks like the IP doesn't like my tone. Can anyone else confirm if we have a problem here or not? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    They've started leaving edit summaries. Looks like they're chasing down and fixing broken redirects due to userboxes being migrated to user space. I don't see any problems with what they are doing. Do you have specific edits that look disruptive? --Jayron32 19:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it's most of the sandbox edits that look like a problem, people can have their own reasons for using invalid templates and whatever in their tests, also newbies can get confused when their version of their sandbox suddenly looks different and they won't know why; one user has directly complained to the IP for editing his sandbox; also it's absolutely unclear here where the IP got that content from since the template they substed didn't exist. I think he should generally stay out of sandboxes/test pages and always provide an (understandable) explanation when editing others' userpages. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Checkuser and Oversight appointments 2015: Voting on the candidates

    Following community consultation, the Arbitration Committee is now voting on appointments to the Checkuser and Oversight roles at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Comments are welcomed at that page.

    For the Arbitration Committee;

    Courcelles (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    92.41.108.109 harassment

    USER BLOCKED
    IP user blocked for 2 weeks for User page Trolling by Bishonen. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    92.41.108.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) harasses me on my talk and user page. Sjö (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a mobile IP, so perphaps WP:RFPP would be effective. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the IP. Would you like your pages semi'd as well, Sjö? Bishonen | talk 20:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    No, but thanks. Seems like he/she has stopped now. Sjö (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mass genre changes

    @Masterclopedia2015: has been changing music genres, without any references, or even edit summaries, to their liking [193], [194] and [195] Wednesday and again today, [196] this is causing a lot of un-necessary work for editors who monitor music articles. Maybe a short block will get their attention. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The three examples cited here strike me as examples of making shit up... This is an editor that needs to be watched closely. Calling Metallica "groove metal" and coining the subgenre "progressive pop punk" (sic.) from whole cloth are very concerning. Carrite (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor is clearly willing to engaged in an edit war on a number of articles:
    Because of this and the unwillingness to discuss the widespread genre changes, I suggest that Masterclopedia2015 (talk · contribs) be blocked for 72 hours with progressively lengthier blocks if the disruptive behavior continues. —Farix (t | c) 12:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that a short block is necessary to stop the disruption and get the user to communicate. - MrX 13:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how helpful it will be, but I left a message explaining the situation to him. Maybe wait to see what happens now. If he keeps messing with genres, I think a block would be warranted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked Masterclopedia2015 for 72 hours for disruptive editing. He has been pinged and informed about this discussion, ignored it and continued to edit without involving himself in the sort of discussions and collegial editing we expect for all of us, really. Nick (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    David Tornheim's behavior, redux

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

    David Tornheim, just over a week ago, was warned to stop campaigning just a bit over a week ago, with Drmies writing a close that "There is also some agreement that Tornheim seems to regard Wikipedia as a battleground where there's always a pro and a con side, and partisanship rules.".

    Since then David has continued campaigning, even in this thread:

    Since he has completely blown off the warning, please provide a 24 hour block, per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. David is making it more and more clear that he is WP:NOTHERE so I will not oppose an indef, but all I am asking for is a 24 hour block. Thanks.

    I am sorry to keep cluttering up this board, but these personal attacks of corruption and COI are not OK. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC) (note, fixed dif per note below. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    This is what we mean with WP:CIR. just bizarre. Jytdog (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks, i fixed it. sorry. god i sick of this drama. i have articles i want to work on. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC) (note - made this a separate new incident. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    David's behavior has nothing to do with DePiep's. David is responsible for what he does. This belongs in its own section, and so i moved it back. too much drama. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jytdog, I'm surprised to see you seek sanctions for posts like this, given your interactions recently with DrChrissy. You were cursing at her with practically every post at one point, but no one reported you (and I'm glad they didn't, because it meant that it eventually stopped without fuss). Shouldn't you extend a similar attitude to others? Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    drchrissy is a guy, for what its worth. you really cannot sort out a personal attack from someone fucking cursing in frustration? And in any case, if you want to bring a case against me for that, please do so. This thread is about David's behavior. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, even to a casual observer, you bring an awful lot of cases to WP:ANI. You seem to be involved in a lot of confrontational encounters. Again, just an observation. And you failed to notify the editor about bringing this case to ANI. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz this has been a really crappy couple of weeks, i grant you that. i work on controversial subject matter and in general manage to keep things calm enough that we don't end up here; david's campaigning has been stirring the pot for sure. Depiep's thing was random. and i apologize for not giving notice to David. doing that now. thanks for the reminder. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its been more than a crappy week. You have 563 edits to this page, in only two article do you have more. That is an amazing number for someone who has a bad week. AlbinoFerret 12:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: this thread is about David Tornheim's behavior. It is what it is. Each editor in Wikipedia is responsible for his or her behavior. Period. David is hounding me with personal attacks across WP; this is a violation of WP:CAMPAIGNING. He has been warned, and persisted. Please give him a block per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At WP:RSN David Tornheim has:
    For those not in the know, Reiki is a form of "Energy medicine" where the "healer" can "cure" Peptic ulcers, Anemia, Nephritis, Measles, and Ty-fucking-phoid through energies that science says do not exist, across time and space. No WP:MEDRSs were ever presented in support of Reiki, despite repeated requests for them. To argue in defense of Reiki the way Tornheim has requires at least one of the following: gross incompetence, a personal crusade on behalf of WP:Lunatic charlatans, or Reiki-based profits. Given his other behavior, I think that a topic-ban may be in order, probably against all topics relating to health sciences (which would definitely cover GMOs, Glyphosate, Reiki, and Genetic engineering). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ^I will address misrepresentations made above. Please give me time to respond. I am not an advocate for Reiki. And I am definitely no advocate (and have little respect) for "quack" or "snake oil" medicine that deceives patients with false promises or pseudo-scientific claims. My discussion at the RS forum about Reiki had to do with appropriate use of RS, which was being misapplied and against policy and included the use of circular, contradictory logic. Please note that I have never edited the Reiki article or talk page. Nor have I edited any article or talk page related to Alternative Medicine or mainstream Western Medicine as far as I can remember. I don't think GMO food is medicine, is it? David Tornheim (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You kept citing a Reiki website in place of a WP:MEDRS, and made arguments that went against the source you cited and arguments that demonstrated you had not read anything about Reiki (except pro-Reiki sources), to try and keep Reiki (which is basically healing by praying to the Force) away from WP:FRINGE and open the door to presenting it as a legitimate "healing" distinct from "western" medicine. If WP:COI is not at play here, then WP:CIR or WP:RGW definitely is. The topic ban is necessary because either you like to argue in defense of quackery out of either gullible ignorance or actual belief. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ian.thomson says "Reiki (which is basically healing by praying to the Force)". This is incorrect. I have read numerous sources on Reiki and NONE of them (including the current wiki article Reiki)), even the skeptics, say that it relies primarily on praying--all of them say Reiki is about touch and many say it is more like massage. (Yes, it does use Qi). Ian.thomson is clearly confused about Reiki, and now is trying to ban me for pointing out his/her confusions like these about Reiki.
    I do regret I tried to help the people at that forum understand the major differences between Eastern Practices viz-a-viz Western Medicine which are entirely different systems. Obviously, a waste of time. I should have focused only on the RS issue. Although that seems like a waste of time too which is why I have not said anything on that forum for a few days. David Tornheim (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone with a passing acquaintance with reiki will know practitioners claim it can be used at distance (in that respect it is like prayer or Christian Science healing). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't object to the Star Wars reference? The indication that I was clearly making a joking comparison? Please read the article on metaphors. If you've read plenty of sources on Reiki, and you're capable of tutoring students on physics, then you should have known better it was essentially magical in nature. It isn't an east vs west thing, it is a science vs pseudoscience thing. Reiki makes scientifically testable claims, but provides no evidence. As I said at RSN, its western parallel is not "western" medicine, Reiki's western twin would be something like Radionics or crystal healing.
    I I totally get and appreciate respect for other cultures, but that respect does not require gullibility. If someone makes a scientifically testable claim, we demand evidence in proportion to those claims]. If they do not present it, we treat their claims as WP:FRINGE. It's that simple.
    And how have you read numerous sources on Reiki, but somehow supposedly don't have an opinion on it one way or another? Either you're a stealth advocate, or you're in denial about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • couple of links to comments from david with comments in reply from some admins:
      • dif (see especially comments at the end of that thread)
      • dif

    Per those comments there, WP:CIR is at play here. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ^Now he is going here saying I am "incompetent". The criticism from Jytdog just never ends! David Tornheim (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    yep, and you are proving the case with almost every post you make here. See WP:HOLE Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - to Ian.thomson - calling for a topic ban based on subject-related comments on the RSN is bizarre, particularly given that David states he never edited the Reiki article. While the Reiki article should certainly avoid overweighing fringe viewpoints, the notion of undue weight does not apply to talk page and discussion board comments, and these are reasonable places to bring up non-mainstream viewpoints and discuss how they relate to wikipedia.Dialectric (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I attempt to apply WP:UNDUE to RSN? On undue weight, however, Tornheim's actions at RSN would have had the effect of allowing undue weight on fringe viewpoints in the article. "These sources are reliable information on Reiki from the perspective of the practitioner" would have been a fine argument and relevant to the discussion -- but his actions there specifically pushed the idea that Reiki should not be treated as a fringe pseudoscience because pro-Reiki authors do not characterize it that way. By that standard, there is no such thing as pseudoscience.
    His other actions have resulted in arguments at GMOs, Glyphosate, and Genetic engineering, and Jytdog has come to ANI and other places because of Tornheim's actions there. Those other actions, in the light of his behavior at RSN, demonstrates serious problems with either WP:CIR or WP:ADVOCACY (via mostly WP:Civil POV pushing) when it comes to health sciences. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You raised WP:FRINGE in your initial comment, which is closely related to WP:UNDUE. Showing interest in a fringe or minority viewpoint is not in itself a bannable offense. Do you have diffs showing clear disruptive behavior?Dialectric (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At what point did I say that he should be banned for simply showing interest? Having overhauled the Lesser Key of Solomon, I have to say there's nothing wrong with interest. What I have already linked to shows a POV-problem.
    As for Tornheim's behavior, see the previous ANI thread, which was closed with the comment "There is a measure of agreement that David Tornheim's editing is problematic; individual edits (such as this one, cited by a number of editors) are incredibly problematic and the removal of them is warranted by all kinds of policies." Tornheim edit warred to keep that edit in, and has previously canvassed to change articles relating to GMOs to suit his POV. He also encouraged others to edit war to support his POV.
    Has Jytdog been perfect in his interactions? No, but even in isolation, Tornheim and science do not mix. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would really appreciate your striking out the ad hominem that questions my competence in Science. I happen to have a Bachelors in Electrical Engineering (from University of Cincinnati) Magna Cum Lum Laude, where I excelled in numerous college level science classes, and a Masters of Electrical Engineering from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles (U.S.C.) and was top in my high school class in math and science. I also have tutored students in math, including advanced Calculus and Statistics, as well as Physics. So I would really appreciate your striking out the ad hominem allegations that I do not know much about Science. -David Tornheim (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nice. Then you should have known better to try and give equal validity to Reiki. But wait, you've also read numerous sources on it, and all of them pro-Reiki. You may be in denial about it, and pretend that you just don't know, but your behavior screams that you believe in it and advocate it's use to others. Believe what you want, but it's unacceptable to try to reshape Wikipedia to fit those beliefs when they conflict with science. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The two problematic edits you spoke of were already raised in the closed AN/I. Why are you raising them again? Is there no Double Jeopardy on Wikipedia? As for the edit in question (dated 18:40, 2 March 2015) mentioned in the closing comments, that issue was resolved less than two hours later here (dated 20:32, 2 March 2015) and again here (dated 21:35, 2 March 2015). I relinquished all interest in the material, as soon as those who had done the reverts (mostly Jytdog) explained on the talk page here (dated 19:52, 2 March 2015) (rather than in vague edit summary here) why he believed a normally reliable source like the BBC had made a very serious mistake in its reporting. His explanation on the talk page made sense, I accepted it without further comment--so I thought--that would be the end of it. But it seems never to go away. I saw I made a mistake and never showed the least interest in adding the problematic material again. Yet this edit which I have long divorced myself from apparently I am still married to? Where do I get a Wiki divorce? Admitting you made a mistake by sleeping with the wrong "edit" more than once, apparently is just not enough.
    And all of this was before the first AN/I Jytdog used against me (01:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)). I admitted in the AN/I that I misunderstood the WP:BRD rule:
    I have done some more research and learned some more things. I carefully read the WP:BRD, and see that I misunderstood it and that Kingofaces43 (talk) interpretation is more correct than mine, that it is indeed okay to revert without going to the talk page. 10:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC) here
    And I have made hardly any edits to the GMO articles since Jytdog's first ANI against me, knowing that doing so, no matter how reasonable, will land me here. But I guess you still need me banned from the GMO articles even though I have made no more controversial edits you can point to? -David Tornheim (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The double jeopardy comparison, and the prior mention of witness intimidation is Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. The Reiki advocacy was mentioned, and evidence of prior problematic behavior was asked for, which is why that thread was mentioned. This isn't simply bringing up that thread again without new points. Even if you have changed how you're peddling an anti-scientific POV onto articles into a more indirect fashion, you're still peddling a POV that gives equal validity to pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ian.thomson: So are you really saying that if I raise an issue and someone disagrees, then I "caused an argument" and that is a good reason to have me banned from the article or topics related to that topic? Are you saying that dissenting opinions are impermissible because they cause arguments? It is hard for me to imagine Wikipedia where everyone agreed all the time. Are you still saying that you want me banned from GMO and the Glyphosphate articles because they are primarily articles having to do with medicine and medical advice? David Tornheim (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're twisting my words, as you did at RSN. Like I said, it would have been one thing to support the use of those sources for the perspective of a Reiki practitioner, but you repeatedly argued for not classifying Reiki as a fringe pseudoscience because that's not how its practitioners classify it. Your edits to Glyphosate and on articles relating to GMOs concern their effects on human health, and therefore fall under health science. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn as proposer. Premature and there is too much drama around me now. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ian proposed a topic ban due to David's behavior. I will get the ball rolling here.Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    He has tried to shift the direction of the article on other pages, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Classic content dispute. Where we see Jytdog yet again at the AN/I to get an editor blocked on an article he is editing where the other editor disagrees with the direction the article is going. The diff's are all on AN/I where we are pointed to diff's that question Jytdog's motives. But AN/I is the place to raise such issues. AlbinoFerret 12:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the Reiki advocacy? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is also a content dispute. You have collected talk page diff's showing that someone disagrees with the direction of the article. The talk page is exactly the place where those discussions should happen. This whole section appears to be an attempt to win a content dispute by removing the opposing view. AlbinoFerret 17:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Albinoferret, you just ducked a topic ban by voluntarily agreeing to stay away, per thread above. I don't think you understand the difference between behavioral issues and content disputes. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Time to Respond to Complaint? -- I said earlier that I had planned to write a response to ian.thomson's allegations and that I needed more time here (on 01:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)). I have put hours into writing that response. I have not edited on any of the articles in question since DiPiep's ANI--only here on the AN/I board and on one user's talk page. It has been less than 24 hours. What is this rush to judgment that Jytdog is pushing to have me topic banned based on allegations I have not had a chance to respond to yet? Are we assumed guilty until proven innocent? David Tornheim (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    it is a behavior thing. it doesn't matter why. you have done what you have done. you were warned to stop the battleground behavior and you went right ahead with it. you have advocated for pseudoscience all over the place. you have demonstrated lack of competence, all over the place, and although made a move to get mentored, you have blown that off. those are all demonstrated behaviors. this is about behavior. it is really simple. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am One of Many - what should the community do about David's continued campaigning and attacks against me? I can respect you not !voting for this answer, but I would like the community to stop this behavior. He has already been warned and he blew right past that. I am not asking you to change your !vote, I am asking for your thoughts on the problem. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    and please see my note to Albino above. Not a good !vote to pin yours onto. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog: Shouldn't we be asking those same question about your behavior? The reason I am here at this ANI is because I warned DiPiep to stand down because you would take him to ANI and cause serious drama for him--which you did--and because I made correct observations at that ANI about your behavior, isn't it? Let's talk about how to deal with your behavior, shall we? My comments about you are about your behavior and are not personal. Did I ever insult you? Others, like the dispute immediately below mine observe it too. And your apologies ring hollow. What are you doing to do about it? And again, isn't the reason I am here because I pointed out problems with your behavior--not because of content? David Tornheim (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jytdog: Protracted uncivility and harrassment

    I wish to raise an ANI about Jytdog. This is in regard to their protracted uncivility towards me and their harassment of me.

    After several postings which I considered to be uncivil, I reminded Jytdog on 16th March here[207] to be civil in discussions. However, this uncivility has continued. I further reminded Jytdog on March 23rd here[208] and March 24th here[209] that I was finding their behaviour unacceptable, but this has persisted.

    Jytdog is a well established editor. Given their considerable experience on here, they should not need to be reminded about being civil and not harrassing other editors. Neither should they be using a highly suspect tactic of making fleeting accusations, inflammatory remarks or uncivility in postings so that editors currently involved in the discussion briefly see it, and then quickly removing the edit before others comment so that it does not remain on the page or is later struck out here[210] and here[211] compare with [212] These are only 2 examples of this behaviour. The harm to the project and the taunting of me has been done before the striking out.

    Wikihounding:

    • Jytdog is following me so that negative comments about me can be left on pages to which I am contributing or using. I asked a question at the WP:Teahouse here[213] about an editor's talk page that was edited by Jytdog but which did not attribute the edit to Jytdog. In my initial posting, I was careful not to name editors or indicate the location of the problem. Within 50 mins of my posting the question, Jytdog had posted an edit on the thread I initiated[214]. The only way Jytdog could have known about my posting this question was if they were monitoring my postings. Jytdog soon after posted that I was "inexperienced"[215] in an attempt to belittle me.

    Prophanities:

    • Jytdog left prophanities on my Talk page here[216] to belittle my editing.
    • Jytdog used prophanities on other pages in messages directed at me, e.g. "I made a motherfucking mistake by editing a comment when I thought no one had replied yet - when you pointed out that you had replied I went back and struck it properly and acknowledged my mistake. That is not "uncivil", it is called being a fucking human being who can make mistakes and is capable of fucking admitting them and even fucking fixing them"[217]
    • Jytdog used further prophanaties in messages directed at me here.[218]

    Personal attacks:

    • Jytdog was aware of my being an academic here[219]. They subsequently made a personal attack (and veiled attack on my career competence which I find extremely unpleasant and totally unacceptable) by writing "i run into this sometimes with academicish editors who just cannot say "i don't know" and cannot back down, ever" here[220]
    • Jytdog described my edit as "slimey varmint behavior".[221]

    Belittling a fellow editor:

    • Jytdog described me as "inexperienced" here[222]
    • Jytdog stated that my RfC was "wasting time" here.[223]
    • Jytdog made a comment disrespecting my editing abilities here[224]
    • Jytdog made comments that suggested/stated I have "fucked up",[225] "screw[ed] it up,[226] and an RfC I initiated was described as "...a flawed fucked up waste of time...".[227]
    • Jytdog made a comment that I should "get around more"[228], clearly in a way to belittle me

    Inappropriate use of warning templates:

    • Jytdog left a warning template on my Talk page [229] that was not warranted and unjustified even after a request.

    Admission of yelling at me

    Other editor's independent and unrequested comments support my concerns: Independent editors have noted Jytdog's uncivil attitude toward me.

    • An independent editor left a message on Jytdog's Talk page stating Jytdog should "watch your tone" in messages directed at me.[232]] Jytdog apologised at their own Talk page but not at the original posting or at my Talk page.
    • An independent editor left a message on my Talk page stating that postings by Jytdog were "...intended to inflame".[233]


    It seems clear to me that Jytdog has breached the principles of civility and non-harassment of other editors repeatedly, despite being warned. Some of these have been extremely upestting to myself and have caused me to think about stopping working on the project. I truly believe this editor needs to learn that there are consequences to this extremely uncivil behaviour.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC) __DrChrissy (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I acknowledge that I got angry with drchrissy and that i expressed that anger. that was not good of me. i am not sorry for cursing; that is not a problem in WP. but some of my remarks were uncivil, and for that i do apologize, and i will be use more restraint going forward. I am sorry for that, drchrissy. None of what you write is actionable and much of it is nonsense (which should make it clear why i described you inexperienced). But i am sorry for being uncivil. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't seem to be sorry, because you've just responded in the same way to me. I don't know why you think cursing isn't a problem on WP. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    and you know what slimvirgin, i never understand why people think it is such a great "gotcha" to link to a comment that someone overwrote. i never do that. here is where that comment ended up. of course i wrote what you linked to and of course i regret what i wrote originally; that's why i changed it. (which per TPG I can do, before someone else responds. after that i have to redact) i don't like what i originally wrote there. i have always wondered if there is some specific policy or guideline that calls linking to an overwritten comment "slimey behavior." Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And has also written about my notice that "..much of it is nonsense"! It never stops!... __DrChrissy (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do regret losing my temper with drchrissy. that is on me. and i do apoligize for that. I do get it that cursing is ~probably~ uncivil. cursing at someone (like, "Jytdog you are a stupid fucking asshole") would be uncivil and a personal attack to boot. but saying "that is fucking wrong" is not cursing at somebody. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    oh drchirssy much of what you object to (like the edit war notice) was totally appropriate on my part. you didn't understand then and you still don't understand. i tried in the past to explain to you some of these sorts of things Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The beam sticking out of your eye is rather large. AlbinoFerret 03:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The bottom line is that if an editor talks like a low-life, they shouldn't be surprised if they get treated like one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Two wrongs never make a right, civility is required, even if there is a perceived problem. Article talk pages and user pages are also the last place that it should be allowed. If there is a problem, bring it to one of the noticeboards. As experienced as Jytdog is, and his activity here pointing out issues, he should have known that. In his own words "it is a behavior thing. it doesn't matter why. you have done what you have done". AlbinoFerret 14:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Taken as a whole, Jytdog's behavior towards DrChrissy does appear to constitute a systematic pattern of harassment and incivility. Many of the worst comments have been struck by Jytdog, but there appears to be a pattern emerging in which Jytdog makes uncivil or unfounded remarks about an editor and then strikes them. Repeatedly making comments that have to be struck is itself a pattern of incivility. The edit warning also appears to be harassment. Jytdog attempted to justify the warning with this reply but notice that the third diff is not a revert. @Jytdog, I suggest dropping the stick rather than engaging in less than WP:CIVIL behavior and giving the appearance of being a disruptive user. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, and quite strongly. The edit war warning arose after drchrissy tried 3 times to change a comment on a talk page that I had responded to, without redacting (showing the change):
    • here with inaccurate edit note: " I have simply added my vote in bold to help editors who might wish to collate information quickly. The content in the message has not been changed."
    • i reverted with edit note: "yes this changes the context very much, and makes my remark nonsense. strike if you with to redact it"
    • he restored his change
    • at 22:55, 25 March 2015 i reverted again, explaining again "this violates TPG, you must WP:REDACT, not simply edit, comments others have responded to"
    • at 23:02, 25 March 2015 i gave edit war notice on his Talk page (which I often give in this kind of situation, at this point. it is fine under policy to do so - the point of the notice is to prevent 3RR and spur discussion; you get an edit war noticeboard notice after you break 3RR and are actually brought to the edit warring notice board)
    • at 23:04, 25 March 2015 drchrissy stopped edit warring and intead commented on the Talk page: "@Jytdog. How do I redact information that is no longer there - you have already deleted it?" which is just baffling.
    • later drchrissy asks on his talk page, "Why have you put this notice on my Talk page: Where am I supposed to be edit-warring?"
    so...I give an edit warring notice and he stops edit warring, writes a bizzare comment, and then later on his Talk page asks why the edit war notice. the whole things shows either WP:CIR or just deliberately off-throwing behavior. I can't decide which but in either case, frustrating. I admit that I let myself express my frustration over this baffling behavior, which arises in the midst of a content dispute. Yes, I own that and have apologized for it. But my actions have been solid. There is no harassment. I have tried to talk through things with him, and almost every conversation goes off into bizarro world, exactly like that interaction did. I can give plenty more examples. Again, I acknowledge that I let myself express my frustration, which I should have not have done. That is as far as this goes. Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Warning - Jytdog for incivility. Profanity-laden personal attacks like these 1, 2, 3 have no place in wikipedia. These are from the past 2 months and are only the worst examples. Removing or striking such comments, as Jytdog has done, does not unsay them. An experienced editor should not be making comments like this in the first place, and when such comments are made and deleted repeatedly it raises questions of potential baiting other editors and gaming the system.Dialectric (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll accept a warning; I acknowledge that i allowed my frustration to get to me. I have absolutely not gamed anything.
    • the first dif is not fair, as I overwrote that (final comment was here and then i deleted it altogether
    • the second diff is not fair, as i overwrote that -the final comment was here and i apologized to that user here, which was accepted.
    • third dif, same thing. I overwrote is so it ended up here and then deleted it altogether. it is not reasonable to link to earlier versions of comments. it has been a frustrating time for me, and i have been intemperate, but have fixed thing as I have gone. But i do accept a warning. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support warning, and wash out his mouth, too. "i am not sorry for cursing; that is not a problem in WP." That is a ridiculous statement by Jytdog. Of course it is a problem. If this is the sum of the editor's opinion about WP:Civility, the that editor should not be editing here. Why does he think that folks don't stick around? We don't need him unless he can maintain civil discourse. Just my opinion, but I've BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As the initiator of this ANI, I'm not entirely sure I am allowed to comment on punitive action. If I am not, I apologise. As the recipient of the protracted mis-behaviour of Jytdog this has reduced my Wiki-experience to being one of dreading opening up the site, and extreme stress and frustration whilst trying to get on with constructive editing. I have just looked at the examples offered by Dialectric above - it appears I got off lightly. Surely any punitive action should be more than a warning. Other editors will see this ANI and if they see that such uncivility results in just a few harsh words, I am sure they will not be impressed. Jytdog indicated here [[234]] that they believed their mis-behaviour was not actionable. This indicates that with their considerable experience of such behaviour they have carefully considered their actions and decided to stick two fingers up to the admins considering this (I hope this translates to other languages...it essentially means "****-off you lot"__DrChrissy (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what i said at all, and your response again demonstrates WP:CIR. I am sorry that I upset you drchrissy but you don't understand what you are doing here. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I am hearing the community feedback on cursing. I'll cut that out. (it's not something I ~generally~ do, and of course i recognize that it isn't civil with a small c) Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply You were warned by me here[235] and here[236] that your use of prophanity was objectionable - but you continued. I have not searched for others warning you of this (life is too short), but I would be amazed if similar warnings did not exist.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question to admins Jytdog has now questioned my competence suggesting WP:CIR twice, here[237] and here[238]. This is further evidence of the harassment I am receiving from this editor. Do I edit my original ANI to include these, or do I (regretably) start a new ANI?__DrChrissy (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support short block - I would normally support the warning, but Jytdog frequently argues WP:BLOCKDETERRENT with respect to others, which suggests a block might deter this sort of thing from recurring. The issue is beyond profanity. Jytdog badgered DrChrissy over minor seeming issues. DrChrissy exhibited remarkable civility and ability to remain focused on content while a battleground environment was created. Less level headed editors would have probably snapped, or else just walked away from the article in frustration.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I support BLOCKDETERRENT when the subject is WP:IDHT. I am hearing the valid criticism here. With regard to most of what drchrissy links above, most of it is due to his lack of understanding of how WP works. Really, look at them. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My Own 2 Cents - I am not commenting on this incident specifically, but have had problems with Jytdog in the past. I have to admit, I find it a bit outrageous that he recently tried to quote/wikilawyer another editor using a conflict of interest policy he wrote himself. He becomes very aggressive when people question whether he has a conflict of interest (appropriately or otherwise). However, he recently tried to inappropriately suggest there was a conflict on interest in an article I was working on when it was entirely baseless, which he later admitted. It appears to me he has formed some kind of an alliance with Formerly98, who has been more problematic, as they have an unusually large amount of posts on overlapping articles and disputes. I am not familiar with how to handle conflict of interest editors and what kind of evidence is required to prove such, but many editors have raised issues with him and Formerly98 recently which doesn't seem to be coincidental. I am glad an administrator has taken notice of this and will hopefully be able to resolve whatever has been going on. Doors22 (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • furthermore There is also an alliance with Alexbrn - diffs can be provided if required.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    all my "fans" are coming out to play. lovely. Doors22, your description of the COI issue you and I discussed is not accurate. That had to do with Draft:Post-Finasteride_Syndrome_Foundation, a cause for which Doors22 advocates here. The one reliable source about that foundation says: ""The men have formed a foundation and have commenced legal action." I pointed out that if the article would be created, we might run into trouble with COI per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Legal and Doors22 freaked out over that. And still is. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are deflecting from the issue of the thread, which is your mis-behaviour. Perhaps you should focus and defend your personal attacks on me.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all, I responded directly to a new complaint about my behavior. It was on-point. This is one of the things about ANI. People jump in and bring all kinds of peripheral issues. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "defense" is taken out of context and also off-topic. Other users can visit Draft:Post-Finasteride_Syndrome_Foundation if they would like to see the whole context for your nonconstructive exchange. I'm not really sure a short-term block would be productive, especially since Jytdog himself is asking for such a response. Both he and Formerly98 have used this tactic to evade escalation in the past. A 48-block is really a slap on the wrist, especially since he is an experienced editor. Doors22 (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Frankly, this is much bigger than cussing. This editor behaves like a dictator and a tyrant, stirs up drama seemingly everywhere he goes, has an ownership attitude with regard to any article he works on as well as the encyclopedia in general, and this noticeboard in particular. He clearly works in a gang, which includes Alexbrn as DrChrissy noted, and Formerly98 as Doors22 pointed out, yet screams "Canvassing" when one who has questioned his edits seeks guidance from another. On GMO pages, one finds themselves taking on Jytdog and KingofAces as if they are the same person. He is perhaps the most disruptive editor I have come across on WP, and if you don't have a clear picture of that from this noticeboard, take a gander at how he treats an RfC that he wasn't allowed to control. Further, I would highly recommend reviewing what Atsme said in yet another Jytdog ANI. I hope it isn't true that WP is run mainly by 22 year old gamer dudes, but it seems like it would help to explain why no one has stood up to Jytdog and put an end to his bullying on behalf of the volunteers who have yet to be turned away. He called two editors "crazy" at the COIN talk page today, so I assume it's OK for me to be very honest - Jytdog seems... imbalanced at best, and IMO needs a long break from his volunteer work here. It is not making him happy, which is affecting good, hard-working editors. Please do something. petrarchan47tc 22:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Somebody just got accused of being a liar and a felon right here at ANI

    Being resolved in relevant section. Nakon 01:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Alleged in this diff: [239]. I'm shocked. The (unnamed) miscreants should be found and punished, or else the accuser should be punished. Would this fall under NLT or NPA? Geogene (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you will notice, the subject is COI and COI-like editing. It is a general discussion. Chill out. petrarchan47tc 01:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Sorry. Geogene (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Suggest more eyes at Jesús "Chuy" García

    The article is about a main primary contender against the incumbent mayor of Chicago. We've had unexplained deletions Diazmr.90 and 24.13.117.243. The IP's edits overlap with Diazmr's entirely, and the IP user geolocates to Chicago. This seems like a POV edit with an IP used to avoid the appearance of an edit war by a single party. Given the highly contentious primary and the unexplained deletions I suggest an admin at least watch the page, if not semi-protect it. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Those two are no doubt the same person. The question the IP just asked here below this post is the same that Diazmr asked on Articles for Creation. --DawnDusk (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Section title changed, as this is a request for "oversight" in its usual, everyday meaning, not its obscure, wacky, Wikpedeia jargon meaning.--Shirt58 (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Page Vandalized then deleted

    The Wikipedia page Rafael Yañezas vandalized in the past before it was restored promptly. The page is now entirely off the Wikipedia and redirects to a different page. Where did the page go? Was it taken down by administrators or was it vandalized again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.117.243 (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The article was boldly redirected to Chicago aldermanic elections, 2015. If you click on Rafael Yañez it will take you to the election page. You will see a note at the top saying you were redirected and the article name. If you click on that link it will take you to the redirect page. As for why this was done, I took a look at the last version of the article before it was redirected and it was clearly little more than a piece of political advertising. With rare exceptions, candidates for political office are not usually considered notable until they actually win election to a major office. See WP:POL. The community has consistently set the bar fairly high and taken a dim view of efforts by candidates to use Wikipedia as a platform for free advertising. The article in question was an unambiguous puff piece that likely would have qualified for speedy deletion under CSD G-11. I hope this helps. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ping Tiller54 -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What Ad Orientem. Unless an unelected candidate receives significant media coverage (eg Christine O'Donnell), Wikipedia doesn't consider them notable enough for their own article. Tiller54 (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an uninvolved observer, I think the bold redirect of the Yañez piece is arguably okay — although the best practice for something that well developed would be to take it to AfD rather than to unilaterally make a decision. In no case should there be an edit war over that although at a glance there is about a 98% chance that the outcome at AfD would be "Redirect" (unelected politician). As for the Jesús "Chuy" García piece, that's an elected Chicago alderman and thus almost certain to be regarded as a keep at AfD. 24.13...... should be sure to sign in and to identify any potential Conflict of Interest on the talk pages of any articles being edited. I don't see any need for administrative action here one way or the other. Carrite (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken the liberty of combining this with the preceding thread, since they are related articles by the same author. Carrite (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that this thread is the functional equivalent of a "Contested PROD" and this needs to be restored and taken to AfD. I will do that. Carrite (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I think that's just well-meant busywork, User:Carrite. I wonder how likely your "courtesy AfD" is to get enough input for any sort of consensus. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    The content creator put the work into it, we should treat this as we would any other Contested PROD. He should have his 7 days to make a case for a GNG pass — I'll do the rewrite for tone myself if he can do that... The AfD appears HERE, by the way. Carrite (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The election is April 7 [240] (15th Ward), and is a run-off between Yañez and someone who does not have a wiki article, so this article needs to go away fast. @Carrite: I know you meant well un-redirecting this article, but it shouldn't stand for a full week's AfD in my opinion, due to the promotional nature of it and due to the fact that the election is only nine days away right now. Softlavender (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. The article is an obvious CSD candidate (G-11). I just posted a more detailed response on the AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns with user 174.3.213.121

    Over a period of months, user 174.3.213.121 has been making inflammatory edit summaries on reverts, sometimes with anti-Hinduism tones. Examples involving Hinduism are:

    • "removing previous editor's unwarranted insertions; mods: please handle further changes, as i suspect this individual is hindu and will 'go down swinging' for this edit. thanks"[241]
    • "nothing on talk. please rebut before saying you did, it makes you a liar. alhazen sucks. archimedes pwns your wallah bro)"[242]
    • "stop it you hindu fundamentalist. make your arguments under newly-created talk page section or revert again at your own peril"[243]

    Other generally aggressive edit summaries include:

    • " rv vandalism. what the hell do you think you're doing?i'll slap you, punk."[244]
    • "Undid revision 641954597 by Rgdboer (talk) see talk, lorentz loving loser. his transformation is garbage, and you've yet to rebut wcherowi's args in talk)"[245]

    He was warned by Materialscientist about edit warring on January 2. On Feb 14, I told him non-threateningly that he should be careful in his edit summaries, so as not to get blocked. Brirush (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have issued a clear and final warning, and any further such posts or edit summaries will lead to a block. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Where is Amanda Knox page?

    No admin action required. Amortias (T)(C) 20:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The page 'Amanda Knox' seems to have disappeared? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8h3d0kg (talk • contribs) 13:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope: Amanda Knox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange Bug: "The revision #0 of the page named "Amanda Knox" does not exist.". History and Talk are there. 80.132.65.8 (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And now it is working again... 80.132.65.8 (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. It's working now, but for a while, I got this message:

    The revision #0 of the page named "Amanda Knox" does not exist. This is usually caused by following an outdated history link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8h3d0kg (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes it's needed to purge your cache. I know that's standard advice but it can resolve problems like this. Or reload the page, Cntrl-Alt-F5. Liz Read! Talk! 16:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is already over at the village pump. No admin action needed. Amortias (T)(C) 20:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Multiple slow burning edit wars by IP.

    USER BLOCKED
    IP user blocked for 1 week for Edit warring by Davewild. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:86.145.107.226 is having fun with multiple slow burning edit wars at the same time. Almost straight after a block for edit warring] at "Promised land", he continued his behaviour at other articles, like The Emergency (Ireland), Naval Service (Ireland), Irish Army, 2nd Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment and Louise, Princess Royal. His talkpage is one collection of warnings, including a warning about sockpuppetry and block evasion (not checked by me). This IP is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 16:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Correction, It are now full blown edits wars on the first three articles... The Banner talk 17:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked them for a week for edit warring. Davewild (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Links: 86.145.107.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:COMPETENCE editor

    Please don't duplicate threads. Ivanvector (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I strongly suspect some WP:COMPETENCE issues with Mavsfan123 (talk · contribs). I have warned the user at least twice that they are putting way too little content into their articles, but six days after their last warning, they created an article as lacking in content as their previous efforts. Other articles of theirs have been nominated for deletion for similar reasons, and they removed a deletion tag at least twice. The user has been here since last July, and yet they have made no attempt whatsoever to improve their article creation (compare this edit). They have also made no attempt to communicate on talk pages. I'm tired of cleaning up this editor's half-assed attempts, and I really want to get through to them, because it's obvious they're not listening. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you titled your thread "WP:COMPETENCE admin" they'd be here like flies to shit. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Violation of her one revert per day restriction by Roscelese

    Boomerang applied. Amortias (T)(C) 19:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The honor system does not appear to be working well as a method of enforcing the editing limitations on User:Roscelese instituted earlier this month as evidenced by her recent three reversions in one 24 hour period and failure discuss these reversions on the articles' talk pages. See [246] and [247]. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Where has Roscelese made multiple reverts in the same article? Heck, where has she edited the same article more than once in the same day? Why aren't we just closing this as a troll report? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The restriction issued by the arbitrators Doesn't say one revert IN THE SAME ARTICLE. It simply says ONE REVERT a day. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not what it says. User_talk:Roscelese#Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FChristianity_and_Sexuality_closed says "User:Roscelese is indefinitely restricted from making no more than one revert PER PAGE per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations)" (emphasis added). Restricting someone to a single revert on the whole site per day would be one of the stupidest things I'd've ever heard of (either block or get off the can), and I'm having a hard time imagining that you didn't jump to that conclusion because of some grudge (instead of real good-faith concern for the site). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP became active at about the time Badmintonhist was indefinitely blocked for harassment, and edits a bunch of the same articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I stand corrected on the one per day per pay issue, but she is has failed to follow her requirement to discuss her reverts on the articles' talk pages. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And that trumps failing to respect a block for harassment how? Also, it's not just any reverts, but reversion of new content. Do you have any WP:DIFFs that demonstrate that she's not just reverting vandalism? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the wrong forum anyway, if any non block evading editor thinks there has been a violation of the arbitration remedy then it needs to get reported to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, not here. Davewild (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ian.thompson: She is ROUTINELY NOT using article talk pages to discuss reverts. See her edits made between 14:36 26 March and 13:46 27 March on Palestinian stone-throwing, 2009 Brazilian girl abortion case and Ex-gay movement. None involve vandalism or BLP violations and she discusses none of what she has done on the article talk pages. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Move on. I checked one [248] and that's a content edit, not revert, with a detailed edit summary. The purposes of all sanctions, including arbcom, is to maximize benefit to the encyclopedia while minimizing disruption, not to play "gotcha" with the sanctioned editor. NE Ent 19:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    3 month schoolblock for the IP address. I agree that it is Badmintonhist. Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Formal complaint about User:Bobrayner

    I wish to lodge a complaint and a request for an immediate halt to the destructive, criminal and "bad faith" editing activity of User:Bobrayner, which consists almost exclusively of removing text from articles which he doesn't happen to like, and then giving a spurious justification for it afterwards, or no proper justification at all.

    If e.g. an article lacks references, User:Bobrayner will destroy part of it, on the ground that it lacks references, even although there is nothing particularly wrong with the content, and if it is to the contrary carefully referenced, he will destroy part of it on the ground that it is a "quote farm", and so forth. He can always cite some kind of reason for what he wants to do anyway, that seems to justify what he feels like. However, often he doesn't even bother to give any explanation of his edits, and just poses as the natural authority on these things.

    If User:Bobrayner's editing track record is examined in detail and as a whole, it consistently shows bias: (1) he attacks and destroys mostly left-wing contributions to wikipedia, and (2) in right-wing contributions, his edits aim consistently to strengthen the right-wing argument! It may be that he gets some pocket-money for his subversion in wikipedia (from the CIA, for example), but I don't know whether that is true, and I am not in a position to verify that. (3) If User:Bobrayner knew what he was talking about, maybe we could accept at least some of his edits, but in reality it turns out he doesn't know what he is talking about. The longrun pattern of his edits shows, that in reality he has no special knowledge or competency to edit the specific articles that he does. He just latches onto articles hthat interest him, then he decides something is inappropriate from his "common sense" perspective, or that he doesn't like it, and then he wipes it out, leaving only a cryptic comment alluding to any kind of wikipedia rule that "seems" or "might" to justify the deletion.

    He utilizes ambiguity and vagueness, and very cryptic comments, to provide a seemingly legitimate "cover" for his destructive edits.

    The effect of User:Bobrayner's edits is, that a lot of valuable content is wiped out, and that the constructive effort made by other wikipedians across many hours of work is wasted or misrepresented. If User:Bobrayner is not stopped, I will stop any constructive contributions to wikipedia immediately myself, and I will advise everyone I know, never to contribute anything to wikipedia, on the ground that it turns a blind eye to vandals and frauds. I have commented on User:Bobrayner's a few times on talk pages of articles I worked on, to warn others, but I feel any detailed critique is useless at this point, since my experience is that User:Bobrayner will arbitrarily invoke any rule or principle to suit himself, and ignores any criticism of his activity anyway - he is not open to reason or to modifying his behaviour. At most he will use some scam tactic to con people into thinking that what he is doing is perfectly legitimate. Jurriaan (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=653952634"