Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Electronic cigarette

 Comment: I have fully protected the article for one week per a request at WP:RPP. I stand by this given the ongoing disruption, but I wanted to state that any admin closing this AN/I case should feel free to lift the protection or adjust the duration as deemed necessary. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:MusikAnimal, there is only one consistent editor where the majority of editors disagree with a number of his edits. I don't think it was necessary to protect the article because of one editor. For example, User:AlbinoFerret claims he is rewriting the text for readability but he got reverted. He claimed the text FV but the text is sourced. He claims the text is OR but he got reverted. He has a history of making bad edits that are disputed by other editors. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaving it up to other administrators. I had two regular editors to this article attest that full-protection was needed. There are numerous administrators patrolling CAT:EP. Any uncontroversial edit requests you have will likely be implemented without question. Beyond that consensus will be needed – which is the exact reason behind protecting the article. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret

This user has more or less become a single purpose account. There editing has become not very produce such as:

• The WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless.
• And we all [k]now that you Qack, are the master of ridiculous.
• They have also been involved in a fair bit of WP:CANVASSING. For example he recently put these notes on a couple of users talk pages requesting their participation [1] and [2] and others. They earlier requested the support of one of these users after having made some controversial changes [3]

Does this rise to the level of a temporary topic ban? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? Cherry-picked quotes? And a complaint about canvassing relating to a case where you were remanded for inappropriate notification[4]? This seems more like a play to remove editors that you disagree with, than a true complaint, sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, let me mention that he requested mere participation not support (except in the last one where he added his own opinion). Doc James, you've been warned for 3RR along with Ferret, I believe this is just not enough for a TBAN. Doc, you're in it too. I believe you all should quit this battleground mentality. A self-imposed TBAN will go a long way. Just my two cents. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 18:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure that what is described here is canvassing. AlbinoFerret neutrally notified seven different editors, each of whom had previously edited the page or engaged in Talk discussions and had expressed different views, of an RFC occurring on the page: the two above plus [5][6][7][8][9] This appears to be allowed according to WP:CANVASSING. I don't understand the purpose of this report, especially given that Doc James has already engaged in edit-warring with AlbinoFerret on this article. Ca2james (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

In the very beginning AlbinoFerret only notified the two editors who have the same POV as he does.[10][11] After editors commented AlbinoFerret was canvassing then AlbinoFerret notified the other editors. Another editor stated "Now that I read the discussion, it looks like inappropriate canvassing."[12] The editor was referring to this this edit. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a 10 hour difference between when the first two editors were notified and the other five were notified. Does that qualify as canvassing? I wouldn't think so but perhaps I'm wrong. If the post on the village pump is considered canvassing (is it? I don't know), then bringing it up now, a week later, seems a little late. Ca2james (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussions were long that day and I needed some sleep, there is no time limit on when editors need to be notified by, I got up and notified others. But even if I only notified the two editors you point out, they are active on the article and had both edited the article. Informing them of the RFC, and all I did was ask them to look at the RFC, is allowed. AlbinoFerret (talk)

I will address all these false accusations.

• The so called canvasing was going back a week or so in history and notifying every editor of the article that wasnt an IP of a rfc. Including ones I knew would probably disagree with my position like Yobol.
• #85 is out of sequence and happened the night before the rfc was made, all I ws doing was asking another editor to look at the edits I had done to see if a NPOV tag/banner she had placed could be removed. This distorting of the timeline to suggest something wrong is intentional. It has been pointed out the Doc James before. As such it, in my opinion the retaliation is a continuation of the war Doc James was warned to stop but has not. These accusations were addressed in the report on Doc James linked to here. I was warned for edit warring, resuscitating them here is a desperate ploy.
• My opinion of the WHO (World Health Organization) is just that my opinion, and I have a right to it. The WHO is treated like some kind of God on the article. While he has me saying my opinion of the WHO on a talk page, he doesnt have diff's of me removing statements of the WHO from the article.
• The third was a sarcastic response to a well known edit warrior QuackGuru with a long ban list history calling the additions of another editor ridiculous.

This is just retaliation for bringing a charge of being involved in an edit war on Doc James. Perhaps its time for a boomerang. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I still think the two tags are unnecessary. You disagree? You restored the tag of shame to the lede without explaining what is wrong with the lede. Please explain what is wrong with the lede or remove the tag from the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That tag was placed by Kim, you removed it with an open RFC on it, that is still open. I replaced it because it is the subject of an open RFC. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You haven't shown what is the issue with the lede and yet you want to keep it in the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be wiser to keep content related stuff to the article talk page. --Kim D. Petersen 21:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it appears that a few editors want to exclude the position of the World Health Organization and a review article published in Circulation (journal), one of medicines most respected journals. They instead wish to replace these with the position of a single author review published in a 1 year old journal with an impact factor of zero.[13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for showing your true motivation, a conflict over content, and silencing those that disagree with you. The boomerang should hit hard AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sure it will. My motivation is to accurately reflect the best available sources. Personal attacks are unfortunately becoming more common [14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you proved personal attacks are becoming common by coming here. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Doc, but do you really think that fighting over content issues is appropriate for AN/I? Noone - None - Zip - Nada persons want to "exclude the position of the World Health Organization". The issue over a particular conference report from the WHO is significantly more complex than should be dragged out here, and certaintly not by misrepresenting peoples views. --Kim D. Petersen 23:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

While we have this comment The WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless, which sounds like a desire to exclude the WHOs position IMO. If some come to the discussion with this perspective it makes it difficult to edit health related content. And than we have the personal insults. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that sarcastic comment, at a person who made a negative comment on another editors edits using the same word. Who has been pointed out a few times for disruptive editing of the article #1 #2. Where can we find the entry on this page from you for QuackGuru who shares your point of view? Nobody has tried to remove the WHO from the article. There is a report they commissioned, that is used 36 times, its use needs to be scaled back, but its used more and more.AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's note one thing. Doc, you've accused him of being an SPA, which I believe he is not. But the fact that he's made 786 (take away or give a few, I used Ctrl+F on his contribs) edits to E-cigarette related stuff is disturbing. And unless, he's been factually incorrect, has failed to maintain a NPOV or has some kind of a COI, there's really no problem if this is a SPA. Doc, you're certainly involved and the fact that you've not taken any actions is an excellent thing (in fact, if you felt you've been wronged and you came to ANI for that, it was a perfectly fine decision). Note to all: Please refrain from making personal attacks. It can be grounds for harassment. It's also time to quit all of your battleground mentality. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 13:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I just want to comment on the number of edits. I rarely make single edits and leave. A majority of the time typo's, extra spaces, justification problems, and syntax errors pop up because the wysiwyg editor doesnt work quite right on my distribution so I edit source most of the time. I will add a word because it doesnt read right, or after reading the paragraph move the addition to group it. It usually takes about 5 or more edits on something before I'm done, even on talk pages. If you divide that number by 4 or 5 its not that bad. While its still over 100 it isnt that bad on an article that is constantly changing. AlbinoFerret 17:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (changed from neutral > weak support > support after seeing this continue). Seeing that this thread is still open and how AF appears so solely and intently focused on this topic, it would be beneficial to AF and other users to give AF a break from the topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Neutral on topic ban (for now). Weak support for topic ban, definite warning needed and maybe X hours block for hounding to force them to take a break for a bit and come back with a clear head. A topic ban would alleviate some issues at the page, but the behavior issues mostly seem to stem from a misunderstanding of NPOV that is causing disruption at the page. WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN could be helpful for this user, but I'm not sure that will solve the problem either.

I've been watching the talk page from afar, and I will admit that there are issues that need to be resolved there, but I really can't put my finger on one single thing that's the main issue we can tie everything together with. Doc James, just my take on the points you listed:

1. I do think AlbinoFerret's comments on the WHO being treated as god-like appear problematic. This could be a misunderstanding of WP:MEDRS with the degree of weight (usually quite a bit) we give statements from respected scientific organizations and WP:IDHT behavior to a degree. Not really actionable by itself though.
2. For personal attacks, even sarcastic statements should not be used in spiny topics because they will rarely be taken as sarcastic. If there are many attacks though, then there would be something to consider for action there. AlbinoFerret definitely appears to have a spiny attitude in some cases after skimming over the talk page. I'm not sure the case has been made for personal attacks with just one diff though (feel free to provide more diffs if I missed a lot going through that mess).
3. I can see how you are looking at canvassing considering that those requests you mentioned (while worded neutral) did result in opinionated editors entering the fray. That does pose the question on whether canvassing was going on, but is there anything to substantiate that AlbinoFerret knew what their stance would be already and was recruiting? An extremely dicey question to tackle, but that would seem to be the only way to demonstrate canvassing here.

Overall, SPA's are tricky to actually pin down as such. The core concept of an SPA is advocacy in some form, so maybe the better question is to ask whether AlbinoFerret's edits are grounded in advocacy for a particular point of view? Looking over how much they have been involved in the topic and the general vibe I get looking at their talk posts, this is a legitimate question to look into at this point, but advocacy actually being an issue here hasn't really been demonstrated yet (i.e., more concrete diffs). This would really have to answered before considering any kind of ban. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I recently edited the acupuncture article so what did AlbinoFerret write? He wrote "I think I want to add another article to my list of ones I want to edit, perhaps acupuncture would be nice."[15] AlbinoFerret also wrote "If you look at the text that comes after it goes on to point out bias in other studies. so if you intend to change it, the bias statement will come in."[16] Lots of sourced text was removed from the article[17][18] but there was no reason to delete the text even if it was recently added. He undid the removal of text later when an editor commented on his talk page. Now he deleted sourced text again. Please review the problematic RFC. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Unknown.2C_Concerns.2C_Unclear.2C_Uncertain.2C_and_Possibilities_RFC. The RFC is unhelpful and the Talk:Electronic cigarette#RFC goes against policy.[19] QuackGuru (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I hear you on deleting swathes of text while claiming no consensus though when saying order or section names haven't been decided. That is inappropriate, not to mention the Unknown (etc.) talk section is a plain silly premise and WP:JDL. You guys should be summarizing what the reliable secondary sources say whether the source says something does happen, doesn't, or is unknown. It looks like AlbinoFerret does need help understanding NPOV/due weight when it comes to their concerns about "negative bias", such as this diff [20], but that's not a matter for this noticeboard, but over at WP:NPOVN unless that behavior related to all this content discussion has become either a WP:COMPETENCE issue or advocacy. The acupuncture comment is threatening to WP:HOUND you in this context, no doubt there. Basically, I do agree now that there is a problem with this user.

So, the threatening to hound should get a warning at a minimum or maybe an order of hours block to get the point across that civility is needed to cool their jets. That's just obviously bad. Everything else? Still really ambiguous for me what exactly would justify admin action since there are so many different things that are in a gray zone for whether help in other noticeboards is needed or admin action for disruptive editing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Kingofaces43, I think this is mainly a case of he does not like what the MEDRS compliant sources say.[21] I think he will continue to delete reliably sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That is an unfounded accusation, one that you have repeated in quite a few places. Your source says nothing of the kind. It is contrary WP:AGF. AlbinoFerret 19:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You claimed "Your source says nothing of the kind." But the source does verify claims you disagree with. Here is what the current text says: "A 2014 review found no long-term evidence on the safety or efficacy of e-cigarettes, including whether they reduce harm for tobacco related disease or will improve the health of the population as a whole. Therefore, promotion of electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction product is premature.[7]" You are continuing to argue against using this source for text you dispute. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Drummond_in_the_Harm_reduction_section. QuackGuru (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

1. The "canvassing" does not seem to be an issue, other users were notified in time, and I'm sure AlbinoFerret is now aware of the protocol.
2. The comment about the WHO is not a big deal, and we should be able to accommodate different opinions without allowing it to chill discussion. OF course that does not mean that AF gets to veto WHO sources that meet RS/MEDRS.
3. The personal attack against Quack Guru is unwarranted, and should be struck by AF. AF should be warned about making personal attacks.
4. The suggestion that AF will follow QG to acupuncture is unhelpful at best. AF should be advised not to make these types of comments in future.
5. AF's comment "This is just retaliation for bringing a charge of being involved in an edit war on ..." suggests that AF was deliberately edit warring. AF (and if necessary others) should be reminded that edit warring is not a good solution to disputes. However this ha already been done: AF was warned about edit warring here on the 7th. They seem to understand, though there is resistance to other advice offered.
6. There is no reason for a few hour cooling down block, this section is already several days old.

• I suggest a suitably worded warning/advice about personal attacks (2 above) and threatening to hound (3 above) by an uninvolved admin/editor would serve to resolve this section.
  

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC).

User:Bbb23 warned AlbinoFerret against further WP:EDITWARRING. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive260#User:Doc_James_reported_by_User:AlbinoFerret_.28Result:_Both_warned.29. He was warned again. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is probably the root of the issue here. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from electronic cigarettes, broadly construed. AlbinoFerret is a straight-up WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:Single-purpose account who is engaging in disruptive WP:GAME-playing editing regarding the topic. AF joined the e-cig conversation on Sept. 30, with only a relative handful of edits before that and long gaps in Wikipedia participation. A review of AF's contributions shows 272 of his 284 article edits since Sept. 30 to the topic itself, and ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of his 681 Talk page edits(!) just since Sept. 30 related to the topic. This does't take into account his User Talk page involvement, WP:DRN discussion, or WP:3RRNB and WP:ANI activity related to his behavior regarding his editing of this topic.

  For the game-playing, one example: AF was involved in this Talk page discussion regarding one source, it concluded with no consensus to include the source because it didn't meet the WP:MEDRS standards. It was added back anyway by another editor, which led to this DRN discussion that AF was involved it. It was closed as successful by the DRN volunteer against AF's position, with "no consensus to include". AF appears to have taken this as a license to open up RFCs at the article Talk page over content he doesn't like, and then use that as an excuse to removed lots of well-sourced content while stating "no consensus to include". For example, review this RFC AF started: Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Unknown.2C_Concerns.2C_Unclear.2C_Uncertain.2C_and_Possibilities_RFC, which asks "Should more claims of the Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, Uncertain, and Possibilities type be added to the e-cigarette article?" Several experienced editors pointed out that this is a flawed RFC from the get-go. Formerly 98, QuackGuru, Doc James, Cloudjpk, Johnuniq, FloNight, Alexbrn and myself have all stated that the RFC itself is at best unclear and at worst impossibly out of line with policy, particularly WP:NPOV; only EllenCT has responded in support. This didn't prevent AF from going ahead and removing a ton of well-sourced content with edit summaries like "remove non consensus edits": [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]

  Overall AF's involvement at regarding this topic is very disruptive and a topic ban is warranted. Zad68 22:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban - the travesty at Electronic cigarette has shaken my faith in the integrity of the Wikipedia medical editing establishment more than any other event. There are multiple very high quality MEDRS literature reviews which have been cited in the article for months, but the medical editor clique -- the same editors opposed to AlbinoFerret here -- are staunchly against including their plain language statements that e-cigarettes are helpful to smokers who switch to them, much less harmful if harmful at all compared to cigarettes, and that physicians should support smokers switching to them. Instead of expressing concerns rooted in policy or guidelines, this cadre is simply making up new rules from whole cloth, pretending that a WHO conference proceeding has been independently reviewed when it is not, and insisting that the uncertainty of inconclusive reviews be exclusively and prominently summarized in the article introduction when they know full well there are no alternative hypotheses contradicting the fact that millions of smokers lives could be saved over the next decade if e-cigarettes are only effective for a quarter of the smoking population (as one of the longstanding MEDRS reviews says) because they mitigate the damage from smoke inhalation. If I was not so demoralized by this sad state of affairs, I would have already escalated it through WP:RSN to higher level dispute resolution to call this formerly respectable cadre to account. Oh! How my heroes have fallen! Sic transit gloria mundi! I urge administrators to admonish the fallen cadre for their blatant disrespect and violation of the NPOV pillar policy. EllenCT (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Rather a vast conspiracy you are positing here Ellen. Why do you suppose that a group, many of whom are physicians, and which has created for itself the most demanding set of sourcing rules of any project in Wikipedia, the Medicine Project would suddenly and en mass decide to conspire to cover up evidence supporting a health-promoting device? I'd urge you to think about alternate hypotheses for explaining the current deadlock.Formerly 98 (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a conspiracy, just a bunch of bullies who have become so overwhelmed with WP:OWNership of an entire subject matter that they are willing to ignore policy and make up new rules to save face. I've repeatedly asked for alternative hypotheses on the article talk page, and none have been forthcoming. So what do you say they are? EllenCT (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please, Ellen, this ANI discussion needs to remain focused on editor behavior and not turn into a content discussion. You haven't made any behavior-based argument here against a topic ban for AF. We need to be able to have disagreements about sourcing and content without engaging in disruptive behavior, as AF has done. Zad68 00:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I am complaining about editor behavior, and there is no way to explain that complaint without reference to the underlying content. That is just the way things are. AlbinoFerret should be commended for upholding the NPOV pillar policy in the face of so much willingness to disregard and violate it, and shame on your characterization of that admirable behavior as disruption. EllenCT (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban, preferably in combination with a temporary freeze on editing by all editors By way of disclosure I have been somewhat involved in this conflict and on the other side from AF. I've personally felt concerned by what I perceive as a lack of understanding or perhaps a even a lack of regard for MEDRS by AF and some of his allies, who really seem to me less concerned with reliable sources and reflecting the extremely heavy emphasis placed on health issues in virtually all reliable sources on this topic than on making sure it presents a certain point of view. How one can take a topic in which so much of what is in the literature is about health and make suggestions such as splitting out the health issue discussion into a separate article is beyond my imagination as behavior of someone who is trying to build an encylopedia rather than advocate. But as I have admitted, I am to some extent a combatant here and so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.

  I am also concerned about the effect this long running battle has on the culture of Wikipedia. The Electronic Cigarette article has been edited 272 times this week and the Talk page 508 times. We usually have at least one RFc ongoing. This is an edit war on the scale of WWI, with an equal level of deadlock.

  Its time for the United Nations to send in some peacekeeping troops. I'd urge a fairly lengthy freeze of the article contents. I think a two week or longer ban on ALL EDITS by ALL PARTIES would potentially have a saluatory effect at this point. This, combined with topic bans for those whose behavior is indicative of not putting the encyclopedia first might put us on the right track. I'd recommend both of these actions, but either one by itself might help. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Striking and reversing based on good progress today Will oppose tentatively contingent on continued progress. Problems returned quickly, thre just does not seem to be the level of maturity needed here for seeking consensus. EVery problem is the "other guy's fault for not seeing and accepting his point of viewFormerly 98 (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support editing freeze - the cadre trying to omit the conclusive, prescriptive statements from the MEDRS reviews they otherwise support need to step aside and make way for editors who have respect for the NPOV policy. At this point I agree that a two week ban on edits by those who have previously edited the article is the only way to accomplish that. A topic ban alone would make things worse. EllenCT (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban It is obvious that the RFC mentioned above is formulated as a vague motherhood statement to be used as a pretext to revert unwanted edits. Contributors wanting to tell the world about the benefits of e-cigarettes will have to excuse the slow and methodical approach of the WP:MEDRS editors who correctly want to wait for suitable sources. AlbinoFerret has 272 edits to Electronic cigarette and 680 to Talk:Electronic cigarette, all made in the last 42 days, and the frenetic pace is not matched by improvements to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  Banning someone because editors with an opposing POV don't like the way an RFC is worded would be abhorrent. Issues with the RFC should be addressed within the RFC itself, not by begging admins to squelch the voice of its author. EllenCT (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  Three hours after my above comment, AlbinoFerret removed verified text from the article (diff) with edit summary "remove speculative statement added while RFC on topic is ongoing". In other words, the RFC is already being used as a pretext to remove information verified by a reliable source. The point about e-cigarettes is that they are new and it will be many years before proper studies are available to provide accurate information. Until then, reliable sources will make many tentative statements such as the one removed on the basis that it was speculative. The big problem is that every statement about the efficacy and benefits of e-cigarettes is speculative (other than statements such as the one removed). The article talk page shows AlbinoFerret still arguing that the RFC is valid—that is why a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban based on above comments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. The construction of an off-policy RfC and the subsequent mass deletion of content because of its assumed authority is damaging the page; the torrents of WP:IDHT text on the Talk page are similarly unwelcome. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What looks to me like a 3RR violation as well, at a minimum getting very close for someone previously warned against edit warring: Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4 Another large set of reversions the day before, about 12 hours outside the 24 hour window. Diff 5 Formerly 98 (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Striking and reversing based on some good progress today. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban It is sad reflection of the state of relations between users who edit the e-cig article that what is effectively a content dispute gets raised here. From all that I have seen AlbinoFerret's behaviour and actions have been mostly positive ones (and certainly in good faith). In regards to the points originally raised, AlbinoFerret's low opinion of The WHO that was voiced on a talk page is not a violation of any policies/guidelines that I know of, he is fully entitled to an opinion. The point regarding him calling QuackGuru "the master of ridiculous" also carries little weight since the intention was clearly to highlight QuackGuru's (an editor with an [exceptionally long block log], last blocked for disruptive editing on the e-cig article) own derogatory use of "ridiculous". WP:CANVASSING, well if it was canvassing AlbinoFerret very soon realised their mistake and notified editors with opposing opinions. WP:SPA is not specifically prohibited as I understand it, I see no evidence that they are engaging in advocacy and little evidence has been presented that they have a WP:COI. Better to WP:AGF in the face of a lack of evidence I think.Levelledout (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Levelledout is another SPA editing the e-cigarettes page according to the contributions. QuackGuru (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect, Levelledout has been focusing on this article in the last two weeks but has edited Christmas ceasefire, Christmas armistice, Enner Valencia and Battle of the Beanfield in the last 100 days. if you look at their edit history you'll see they have previously edited by focusing on one article for a while and then moved on to another. remember to act in good faith SPACKlick (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban this is a content dispute. I have done nothing to warrant a topic ban. Much has been said in the comments about an RFC I started on "Speculative" statements citing WP:CBALL. There has never been consensus for adding these "Unknown" and "unclear" statements. As noted they have been removed by me and others. Only to have the larger group of medical editors restore them, even if someone else removes them. But WP isnt build on who the larger group is, but consensus. I started the RFC top see where consensus lies. Citing it as a problem, use of an RFC to see what the consensus of the editors is, only goes to prove that this is a content issue. The fewer non medical editors, the easier it will be for group ownership to continue. AlbinoFerret 06:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, what I'm seeing isn't just a content dispute. It's concerns over behavior stemming from a content dispute that has gotten out of hand. Sometimes editors have a tough time disentangling those ideas. I've seen your concerns about "Unknown" and "unclear" statements on the page, and it looks like that is one of the main things that is getting the talk page pretty bloated. WP:CRYSTALBALL pertains to us as editors trying to figure out what future relevance may be. If a reliable source though is summarizing scientific research and stating its current state of knowledge in the field, that's a very different case (i.e., Here are important things that we don't know much about yet). Points like that don't seem to be getting across, which is a behavior issue described by WP:IDHT. Sometimes that's a competence issue, sometimes it's just being passionate in a controversial topic and not being as receptive to criticism depending on the editor. Normally, that is a behavior that can be remedied as it's not as serious as an isolated incident, but it can become very disruptive when it persists over time. I'd suggest just stepping back for a bit and reflecting on some of the legitimate criticism made about your behavior. You're definitely in a position where admin action isn't needed if you can resolve your behavior, so I'd suggest learning about how scientific research is summarized and maybe ask over at WP:NPOVN about how unknowns are summarized in literature too. I'm only slightly positive on a ban because it does seem like it would improve the talk page discussion, but it doesn't seem like a good option at all compared to following the path I just mentioned. You've definitely got room to move forward on this, so good luck. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment Kingofaces43, sometimes the words of an uninvolved editor have more impact when there is a controversy. I was hoping for more uninvolved editors to comment on the RFC, perhaps if that had happened it would have been withdrawn sooner. That a few people voted No to inclusion had me thinking perhaps I was correct that there was no consensus. I have withdrawn the RCF based on your post. I did go looking for information on WPNOV, but I asked the question in the wrong place. AlbinoFerret 16:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - this is just too disruptive. AlbinoFerret thinks he did done nothing to warrant a topic ban. Originally AlbinoFerret said I dont see a word about deleting anything in the RFC. but later he misused the RFC to remove text he does not like with edit summary "remove speculative statement added while RFC on topic is ongoing".[30] He wrote in his edit summary remove older study that newer ones find answers to. It was not a study. It is a WP:MEDRS compliant review. He has a pattern of deleting well sourced text he does not like. QuackGuru (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont believe adding speculative statements to the article has consensus, removing [edits shows there is no consensus,also this edit did not remove this claim from the article, but just from the lede, it existed in the Harm reduction section. This edit cited by QuackGuru was a misunderstanding thinking that other reviews had cleared things up. The claim exists in the article today and hasnt been removed. Two of the diffs added by you are duplicates of other links in your comment. AlbinoFerret 08:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban = Those edits were made more than a week ago. When it comes to WP:CANVASSING, WP:BOOMERANG should apply to Doc James for canvassing repeatedly. -A1candidate (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. User:AlbinoFerret, please explain your accusation here. My recent edit did not change any section name. I commented on the talk page the section name should be simple rather than long. QuackGuru (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I had already apologised at the exact same moment you were posting here. It was your pal Cloudjpk who reverted back to the inaccurate section name. After you did not change it, I changed it to one of the proposed names. The section name is inaccurate as it discusses 3 different particle sizes. Your wanting to keep the name and phrasing you have edited in is a ownership issue. AlbinoFerret

It was previously explained on the talk page that the text and sources describe the particles in the ultrafine range. User:Formerly 98 wrote: "I don't understand the OR tag on the Ultrafine particles section. The cited references clearly describe these particles as being in the nanometer size range, which is on the order of a couple of thousand molecules. Doesn't get much finer than that. What exactly is the OR being referred to here?"[31]

There is no need to have a long section name and you never had consensus in the first place to change the section name. QuackGuru (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The name still needs to be changed. The reasons why are clear. But this is not the place to discuss content issues. After 2 days of discussing it, I changed it to better describe its content. It needs to be changed as we speak because of a revert. This is an ongoing issue, things are done to improve the article, only to be reverted. AlbinoFerret 02:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagreed. The section name is accurate. Now you are arguing to change the wording back to vapor. But the article says "Mist produced from an e-cigarette is frequently but inaccurately called vapor.[2]" Do you understand the term vapor is inaccurate? QuackGuru (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not arguing, but discussing. The word Vapor is common usage when discussing e-cigarettes. WP:MEDMOS tells us we should write for the common reader using normal terms when possible, not jargon. It was never agreed to change every instance of vapor to mist. There was a discussion in the lede about the constant swapping out of vapor to aerosol by you, another ownership issue. An agreement was made for that sentence, excluding the whole article (see the last comment in the section I linked to), to change that sentence to mist. You have been busy changing vapor to mist, but forgot about aerosol. If it works for one word, it works for both. You have argued consistancy, if it works for one word , it should work for both words that were part of that discussion. But this is not the place to discuss content issues. AlbinoFerret 03:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you think your edit matched your edit summary? Part of your edit included deleting the wikilink for no apparent reason and you changed the text that was in quotes. You should not change the quoted text. Changing the text that were quoted is original research. You previously wrote "...a wikilink to aerosol isnt that bad either." QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I think a large boomerang should hit you. You are quick to post content issues here in an attempt to get me topic banned. This is not the place for content problems, but you insist on bringing them here. But talk little on the articles talk page except to defend the problems you insert in the page (see long line diff's below). You revert things to how you added them no matter how the wording was changed or who changes it. This wikilink was placed by you in order to get around the agreement you are trying to enforce. You originally added it here. You want things to be consistent. Based on limited agreements. But only so far as it doesnt touch edits you have made or wording you have placed in[32], because the limited agreement was to chose "mist" over "vapor" or "aerosol" you did not change one instance of aerosol without wikilinking to it to cheat the agreement, and then only for a few, but there is no consensus for any widespread change as shown by the limited agreement. Regardless what guidelines like WP:MEDMOS say you wirt like a medical journal and not for the general reader always adding jargon. You have been banned for disruptive editing more times than anyone I have edited a page with. Yet you still continue to disrupt the editing of e-cigarette. [33][34], [35], [36] [37], and here where you accused me of filing a fake 3rr report You insist on inserting WP:OR [38][39][40]. You argue over small words that have the same meaning and dont pahaphrase[41][42][43]. You insert non MEDRS to make medical claims [44]. You insist on placing one review out of order to serve your pov [45] and refuse any order but the one you want. After dating the citation names in the source to keep them in order[46][47] you changed them back to disguise your actions and edited the section to place your subjective order in place[48]. A forever boomerang should hit you because you have had banns (look at his talk page for a long list) but still continue disruptive editing. AlbinoFerret 12:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I may not be perfect and I may have a lot to learn when dealing with disruptive people. But when I do make mistakes, I apologize for them, and make changes going forward. AlbinoFerret 14:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I have started a new RFC, it is on the use of the word Mist vs Vapor vs Aerosol to see what the consensus is in using these words. There have been a lot of edit battles on the words as some want one thing other want something use used they are replaced with each other all the time by multiple editors. Quack Guru just made a statement that severely goes against WP:AGF with what I consider very serious accusations with no proof. These accusations include WP:ADVOCACY and to "carry on ideological WP:BATTLES". He is also suggesting we carry out WP:OR by using one source to correct others. I am trying to use the tools Wikipedia has to fix issues. These attacks are just sad. AlbinoFerret 08:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban - this is a thinly-veiled attempt to resolve a content dispute by getting an editor with opposing views removed from the discussion. Mihaister (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mihaister is another SPA editing the e-cigarettes page according to the contributions. QuackGuru (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect, Mihaister has edited Romanian diaspora, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania, Prime Minister of Romania , President of Romania, Klaus Iohannis, Radio-controlled helicopter, Tobacco harm reduction, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science in the last week. Please remember to act in good faith. SPACKlick (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban - I agree with Mihaister; this is just an attempt to get rid of an editor the MED cabal don't like. If anyone should be topic banned it's QuackGuru and Doc James, who've turned an article about a consumer product into a terrifying list of speculation and unfounded concerns based mostly on a single paper by a mechanical engineer.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Note. User:CheesyAppleFlake was indefinitely blocked from editing by User:Secret on 18 November 2014.[49]. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban Since it seems that all the involved editors have chosen to give their 2 cents here, i will do so as well, even if i'm involved, and really shouldn't :( . What is happening here is basically one "side" of a content dispute trying to get rid of an editor on the other "side" - and that really should have been thrown away immediately. I find it a sad state of affairs that something as silly as this gets escalated to ANI - but perhaps it is time to find some non-involved volunteer admin who will "police" the article for misbehaviour on either "side". --Kim D. Petersen 01:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

KimDabelsteinPetersen is another SPA editing the e-cigarettes page according to the contributions. QuackGuru (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

My recent contribution history might lead you to think so, especially if you are desperately looking for ways to shoot the messenger, but i'm not. I've been editing WP for the last 8+ years with close to 18,000 edits[50]. Please assume good faith instead of bad. --Kim D. Petersen 08:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect, KimDabelSteinPeterson has edited List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, while they have been focused on this article for a while they contribute elsewhere. Please remember to act in good faith

• Support topic ban The record is clear: endless WP:IDHT, WP:TENDENTIOUS and just plain disruptive editing. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I think you will find that most editors (on both 'sides') involved in the e-cig article have been guilty of some amount of WP:IDHT and partisan editing, where is the evidence that AlbinoFerret is substantially more guilty than everyone else? In fact AlbinoFerret has [made special efforts] to try and diffuse all the feuding between 'sides'.

I couldn't agree more with the likes of Mihaister and Kim D. Petersen that this all has far more to do with trying to suppress the opinions and legitimate editing of a particularly active editor, therefore gaining ground in a content dispute. Whether intended or not, it is also likely to intimidate other editors.Levelledout (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban per EllenCT, Levelledout, Mihaister, CheesyAppleFlake and Kim D. Petersen. I have no involvement in this content dispute but have been watching from a far. This appears to be an effort to get rid of opposing views. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - Albino has gone on a tear now, adding non-NPOV content about pharma companies lobbying to have e-cigs treated as medical devices in europe, to a bunch of articles: here and here and here and here. None of his edits mention lobbying efforts by the e-cig industry against treating them like medical devices. These efforts are named in the title of the NYTimes article he is using a source: "Aided by Army of ‘Vapers,’ E-Cigarette Industry Woos and Wins Europe" and the e-cig industry lobbying is the focus of most articles about it. argh. Albino's WP:SPA POV-pushing related to a pro-e-cig POV is extending out beyond the e-cig article. In the GSK article, I've reverted the addition and asked why the content should be given any WP:WEIGHT and if so, how much, and the question is just going right over his head. (discussion is here) All he can see is e-cigs. Enough already. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice twisting of what happened. The orignal claim was based on this story, link I added the claim on Electronic cigarette first with this edit.diff Later Cloudjpk switched out the source saying it was based on the link he inserted. diff I assumed good faith, perhaps I shouldn't have and just attributed it to the columnist. I changed it in other areas, and the Glaxo site was added by copying and making it only about Glaxo. This was all explained in the discussion here.link As for weight, there are 4 or 5 articles on the lobbying by Glaxo against a product it competes with, it had enough weight to have one line at the bottom of the article. AlbinoFerret 06:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per Jytdog and others. Given the diffs provided by Jytdog, this user seems unlikely to stop on their own without sanctions, and if anything seems to be stepping it up. A case of enough is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Update. Has User:AlbinoFerret been edit warring recently? Revert 1: Restoring disputed text is a revert. Revert 2: Removing a FV tag is a revert. Revert 3" Replacing "unclear" with "premature" is a revert. Revert 4. Removing the word "therefore" and changing the text is a revert. Revert 5: Deleted text. While may or may not be violating the 3RR rule he is continuing to make a lot of reverts. An edit by AlbinoFerret claimed the pharmaceutical industry have lead. The text was a bit misleading. User:Cloudjpk fixed the mess. User:AlbinoFerret added to the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page text that was not regulatory background but he still restored it anyway. User:AlbinoFerret was initially arguing to use a blog despite knowing it is somewhat a commercial site. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Phil_Busardo.27s_self-published_WordPress_blog_as_a_source. Is this yet another example of an unhelpful edit? His edit summary claims "rewrite again for readability and flow" but that is not exactly what he did IMO. Did he rewrite the text because he didn't like what the MEDRS compliant sources said? See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Rephrasing of claims. QuackGuru (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice twisting of things. As explained in this section of the talk page.link 3 of those were edits, and the remaining two are over a day apart. I have already gone over the twisting of what happened on Legal status as it was part of the twisting by Jytdog which you commented on the Glaxo page so you knew what happened before writing this. As for the blog, no I didnt say it was commercial in nature, but that I stay away from sites that were commercial in nature. Mr. Busardo is an expert, who's work has been published by third party sites. I did remove it though because it just wasnt worth the battle for what should be non contentious uses. Finally, yes I rewrote them for readability. The article reads like a medical journal Serious work needs to be done all over it to make it geared more to the general reader as WP:MEDMOS tells us. There is unneeded complexity and higher level complexity for a consumer product. AlbinoFerret 13:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:CheesyAppleFlake

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

---

• CheesyAppleFlake (talk · contribs · block log)

This editor is a WP:SPA with fully 157 of his 164 edits regarding Electronic cigarette. For whatever reason this article has become extremely contentious, but Cheesy's contributions to the topic area serve purely to insult others and fan the flames. He had already received one civility warning from Doc James regarding this comment of his; his responses were "By now everyone knows Quack is basically your meatpuppet" and "the incestuous relationship between Quack and Doc James is pretty common knowledge". Today he posted this at the article Talk page, calling other editors retarded chipmunks. I asked him to reconsider at his User Talk, his response was this, the article is being destroyed by semi-literate idiots intent on forcing a medical agenda onto an article about a consumer product. And you can't seriously tell me that either Sieg Heilman or Quack has any significant mastery of the English language. Calling Doc James "Sieg Heilman" is beyond the pale. See current status of their User Talk here. I don't believe this is a candidate for a topic ban because I have no evidence they're here to do anything other than take potshots or fan the flames, I don't detect any kind of learning happening or even any desire to do better. I think this is a candidate for a block. Zad68 05:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't call other editors retarded chipmunks. I said the Health Effects section looks like it was written by retarded chipmunks, because it does. However any attempt to change the wording gets reverted by Doc James or Quack, neither of whom appears to be a native English speaker.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheesy, you might have been able to hide behind this tiny fig leaf, which is nothing more than a technical letter-but-not-spirit loophole in WP:NPA policy, had you not gone ahead and named Doc James and QuackGuru explicitly on your User Talk as the individual editors you were referring to. And if you recognize that calling other editors "retarded chipmunks" was unacceptable enough to attempt to hide behind a technicality in WP:NPA policy to distance yourself from it, what are we to think about the other comments you've made, where you haven't bothered to make even that effort? Zad68 13:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I may not have put it that way. but a lot of the article looks like someone wrote down claims on slips of paper, tossed them in a bag, and pulled them out one at a time and inserted them. "looks like it was written by retarded chipmunks" looks to be a very sarcastic comment, not something based in anger. It also addresses a common issue on the article where at least one editor cant paraphrase or refuses to. Where at least one major contributor has what appear to be reading comprehension issues, and that isnt an insult but assuming good faith. Where that editor wont rewrite sentences or remove problematic uses of sources where they acknowledge a problem probably exists, but insists others do it for them. You are pointing out the symptom and not seeing the underlying problem. The way its addressed could definitely use some improvement, but we need people pointing out issues in the article so it can be improved. Silencing someone for anything but a small time to think on their actions is counterproductive. AlbinoFerret 16:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

His response here looks to be in response to the conflict currently going on in this section. Where you, and you are an admin, are refusing to follow WP:NOCONSENSUS. AlbinoFerret 05:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You are saying there is justification for Cheesy calling Doc James "Sieg Heilman"? Zad68 05:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes; his dictatorial attitude and serious WP:OWN issues. He's just an editor like anyone else, but he throws his weight around like he owns the place. No interest in consensus, just an obsession with forcing MED rules on everything that takes his interest.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There is never a reason for racial slurs, never, ever, ever, ever. The way you addressed a problem is wrong. But there is a problem. The reasons for the actions you see is because there is a larger group of editors acting as a group. I cant prove collusion, but if an issue pops up editors from the medical side amazingly pop up. Doc James has already been warned for edit warring and canvassing. He knows that he has backup. A big issue on the article is a heightened standard of references for what should be non contentious claims and requiring every claim have a reference even in areas that are not medical in nature on a article about a consumer product. There is also a problem imho with completely silencing any criticism of the Grana article or the WHO. AlbinoFerret 16:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There he constant battle between two groups of editors, medical, and non medical over content. I agree he does have a lot to learn, but if asked nicely he may change. I have asked him nicely to remove other things before, and he did. But there is no time really to teach anyone anything on the article talk pages. Its a constant battleground that leads to a battleground mentality. The article needs someone to step in, not someone with ties to the article, or Wikiprojects that have an interest in it. Its getting worse, and the article has more problems, frankly I fear to bring them up because of it. AlbinoFerret 05:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Civility--basic respect for editors you don't necessarily agree with--is essential, especially at a contentious article. You don't even seem to be aware that Cheesy's involvement at the article is significantly inhibiting your ability to work on it. Zad68 05:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

But it wouldn't be a contentious article if a few members from one Wikiproject weren't insisting on treating it as medical and using massive over-reliance on one dubious paper to slant it the way they want.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a bigger problem than Cheesy, QuackGuru is involved in almost all the conflicts as a main participant. Could Cheesy use a break to think on what he has done? Maybe, but a ban? I dont think so. Like I said, there are lots of problems, and conflicts start all the time. I am doing my very best to stay calm and just work on the article, but its near impossible. Formally 98 had it quiet for a day or so, to bad it didnt last. AlbinoFerret 05:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe so but Cheesy's behavior is disruptive, inexcusable, and isn't stopping after repeated warnings. Let's start there. Zad68 05:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe so? I take that back QuackGuru is a main participant in ALL the conflicts. As for Cheesy, bans are not ment to be punitiveWP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. Thats what I see happening here, and how Cheesy will take it. We need to quiet the conflicts, because thats whats causing the problem with Cheesy, we need to stop with the "I Just Dont Like it" edits. Because as I said above, its a battleground and it brings about a battleground mentality. Its turning everyone into a fighter when we should be editing. These notice board filings are treating a symptom and not the problem underneath. If anything, a short topic block to cool off. AlbinoFerret 06:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please start a new section if you want to complain about something else. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It isnt a complaint so much as context. QG's conduct is already chronicled above, but perhaps a section of his own instead of hoping for a boomerang would be better. Without undestanding the root of the problem, its just treating a symtom. AlbinoFerret 06:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

AF, re "As for Cheesy, bans are not ment to be punitive WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE" -- If you really believe BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE applies here, you are seriously misunderstanding what's going on. However per your own comment here where you call out Cheesy's behavior as unacceptable and implore him not to continue doing it indicates that you know his behavior has been bad and is likely to continue--that is exactly what sanctions are designed for. Any sanction being considered for Cheesy will be preventative against future bad behavior, and so BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE does not apply here. Zad68 13:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If you dont see that a ban instead of a short topic block will be seen as punishment by Cheesy and a lot of the editors that see the same problems with the article, it brings questions about your understanding of people and how to help with admin actions and not hurt. Where are the comments on any other page but their own and e-cigaertte that are problems? Why the heavy handed approach? AlbinoFerret 16:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• This edit referring to Sieg Heilman (see James Heilman and User:Doc James) shows that a topic ban from Electronic cigarette is required for CheesyAppleFlake. There is no need to block if the user manages to edit constructively elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There is really no response when someone starts making racial slurs. This is Godwin's law in action. Further less than helpful comments keep coming in [51] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, its been very contentious. But the problem here is not just a content dispute. Cheesy never misses an opportunity to add an insult to his comments on the Talk page or even his edit summaries. He's here to try to beat his opponents into submission, and to my knowledge has never made a single post that encouraged any sort of compromise or consensus building. Some Cheesy classics:

• "I'll just suggest that instead of trying to force a medical slant on this article you learn something about the subject first. That's the main cause of this whole damn mess"
• "This is because, no offense, you have no idea about the subject in general."
• Im response to my proposal that we take 24 hours off from editing for a cooling off period: "No. Go spend the 24 hours learning something about the damn subject"
• "So we didn't all agree that e-cigs are a health hazard, and now you grab your ball and go home. Fine. See you when you finish elementary school"
• "Well then I am going to change every instance of "mist" back to "vapor". Nobody else in the entire fucking world calls e-cig vapor "mist" apart from this idiotic article."
• "But hey, it's also an alternative to very lucrative (but useless) NRTs, so the med crowd don't care if it saves lives or not."
• "Meanwhile a review published in Addiction is being rejected by your lapdog because he doesn't like its conclusions."

I've been here for 3 years and have never before met an editor whose presence was so inimical to civil discussion and consensus forming. Formerly 98 (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Really? How about QuackGuru? If you want to identify the real problem on the article (and many more) it's him, abetted by his fearless protector.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding also the following exchange on Chessy's Talk page:

This was not an appropriate or collaborative, content-focused comment, and it was just one of many unnecessary sharp comments you've made at that article's already overly-contentious Talk page. Please reconsider your approach to working alongside your fellow editors. Zad68 9:01 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8)

It was perfectly appropriate, because the article is being destroyed by semi-literate idiots intent on forcing a medical agenda onto an article about a consumer product. And you can't seriously tell me that either Sieg Heilman or Quack has any significant mastery of the English language, because they don't.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 9:07 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8)

Even Cheesy's main supporter on this page clearly sees a problem:

Hi Cheesy. The e-cigarette article needs editors. I like having someone else like you who sees the components section as important and in need of developing on the article. But the personal stuff has got to stop. I really really know its hard to bite your tong or sit on your hands. But it doesnt do any good to post some of the stuff they have links of you posting. I truly believe that some people do and say things hoping to get a reaction they can use against you. But posting stuff only plays into their game. Take some time to cool down. Strike the words you have posted in aggravation towards someone else. Be a better person and rise above it. Again, its not easy, it never is, and the Lord knows I have not always followed my own advice in the past. AlbinoFerret 10:52 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8) Formerly 98 (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont think that was a nice thing to do. An attempt to help someone turned around and used against them. This proposed ban is treating the symptom and not the problem. Some of Cheesy's comments are problems. I would never make them. But so are a lot of the actions on e-cigarette that bring these comments out. Its a battleground and it has got to stop. Would a short time off to cool down and think about all this help? Probably. My comments on Cheesy's talk page were an attempt to get more thinking and less instant action. I agree with what I assume to be a lot of the underlying reasons for the posts, just not the words used and the way he went about confronting the problem. AlbinoFerret 15:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The real problem is QuackGuru, who falsely claims consensus for stupid edits like his wholesale replacement of "vapor" with "mist", and Doc James isn't helping much either. Topic ban them and the article will cool down considerably. Neither of them knows anything about the subject anyway and they haven't shown any willingness to learn, so apart from regurgitating the Grana paper at every opportunity they don't have a lot to offer.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• support block per original posting and subject's behavior in the discussion above. WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support block too as an uninvolved editor having reviewed the evidence. Jack Stamps (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Block and indefinite topic ban from electronic cigarettes, as they clearly are too emotionally involved in the topic to contribute usefully to the topic. "Sieg Heilman"? Seriously? How are they not blocked already? Yobol (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't understand why we are discussing a block here when the editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and his actions at this noticeboard is of a battleground mentality that we don't need in this project. I went ahead and gave him an indefinite block. Secret ^account 16:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• support short topic block. The users actions are problematic, but centred on one article with no proof that it extends to any other page. A short time to step away and think on their actions would be helpful. A complete removal from WP is heavy handed and a long term topic block will let the underlying problems with the article continue by talking one more voice of a small group that speak on them. I hope Cheesy can come back and change their actions and work in a constructive way to address the problems that exist on e-cigarette and are not going away. AlbinoFerret 16:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I type to slow. AlbinoFerret 16:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You really believe that if you could just have typed a little faster, you could have "saved" Cheesy, given the above? No. Zad68 17:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:QuackGuru

User:QuackGuru has been blocked before for disruptive editing. He has a long term history of disruptive editing to multiple articles on WP. A search of the WP:AN/I cases brings back 84 results. A common theme when reading through some of the reports is WP:IDHT A review of the log that is accessible from his talk page shows he has had blocks for disruptive editing 3 times this year and once in the last month.A wikipedia block is in order. The log also shows a repeated pattern of disruptive editing with numerous blocks/bans over time. All for disruptive editing. He seems attracted to controversial articles and adds disruption to already difficult situations. The actions below all revolve on the Electronic cigarette article.

In a textbook case of WP:IDHT QuackGuru is being disruptive to the Electronic cigarette talk page. He is attempting to poison the RFC that is on the topic of what word to choose to describe what comes out of an e-cigarette, either Vapor, Mist or Aerosol

He started out trying to use a limited agreement on one sentence in the lede by placing comments to other commentator in two places at once. diff Since he also tried to attribute motive for the RFC I replied to the comment and told him the previous consensus was limited to one sentence in the lede and that he had broken the agreement and that the RFC was to see where consensus lies. diff

He created a subsection of the RFC called "Consensus" diff He also placed the same comment trying to prove that a limited consensus, that he broke, was consensus on the topic of the RFC in that subsection. He had placed the comment before in the RFC already in the question C section. diff and it was pointed out again in that section that the consensus was limited and that he had broken the agreement. Link

He then collapsed the comment in the original subsection he created and used bold to make a fake subsection with a {{OD}} and <big> tag to place the comments in. diff Another editor Kim D. Petersen commented on his WP:IDHT activities in two spots in the comments section.diff. In a bit of irony QuackGuru is part of a DRN because he removed subsections and other organization items from the article saying they were there to attract attention. link.

From a section above on me that has seemed to have stalled I am copying a section that lists all the disruptive acts QuackGuru has recently done.

:I think a large boomerang should hit you. You are quick to post content issues here in an attempt to get me topic banned. This is not the place for content problems, but you insist on bringing them here. But talk little on the articles talk page except to defend the problems you insert in the page (see long line diff's below). You revert things to how you added them no matter how the wording was changed or who changes it. This wikilink was placed by you in order to get around the agreement you are trying to enforce. You originally added it here. You want things to be consistent. Based on limited agreements. But only so far as it doesnt touch edits you have made or wording you have placed in[52], because the limited agreement was to chose "mist" over "vapor" or "aerosol" you did not change one instance of aerosol without wikilinking to it to cheat the agreement, and then only for a few, but there is no consensus for any widespread change as shown by the limited agreement. Regardless what guidelines like WP:MEDMOS say you wirt like a medical journal and not for the general reader always adding jargon. You have been banned for disruptive editing more times than anyone I have edited a page with. Yet you still continue to disrupt the editing of e-cigarette. [53][54], [55], [56] [57], and here where you accused me of filing a fake 3rr report You insist on inserting WP:OR [58][59][60]. You argue over small words that have the same meaning and dont pahaphrase[61][62][63]. You insert non MEDRS to make medical claims [64]. You insist on placing one review out of order to serve your pov [65] and refuse any order but the one you want. After dating the citation names in the source to keep them in order[66][67] you changed them back to disguise your actions and edited the section to place your subjective order in place[68]. A forever boomerang should hit you because you have had banns (look at his talk page for a long list) but still continue disruptive editing. AlbinoFerret 12:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I may not be perfect and I may have a lot to learn when dealing with disruptive people. But when I do make mistakes, I apologize for them, and make changes going forward. AlbinoFerret 14:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I have started a new RFC, it is on the use of the word Mist vs Vapor vs Aerosol to see what the consensus is in using these words. There have been a lot of edit battles on the words as some want one thing other want something use used they are replaced with each other all the time by multiple editors. Quack Guru just made a statement that severely goes against WP:AGF with what I consider very serious accusations with no proof. These accusations include WP:ADVOCACY and to "carry on ideological WP:BATTLES". He is also suggesting we carry out WP:OR by using one source to correct others. I am trying to use the tools Wikipedia has to fix issues. These attacks are just sad. AlbinoFerret 08:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Continued edit warring while listed here

During the discussion here, which QuackGuru was notified of diff, and he is active on WP and knows about because he removed the notice.diff I removed the embellishments that have no place in the RFC. QuackGuru has continued edit warring by reverting that change. diff AlbinoFerret 18:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You're being ridiculous. You modified another editor's comments. What was his very next edit? Zad68 18:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not edit his comments, I edited a fake section he created.diff The words he posted remained intact. The section they are in remained the same. He is edit warring. AlbinoFerret 18:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to review the edits to determine whether you refactored. QG then undid your change one time, to leave you an edit summary explaining why you probably should not have modified it. Then QG immediately removed it. You are describing this as "edit warring".... on the Talk page. Zad68 18:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:WAR edit waring is "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts". WP:3RR which is a section of WP:WAR says any part of a page is the scope "A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space." I have changed header once, I have changed the embellishments the second time because they were a fake header that looked like one. QuackGuru insists on the form, and the word. Per WP:TPO Section headings no one owns section headers, they are not comments. AlbinoFerret 19:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

A continuation of the above is QuackGuru improperly trying to influence an RFC. I started a section to specifically deal with the future closing because a few comments in the discussion area had talked about it. Today Quackguru added a comment, like many of the others mentioned in this section to that section. diff This is continued disruption. AlbinoFerret 23:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

In this edit QuackGuru removed sourced material from the article. [69] citing WP:TRIVIA. The Legal status section isnt a section of trivia. AlbinoFerret 03:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a continuation of the content dispute to me. As several editors have attempted to explain to you on the other pages where you attempted to edit war this same content into place, you don't have an inalienable right to add material to the encyclopedia just because you have reliable sources for it. It has to add to the quality of the article, be important enough to include, and you need the consensus of other editors that these things are true. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats might makes right, thats not how wikipedia runs, I am seriously thinking of bringing you and the other editor that removed source material here. What industry did you work in again? AlbinoFerret 04:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Casting aspersions, AF? Zad68 04:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Just curiosity, ferrets are known for it. AlbinoFerret 13:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

In another edit QuackGuru removed more cited material diff AlbinoFerret 04:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you are misrepresenting QG's edit. In the lead, QG replaced one sentence summarizing safety of e-cigs as NRT with another sentence that says quite nearly the same thing. Both Caponnetto 2013 and the Public Health England report are still in use in the article. Zad68 04:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think your wrong, WP:OR is what he claims it is. link. The reason is clearly shown in the edit where he replaced it.diff Even after being shown it wasnt by copying from the source he still thought it was, look at the talk section link earlier in this reply. This is either a language or a reading comprehension issue that pops up over and over. I truly believe that the vapor/aerosol/mist thing is the same kind of issue. He doesnt get it that people who are general readers dont always use the "technically" correct term. This is a big problem, and he argues about it. Its disruptive to the article and talk page. It slows work that could go to working on the article in other areas. It also makes the article read like a medical journal article. We seriously need to simplify areas he edits, but the argument that would cause would be weeks long. AlbinoFerret 13:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Block or Ban

• I think he is a candidate for an indefinite block. AlbinoFerret 15:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Block or Topic BanWhile some have tried to label this as a content issue, it is not. The problem is long term disruptive editing and talk page posting that is seriously harming the article, and from his system log shows it is widespread. Way to much time has already been wasted on discussing the copyright, ownership, and misapplication of WP policies like WP:OR with no change in actions or posting. He has had lots of chances to fix these issues brought up by previous blocks and banns but continues to do it. It has even continued after this section was placed and he was notified. Other editors should not be distracted with these problems that continue so disrupt and place WP at risk with copyright issues. While a block would protect WP, a topic ban if made long enough might, and I am not at all convinced it might, convince him of the need to change. So far all other attempts, blocks, and bans have failed. There have also been allegations that I am doing this because of what happed above to CheesyAppleFlake, or that I somehow excused his actions. I never defended those actions, I only suggested that a topic ban might be effective. Its a diffrent case entirely with QuackGuru who has had numerous blocks/bans and has not changed. The types of behaviour are also different, Cheesy never put WP at risk of copyright violations where QuackGuru continues to. It is also a case of two wrongs dont make a right, because someone else may have done something wrong, is no excuse for QuackGuru's actions. AlbinoFerret 16:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose block I support blocks when editors either are being uncivil or are creating a impassable barrier to resolution. The conversation at the article in question is ongoing. Discussions of extremely controversial topics of international importance are unlikely to be resolved quickly by a few Wikipedians on a talk page, so while I recognize the difficulty here I am not ready to dismiss a leading participant in this conversation, especially when practically everyone who even looks at the talk page of this article loses all their sense and goes crazy.

I have defended QuackGuru in the past because this user seeks out the most controversial spaces in Wikipedia's health articles. I do not think this user creates the controversy, nor do I blame any Wikipedia user for the controversy's existence. It is the nature of Wikipedia to create forums where people of various perspectives would meet, and if there is controversy on Wikipedia, then this is only because there is no other forum anywhere in which people of varying perspectives can meet to seek consensus.

The biggest fault that I find in all of this is lack of good source material, ambiguity in the subject matter, and a greater burden to seek quality on Wikipedia editors than the burden is on scientific and popular publishers. The pressure here is that Wikipedia editors should achieve higher quality than exists among think tanks which with huge amounts of funding have only produced lower-quality explanations. I find no fault with the debate in this article. It is progressing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose block This is just continuation of the entrenched content war at E cig by other means. I would not call QGs behavior perfect, but I would call it better than that of many of those he is arguing with, and several orders of magnitude bettrr than that of Cheesy, whom AlbinoFerret was vigorously defending in this exact forum just a few days ago. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose irrespective of what the wider issue is, I always find it highly improper when two parties are in a dispute of any kind and one party seeks the topic ban or indef block of the other party. In such cases I wil invariably oppose. The only exceptions being blatant copyvios, legal threats, threats of violence, outing or doxing, outright vandalism, proven socking and racism. Blackmane (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Albino needs to drop the stick. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose no good reason has been given that I can see. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This is the kind of thing that makes Wikipedia a laughingstock - endless battles over individual words - such as vapor vs. mist vs. whatever. What do valid sources call it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yup sort of a case of who cares. Best available sources call it a aerosol. Albino it appears does not like the term as it sounds negative.

Of the last 500 edits in less than 2 weeks QG made ~142 and Albino made ~168.

I have proposed a topic ban for Abino above [70]

Since that has occurred they have supported a now banned user who more or less made racist comments [71] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

That is an inaccurate description of the discussion here. I did not support or excuse the things he did. In fact I said that racist slurs "should never, ever, ever, ever be used" I spoke to lessoning of the actions and giving Cheesy time away from the article with a topic ban, to think, and perhaps change for the better. That since his actions were only on one article, in the midst of a controversy, a block of all WP was a bit extreme imo. AlbinoFerret 19:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs:The problem is, that sources call it different things. Best sources is a matter of opinion as the majority of them use vapor and it is the most common term used that a general reader will easily understand. There is an effort to remove the term "vapor" from the article citing a few medical reviews and that its "promotional" but I disagree. The article is on a consumer product, in a consumer category. The reason the RFC was started was to find consensus because the words were constantly being changed and reverted. QuackGuru seems to be at the center and yes as DocJames pointed out I make a lot of edits. But in defence I dont just make one edit to add something but usually have to make 4 or so to get it right. The actions of QuackGuru are disruptive to the article because they seek to put an ephisis on a limited consensus, that he broke, through a twisting of the facts. They are classic WP:IDHT because other editors besides myself have told him he is not correct. Yet he adds them again and again. The adding of a subsection is just trying to draw attention to the lie. He is a disruptive editor in a controversy. AlbinoFerret 17:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I am involved with both AF and QG at the article, but I am not seeing evidence presented here of genuine disruptive editing that rises to the level that it needs an indef block... not anything even close. This is a garden-variety content dispute that doesn't belong at ANI. Zad68 16:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

At the least an indefinite topic ban, but I think a block is more appropriate because of the wide scope of disruptive editing he has engaged in and has had numerous bans of time. He just refuses to learn that he cant do it, its WP:IDHT. He has been topic banned from Electronic cigarette before. The time needs to seriously escalate because of repeated problems. AlbinoFerret 17:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Having tried to review some of this (and at its WP:FT/N appearance) I'm having a hard time understanding why there's such a fight over it. The argument over "mist" versus "aerosol" is supremely pointless given that any layperson is going to implicitly understand them to be the same; "vapor" at least would be understood to be something different but it's clear enough that the scientific literature states that there is more than vaporization going on, and that therefore the scientific statements have priority over advertizing or popular impressions. I do not understand why you have the bit in your teeth about this. Mangoe (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The issue that everyone is focusing on is there is a controversy, thats not been disputed, but what actions QuackGuru is engaging in during the discussions are the problem imho, WP:IDHT and clear WP:AGF violations where he has accused me of WP:ADVOCACY without a shred of evidence, and trying to bias the responders to the RFC with attention grabbing embellishments and a twisting of the history. The question shouldn't be why is there a conflict, but why is QuackGuru acting as he is during a conflict. AlbinoFerret 18:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

AF, the page has been full of WP:IDHT. I can see that QG hasn't been a model of AGF towards you. I think the whole page needs to be left to calm down a bit, sadly there's no way that would happen. SPACKlick (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a listening to others. There was a compromise on the lede, that was limited to the lede. I was happy with leaving the rest of the page use whatever the source said. I was happy letting the specific section that had a specific common word use that word that was most appropriate. QuackGuru as chronicled above broke that agreement by going and changing vapor to mist in sections he did not edit leaving aerosol alone in other parts of the article. The RFC may seem silly to some, but the conflict on the page made it necessary. He is now trying to improperly influence the RFC with embellishments and a twisting of the history. He keeps adding it. Others have engaged in discussion, he has not and its a clear case of WP:IDHT because I am not the only person to tell him so. AlbinoFerret 18:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I am involved with both Albino and QuackGuru, vaguely, on the talk page and I have to say whilst i could understand someone finding QuackGuru a bit of a pain and he certainly treads close to POV pushing at times and can be a bit abrasive,I haven't seen anything which looked like it would warrant sanctions. SPACKlick (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret's complaints here fit his long history of lobbying for terms not supported by best sources. It's also an obvious attempt at retribution. "I think a large boomerang should hit you" etc. make it pretty clear this is about AlbinoFerret, not QuackGuru.

This is at best a garden-variety content dispute that doesn't belong at ANI. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Obvious retaliatory thread is obvious. Baseball Bugs has pretty much hit it on the head. Of all things to fight over, editors are fighting over the different use of three words that mean the same thing. I wonder how long it will take them to realise how ridiculous they look. Blackmane (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a good deal of the evidence presented so far has been content related, but some of it is genuinely conduct related and there are still long-term issues with QuackGuru's conduct that need addressing. I have noticed that QuackGuru has made an effort to improve since being blocked the last time, but his editing is still frequently WP:TENDENTIOUS, lacking in WP:COMPETENCE and sometimes bordering on WP:OWN. Likewise his contributions to discussions and attempts to collaborate are often inadequate and/or disruptive in themselves. I appreciate that Quack seems to have made an attempt to improve but it is still often almost impossible to collaborate with him and reach any sort of consensus.

Here are some evidence for these conclusions although do bear in mind that rarely is a single one of Quack's edits the problem, the problem is more a pattern of edits over a long time span, making it very difficult to collect all of the evidence:

[In this example] QuackGuru makes the accusation that AlbinoFerret has filed a "fake" 3RR violation (whatever that may mean) in the middle of a discussion regarding sections. This is disruptive and WP:PERSONAL.

[here] QuackGuru is made aware of adding exact copies of sources and/or failing to paraphrase, which could potentially lead to legal (copyright) issues for Wikipedia. He seems to struggle get this point and unfortunately a week later is still needing to be warned to [change another sentence]. This is a WP:COMPETENCE issue.

WP:CONSENSUS / collaborating in discussions - [Here] QuackGuru states "If it does not matter to you then will you stop discussing this".

[Here] QuackGuru complains that changing "can" to may" was not explained and demands an explanation (the way he does it is rude and bordering on WP:OWN) is provided to him, after receiving a reply QuackGuru states "Both can and may is OR".

In this example, QuackGuru merged some subsections stating that this was necessary in order to prevent "promotion" of e-cigarettes. After I politely inferred a more detailed explanation be provided, QuackGuru simply stated [I removed the repetitive text"] in reference to an entirely different edit.

Later in the discussion, after a point was raised regarding sourcing by another editor, QuackGuru gives [another entirely different argument] as to why there should not be subsections.

When given the chance to resolve the dispute at DNR, QuackGuru stated in his [dispute summary] that "The problems were already explained at Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Removal_of_bullet_points_in_a_list_and_renaming_the_section. Now editors can work together to remove the unreliable sources from the construction section."

[here] is another example of disruptive editing / WP:COMPETENT issues. In this discussion the original poster is as polite as possible and gives a detailed request for information. Quack gives a 5 word explanation for his edit, "I removed the SYN violation". It turns out Quack is just misunderstanding policy/the edit but continues to insist that he is right because of a different reason (the word "some" was changed to "may") and then yet another different reason, even after it is pointed out to Quack that he has done the exact same thing himself in another part of the article.

This continuous changing of goalposts and avoidance of genuine discussion is very disruptive (WP:TENDENTIOUS) and often makes it impossible to resolve any disagreements. This post is not a retaliatory action on my part or done for the desire of seeing someone removed from a content dispute, I am genuinely frustrated with Quack's protracted disruptive editing.Levelledout (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

As with many long comments full of clever links to WP:TENDENTIOUS + WP:COMPETENCE + WP:OWN + more, the above has very little content.

Someone needs to throttle the rate of editing/commenting relating to this topic because the bustle is not matched by improvements to the article. AlbinoFerret has made 393 edits at Electronic cigarette and 1005 edits Talk:Electronic cigarette and at least another 200 edits relating to e-cigs on noticeboards. All that has happened since 30 September 2014. That is over 1598 edits related to e-cigs in 52 days (30 edits per day). This complaint about Quackguru appears to be no more than a retaliation to one of QG's opponents being indeffed above. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Appearances can be deceiving, especially when you assume things. The rate of improvements to the article would increase and posts to talk pages would decrease if a QuackGuru's disruptive actions on the article and interaction on the talk page stopped. Its death by a thousand cuts. I have also explained that I rarely make one edit and leave. Even on talk pages. I fix my comments sometimes 4 and 5 times before the comment is done. A look at the history will prove that.

This is not about Cheesy getting blocked, its because of a continuous pattern of problems. I am a Christian who follows the Bible to the best of my ability. Cheesy had issues but, I am a firm believer that people can change. I was following "Open thy mouth for the dumb, in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction". Cheesy wasnt a "friend" but an acquaintance on a talk page. I am not doing this because Cheesy got blocked.

Unfortunately in QuackGuru's case he hasnt changed even though he has been given chances to change in the past. Its a steady adding of problem on top of problem. He has comprehension issues that add to the problems. I have talked about bringing him here and here way before Cheesy was blocked. I have added a lot of diff's above, the underlying issue may have been content. But the edits on the page and the sections linked above clearly show that the problem I am talking about isnt the disagreement with content on the page, but the but the way he acts when there is a problem. User:Levelledout has a better way with words, and hit the nail on the head. AlbinoFerret 02:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that QuackGuru did not file the complaint against CheesyAppleFlake or even contribute to the discussion. I also condemn CheesyAppleFlake's actions that got them blocked. I agree that there are issues with editing at the e-cigarette article being disrupted although that is not specifically what is being discussed here. By the way QuackGuru himself has made about 38 edits in the past 24 hours relating to the e-cigarette article.Levelledout (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit counts are not important (although they show excessive enthusiasm), but for the record QG has 328 edits at the article and 365 at its talk, from 30 September 2014 (total 15/day); QG's first edit was at 20 April 2014 and from that date the edits are 459 + 404. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is a prime example of WP:IDHT copied from the talk page. This type of discussion is commonplace in any discussion including QuackGuru. He just doesnt listen. Its disruptive.

According to you it is original research to change aerosol to vapor. You claimed aerosol is not a synonym of vapor but according to this change[72] you did replace aerosol with vapor. Do you think it is original research to change aerosol to vapor (or mist) and do you think vapor should be used throughout the body of the article no matter what the source says? QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This is bait and switch. You are saying again that I am claiming it is original research. I never have and I already explained this to you.diff[73] But you dont here it WP:IDHT The diffs you use dont prove the accusations you are levelling. This diff has clear comments on it "change sentence to avoid copyright problems" that mention "copyright issues". This diff has clear comments on it that the change was "change to be consistent" or consistency with the rest of the article according to the agreement that you broke.AlbinoFerret 19:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You claimed we are using another source to correct another source. You previously wrote "We are not permitted to use one source to correct others. That would be WP:OR."[74] However, This diff shows your replaced aerosol with vapor. Your edit summary claims it was a copyright issue but you changed it because it appears you wanted to use the word vapor. You edit showed at the time you did think aerosol and vapor are synonyms. Editors want to use commonsense and use more neutral wording or more accurate synonyms in accordance with NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

We have went over this art least once. You dont seem to get it. I explained why you are wrong yet you still persist. Here is the answer I gave yesterday on why I went to the OR board. I never claimed anything, I simply asked a question for information. Here is what I told you yesterday:

"I have suspicions that it may be OR based on a question I asked yesterday on the OR notice board. But since it is such a difficult question I was seeking information on if it was OR before bringing it up here. I dont like sticking my foot in my mouth as you just did here claiming one thing, when in fact it is another."

I changed the word because of a copyright issue, the whole sentance was a close copy of the source, I should have changed it more. We have gone over this quite a few times in the past. AlbinoFerret 03:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Your edit changed it to vapor but what did the source say? You changed it because you also preferred the synonym vapor over aerosol. Why would anyone think synonyms could be an OR issue? QuackGuru (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Its endless, you cant discuss anything with him. He goes on and on, and on, on the same thing, over, and over, and over again. If there is an issue with his edits for any reason, its endless rounds in circles trying to explain whats wrong. Then when he possibly gets it, he insists you make the changes. Here is a whole section of the talk page where he just doesnt seem to get it. I can find a lot more sections just like it, like this one. The issue isnt a content disagreement. Its the disruptions caused by bringing up problems he inserts like copyright violations. He insists on the wording he copied in. He will misapply WP:OR if its changed. This ends up seriously harming the article and hampering the work done on it. AlbinoFerret 04:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I too have been involved in editing and discussion of this article and have been frustrated by QG's attitude. The unrelenting disruptive editing makes any substantive progress in the article impossible. QuackGuru's history of POV-pushing [75] and WP:OWNership issues [76] and his rather lengthy block log for similar behavior seem to suggest that it is unlikely he will change his ways or learn how to edit collaboratively. Mihaister (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Today was like a lot of others in the past. Quackguru added a copyright violation, again.Link Quackguru argued over the difference between ["several" and "a few". Switched it back to several calling it WP:OR. QuackGuru switched back a good edit because of ownership issues, first tagging it as WP:OR Then changing the the word to "ultrafine partials" two minutes later from an edit to "droplets" diff. But a aerosol or vapor is made up of tiny droplets. The claim was in the lede, its supposed to be simple there was a great deal of working together to simplify the section before. Its one step forward, and three steps back. AlbinoFerret 01:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret's continued, endless, complaints here are much like what he puts in the Talk page. I find them tiresome, WP:TENDENTIOUS, vindictive, and seldom justified by the facts. Some here amount to just plain false accusations. I believe boomerang applies. I propose a lengthy block for AlbinoFerret. Cloudjpk (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Petty? No, just demonstrating the continued disruptive editing and postings on the talk page. GuackGuru has been editing a long time, but still dose not paraphrase, even though its been gone over with him numerous times. This puts WP at risk because of copyright issues. He also continuously misuses WP:OR to justify changing edits back to words he gets fixated on. This isnt about me but the article, and how its being disrupted and how WP is put at risk.

Vindictive? No., but I think I know who is. Its amazing the amount of times you suddenly appear to defend QuackGuru. I also question this comment on the talk page section where only you and QuackGuru take one side of a discussion. Link You make this comment "We need not rely entirely on Cheng.". We? Yes you and your friend QuackGuru. You both are the only editors taking the same point of view. I cant remember ever seeing an editor say "We", its always "I". AlbinoFerret 04:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's need to cast aspersions AF, remember to WP:AGF. However, I am coming to the view that QG is causing a lot of difficulties in improving the article. Very territorial, Very POV. The whole Mist debacle is a good example. The fact that with no respect for WP:Weight he will include any speculation in a WP:RS that's negative to e-cigs, going so far as to create a new section just to say "We also don't know that they don't damage the environment" based on one source. It's difficult to work there at the moment. I think QG may need some time to cool off and AF, you're taking things personally. QG may be pushing your buttons but you're letting them be pushed. You could probably also do with some time to cool off. SPACKlick (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: The statement above, which I just struck, was in response to accusations of a similar nature that were levelled against me. While its factual and has some proof behind it, I will take the high road and take it out. As for pushing buttons, its a fact and I have made a effort to stop letting it happen as much. I do have an area that I have to draw the line at, placing WP at risk with copyright issues, it cant be allowed to continue and has to be addressed every time. AlbinoFerret 16:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Will somebody please, please, please put a 2 week block on editing of this article by any and all editors The level of inflexibility, refusal to compromise, and bickering has simply gone off the charts. If this keeps up, David Healy is going to put an article on his blog suggesting an investigation into the role of SSRIs in this behavior. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that would actually help though? I mean from everything I've witnessed so far that would probably result in everybody picking up where they left off in two weeks time. I'm sure that a psuedo-science article (can't remember which one, acupuncture maybe??) was recently put into some sort of special measures by an administrator and I'm starting to think that might be needed on the e-cigarette article. Basically absolute zero-tolerance of certain policy violations, 1RR to prevent edit-warring, etc.Levelledout (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Levelledout, two days wont help anything. The refusal to compromise pre-dates my first edit on the article if the archives are any proof. It looks like he is also right on acupuncture from the look of the talk page there. Its also one of the articles QuackGuru edits regularly. AlbinoFerret 08:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This is Exactly the problem, Albino You explain this childish conflict that has taken over your life with comments like "I explained to editor XYZ that he was wrong, and he still didn't accept my point of view" or "Oh, we're still fighting because the other side won't see reason". Honest to god, its time to fucking grow up. Nobody gives a shit a←bout this and we all tire of the endless bickering. Walk away from the keyboard, take your wife out to dinner, get a hobby and forget Wikipedia exists for 2 weeks. Electronic cigarettes will not be banned as a result of your failure to bicker with Quack for 2 weeks. Or for the rest of your life for that matter. I don't know how to put it any plainer. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Although I can understand the general frustration, I don't think these comments are particularly helpful. The more I try and step back and think about this multiple editors are involved in the problems and eradicating one or even two of them is actually unlikely to improve the article. The feuding pre-dates AF's involvement and goes back as long as I have been trying to edit the article. We need to find a way forward, a block on all editing is all very well but it needs to followed up by very strict enforcement of WP:CONSENSUS, 1RR and possibly some other core policies like WP:NPOV in addition to close monitoring of all editors' conduct in general. I don't like authoritarian measures more than anybody else but something needs to be done, this is the only thing I can think of. Somehow we need to get to point where editors actually make genuine efforts to reach WP:CONSENSUS as opposed to simply taking sides and adopting battleground mentality.Levelledout (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep removing sourced information from other articles, Im sure it helps WP. AlbinoFerret 06:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this sarcasm? Regardless, AF, you're exhibiting pure WP:IDHT behavior here, we are tiring of explaining how "I have a source" doesn't automatically mean you can use it in every article. Zad68 04:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Glad you can see sarcasm in text. The only thing I have learned is its ok to dump endless speculation in some articles, but not well sourced activities of a company in others. That people can misuse WP:TRIVIA. But every time an edit gets removed, I remember how it was removed, and where the reasons for removal were. AlbinoFerret 22:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Action or closure? (e-cig threads)

AF's strategy seems to be: keep adding stuff to these threads, preventing them from getting archived, until something happens. These threads have been malingering here for, what, 20 days? Could an uninvolved admin review what's going on and please take action, or maybe explain what new evidence would need to be seen before action can be taken. Thanks... Zad68 04:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, AlbinoFerret has won because AF's editing rate drives away all except the most dedicated editors who might try to follow a topic. In the last five days, AF has made over 40 edits/comments per day relating to e-cigs. AF is now righting great wrongs relating to the evils of big pharma re e-cigs. Johnuniq (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As Far as I can see QG's aggressiveness and blinkered approach and AF's scatter shot flood everywhere approach are both making the article harder to improve and consensus harder to reach. Would a temp topic ban for both editors acheive anything? SPACKlick (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like this time, a baby and the bathwater approach might be the way to go. A topic ban for both might be the ticket. Blackmane (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Johnuniq. I have experienced the difficulty myself: AF's editing/talk is just endless. However I can't agree with throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Without pretending that QG has been perfect, there's also no reason to pretend the problem is equal, or to respond as if it was. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• There has been no specific evidence presented that qualifies that either editor is worse than the other, stating that QG is worse than AF or vice-versa is inherently very subjective without blatant gross and serious violations of policy that have not been presented. I am coming to the realization that singling out specific editors in attempts to have the opposition removed is not going to solve the problem/disputing, [which has been going on for many months] and appears to involve most editors at the article. As I have said we need to find a way forward and I would urge an uninvolved admin to take at look at monitoring this article for a while.Levelledout (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I wasnt aware that editing and discussing articles was grounds to be banned. Where can I find that WP policy? Yes, every time a WP policy or guideline is broken by QuackGuru I will add it here, this is the place to discuss such issues. But so far, other than editing and a few questionable remarks, all I have done is discuss things on the talk page. As posted in numerous locations in this section I seldom make one edit or comment and stop. But find problems with what I have added and change it 4 or 5 times to make it right. As for the scatter approach, that must be where I added something to 4 articles. One was a little section on e-cigarette that is linked to page that was broken out. The second to the page that was broken out because if its in the summery of the page it should also be on the broken out page. The other two were the articles on the companies that did the lobbying. It was all sourced to reliable sources. Sadly its been removed. I do agree with Levelledout, the article could use an uninvolved admin to come in and monitor the article. The problems on the article pre-date my first edit on the article if the archives are any proof. By the way QuackGuru's section is only 9 days old. AlbinoFerret 03:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Many details are not covered by policies, but it should be obvious that overwhelming others with frequent edits is unhelpful: you have 443 edits at Electronic cigarette and 1100 edits at Talk:Electronic cigarette, and hundreds more edits relating to this topic elsewhere—over 30 edits per day for two months. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Divide that by 4 or 5, because that how many edits it takes most of the time to get something edited right or a comment done. If its something you can ban someone for, it should be in a guideline or policy some place. Perhaps your not disabled and work out of your home, and kill time online. Thats my life, want to trade so you can post more? AlbinoFerret 04:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• If it makes any difference, I still support a temporary month-long ban of everyone (including me) who has edited the article over the past month, so that we get a fresh approach from different uninvolved editors. Can administrators do that? Is there precedent for it? EllenCT (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A month long topic ban stands to stop the disruption for a month. Doesn't really seem like it will resolve any of the issues, only postpone them. How about protecting the page and the involved users go to dispute resolution? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think an outright ban on all editing will solve the problem alone, may help a little to get everyone to calm down but I'm confident the problems will soon re-emerge. DRN, well yes that may help but the last time something was brought to DRN, [only one side joined in]. So yes if we can get to the stage of most editors on both sides agreeing to engage in genuine debate of the key disputed issues (NPOV, medical/consumer argument including MEDMOS, reliable sources and where V and MEDRS should apply, etc).Levelledout (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Levelledout: That wasnt the only place, a poll was started to give each side a view of the other sides thinking.link It was voluntary, but only one editor from the medical point of view participated.AlbinoFerret 07:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

How about page protection, some form of dispute resolution, and a topic ban for anyone that doesn't take part and anyone that tries to crash or filibuster the process.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Obviously some finer details would need to be worked out but yeah if that's possible it sounds like a very good plan.Levelledout (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think most of those those would be doable, page protection all the time isnt really necessary. I would add a 1RR rule on any specific section of the page, it would be a good idea, and stopping reverts by multiple people to win something by one side or the other. That would limit the problems and force discussion. I would be against the whole page because the article does get its fair share of spam. There is a problem with discussion on the talk pages, some form of third party intervention would be helpful if both sides have to address issues. AlbinoFerret 14:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not the Wikipedia model. We do not have policemen moderating Talk pages so that problematic editors can have "minders" enabling them to participate alongside non-problematic ones. We do not have the manpower for that. What we do is notice when problematic behavior is happening, warn the individual editors, and if the problematic behavior doesn't stop we prevent the continuation of that behavior with sanctions. Zad68 14:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

1RR is just fine it would seem. No we don't need no policeman there. They can self police just fine. If anyone of them comes back here with this with any claim and that claim is remotely frivolous then they topic banned. There's enough rope there that they will either be able to settle their issue amongst themselves appropriately or they will hang themselves.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not highly experienced on Wikipedia so it is good to hear clarification from Zad on the point that they make. Incidentally I don't particularly want policing of articles either, but my intention is to find a way forward to solve the dispute and what has happened so far has not worked. Note that sometimes administrators do impose conditions on articles, such as [here]. How common this type of action is I don't know but I think that if those conditions were imposed on the e-cig article it would help, any violations could be sorted out at ANI.

With regards to problematic editing, either both sides are engaging in it (since there have been plenty of editors on both sides claiming this) or both sides are simply trying to solve a content dispute by removing the other side.Levelledout (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

For full awareness the page is currently admin only protected Here is the RPP thread SPACKlick (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wanted to note to any closing editors QuackGuru has claimed three editors so far are SPA's two of whom are clearly very active across wikipedia and one of whom has some activity elsewhere. There is little good faith in this action and it smacks of trying to change the position of the editors by hook or by crook rather than trying to build consensus. SPACKlick (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I just had the time to glance through this case. SPACKlick, perhaps you can open up a little bit that who are those "three editors"" who are SPA's? And who are the two who are very active across Wikipedia? And who is this one having "some activity elsewhere"? That'd help a lot for the beginning. Thank you! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, should have put the diffs here, it's higher up in this thread. Diff of QuackGuru implicating user:Levelledout[contributions], Mihaister[contributions] and KimDabelsteinPetersen[contributions] as SPA's. KDP is the one closest to an SPA, Since 2 October 2014 they've posted almost exclusively about e-cigs. Mihaister edits Romanian topics and remote controlled helicopters and is in no way an SPA. Levelledout has been mostly focussed on e-cigs for the last month, although has edited elsewhere. SPACKlick (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not the first time QuackGuru has thrown unsubstantiated accusations and inflammatory language around. I've gotten fed up with the personal attacks and insults, that's why I pulled back from editing on the e-cigarette topic. As I wrote above, I do not think QG's behavior is likely to improve. I'm hoping this discussion can put an end to the incivility so we can all go back to improving Wikipedia. Mihaister (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a serious assumption of bad faith from User:QuackGuru which i find disturbing. For those who think that i'm an SPA please examine this. --Kim D. Petersen 08:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I echo both Kim D. Petersen and Mihaister's thoughts. Please also take a look at my ['Top Edited Pages'] and you will see that a topic completely unrelated to e-cigarettes is 1st. I have been pretty active at the e-cigarette talk page but that is mainly due to often futile and protracted attempts to try and obtain consensus on the multiple ongoing disputes.Levelledout (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah? You have made 180 edits of which more than 100 pertain to e-cigs. Kim has edited both about global warming and e-cigs and mostly about the latter lately. Mihaister has begun editing other stuff but initially did just edit cig related topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but what is your point? 56% Approximately 55% of my edits relating to e-cigs hardly amounts to a WP:SPA.Levelledout (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Having thought about it overnight, I think QuackGuru should be formally sanctioned for these personal attacks without warrant or foundation. That said I don't find it surprising, givne the general attitude of QG that when scrutinised about behaviour on wikipedia he's tried to discredit rather than discuss. I think the e-cig page would be better off when the protection is lifted if QG was not actively editing there. SPACKlick (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SPACKlick's proposal. User QuackGuru has previously got warned also by an administrator due to his personal attacks already in September[77]. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Were you able to decode what the admin said in that link? It was a very polite way of saying that you are WP:NOTHERE and that QG should not let that fact get under his skin. Regarding the lasts few posts above: QG has correctly identified the fact that some enthusiasts are acting in a manner similar to SPAs by focusing on using the article to tell the world about e-cigs and their benefits. That might irritate the enthusiasts but it is not actionable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

If you think "SPA" means "only ever having edited one article" then you're not getting the point of the essay WP:SPA. An editor can correctly be characterized as an SPA even if they've made some edits here and there outside the topic. It's not unusual for an SPA who is becoming aware that scrutiny is coming down on their edits to make a few token edits to try to defuse that accusation. Not saying that accounts 100% for what is happening in this case but I think QG is at least largely correct here, certainly with the editing histories since late October. I invite any uninvolved editor to review the editing histories, making sure to follow up on not just the kind of edits made to e-cig pages (look at the content), but also edits made to project pages and User Talk pages to see what those edits were regarding too. It's unreasonable to think QG's assessments here in this ANI thread were so disruptively off-base to justify a topic ban (did he make them at the article Talk page?). Zad68 01:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, QG's SPA diagnosis is reasonably grounded. I fear there's some puppetry/socking of some kind going on too, in view of new accounts that seem so highly magnetized to the e-cig topic. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note that "the edit histories since late October" are irrelevant in determining WP:SPA, it is the entire edit history that counts. I also invite the closing editor to fully investigate this, as well as sockpuppet or other allegations, I have nothing to hide.Levelledout (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I have concerns that there may be meatpuppet activity, but sockpuppet, nope. I think the closer should check all the parties involved in this whole e-cigarette section for such. AlbinoFerret 16:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There are 6 million users of e-cigs in the US alone and another 10 million in the EU, of which at least 2.1 million in the UK. The worldwide number is probably above 100 million. Why is it so surprising that a few people took an interest in the Wikipedia article on this topic?

More suspicious really is the hostile reception these Wikipedians have encountered from the MED editors who have claimed the topic as their own. Instead of collaboration and AGF, we get filibusters, insults, and unsubstantiated accusations of SPA and SOCK. A thorough investigation is warranted to uncover the degree to which commercial and financial interests from the Pharma industry are influencing the edits to this article; especially in light of the recent revelations that Big Pharma has infiltrated the "top administrators" circles of Wikipedia and is using MED articles as a propaganda and promotion platform under the guise of "correcting information". Mihaister (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

a threat from colleague Legacypac

I’d like to report a threat from colleague Legacypac: “I will report you”, that he made in this edit on 24 Nov 2014; a curse: “what the hell is wrong with the editor who moved this” in this edit, and a lie: “Deletions of material” also in that first edit.

It’s okay to disagree, to debate, to revert an edit, even to qualify an edit as “inaccurate” or nonsense (which is an opinion, that I can react on, if I want to), but it is not okay to vaguely threaten someone with “I’ll report you”. This is not kindergarten. What does he want to report me for? Firstly, I’m not targeting his edits—as he calls it—I’m just frequently editing one page, recently, which simply is a page that nowadays seems to need a lot of updating, debate, etc.—just normal Wikipedia developments, that are. Secondly: I’ve always exactly motivated why I’ve scrapped Australia and Canada, several times, in that list. If Legacypac wants to refute that motivation, he is welcome to do so, but “utter nonsense” is not really an argument. Just today (!), Legacypac has brought in the proof about Australia in the article. Fine. He could perhaps have done that earlier. But why does he get back at me with that shouting and cursing and threatening? It simply was not sourced in the article, and by now he has sourced it. ‘Canada’ was before today vaguely sourced with a Wikilink to Operation Impact, perhaps I ought to have understood that Wikilink better, but he can just say that, and should not threaten with such (childish) “I’ll report you”. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Repeatedly removing (by his own admission) that Canada and Australia are bombing in Iraq is poor editing. Doing so with this edit summary is pretty strange: "Revision as of 19:54, 22 November 2014 (edit) Corriebertus (as I’ve said 4,6,13 and 18 Nov: we see no proof in the article of Canadian/Australian airstrike. 22Nov Legacypac(whom I already corrected 18Nov) again inserted this. Please stop pushing such fantasies)" I find the logic humorous since Wikipedia is not the only source of information in the world - and not even a citable source for wikipedia. If all truth resides at WP we can quite the project now. Policy says we don't delete easily sourced material (like this Nov 3 article), we try to improve the articles. As he points out the summary material was linked to Operation Impact which has a whole section on the airstrikes which started 22 days ago. I doubt the dead and wounded ISIL fighters enjoyed the Canadian "fantasies" that hit them. Reporting me for suggesting I'll report him for edit warring if he continues such behavior is even funnier. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac has a long history of extremely aggressive interaction and a unilateral edit style that includes page moves and blanking against consensus in this specific topic area; he probably will drag you to ANI, he is a regular visitor here. If it's any solace, none of his reports result in any action: [78], [79], [80], [[81] etc., but he keeps filing them. He has previously been given a topic ban, but that didn't take [82]. He has been warned by PBS and countless others more times than anyone can count for unilateral page moves and page blanking. At this point it appears he basically has carte blanch so, unfortunately, we all just have to grin and bear it. I gave-up on editing these topics as the amount of time it took undoing unilateral page blanking/moves, and being screamed and threatened with the ANI cudgel just wasn't interesting anymore. I'm sorry you're the latest one to be on the receiving end of this. Honestly, you'd be better off just giving up and editing something else. I regret I don't have more up-beat advice to offer. DocumentError (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yawn, Mr Error is a specialist at Admin processes - which generally go against him. I no longer interact with him because it makes my head hurt. As for the ANi reports just posted - first user was 3 month topic banned. Second user was 48 hour blocked just before and no action taken at link because they agreed to stop editing the article, and third user's edits are being dealt with via an RfC instead. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I just undid your edit of my comment. You have been repeatedly told not to edit others comments by moving them out of sequence or changing verbiage. Stop it. You have also been repeatedly told not to engage in name calling against other editors. My name is not "Mr Error." DocumentError (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Repeated editing of your comments by you was causing edit conflicts. If I inadvertently edited your comment, sorry about that. As an editor who intentionally misused my user name all over the place to falsely imply an association with an organization, you are hardly one to talk. You make demonstrably false claims about other editors all the time. Now go away and stop harassing me. Legacypac (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The history of your Talk page - for those who dive into it - is essentially a parade of dozens of other editors pleading, cajoling, and imploring you to stop 3RR, personal attacks, and against-consensus edits. You declare all of these attempts to engage with you as editors "harassing" and spreading lies about you. You are, quite possibly, the most combative, "take no prisoners" editor on WP as of today, 27NOV2014. DocumentError (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think at this point Legacypac and @DocumentError: could benefit from a self imposed two way IBAN. Now as for @Corriebertus: and @Legacypac:, have either of you had any other contact about the above material other than this "threat" on the talk page?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks -Serialjoepsycho- for your comments - I've been operating under a self imposed IBAN for several months related to DocumentError and he knows that. I stupidly broke my policy only to respond to his comments here - and I already regret it. I would welcome a formal IBAN on him (or both of us) because such an IBAN will result in no change to how I live my life. I already avoid his unpleasantness. Not having him attack me would make my WP experience much nicer.

I have been in the same discussion threads as @Corriebertus: on other issues, but was not aware he had an opinion about fantasy airstrike until after I noticed Canada and Australia had been reclassified as not in the fight in the body of the article and had fixed that. Then I thought I'd check who was responsible for the changes and noticed his snarky edit summary that turned out to cover the same issue in the lead. I don't follow that article very closely, did not dig deeper in the history, and assume his claimed responsibility in that edit summary is correct. Legacypac (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is really an ANI issue. I recommend that both of you in the future consider civil conversation with each other, Legacypac and Corriebertus, instead of snarky reverts and overeactive page warnings.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DocumentError and Serieljoepsycho for your comments. Some terms (IBAN, ANI, PBS) I’m not acquainted with. Serialjoeps asks: have you two had earlier contact about that material? No, I believe we have not. The tricky, dirty thing is, that after I had deleted about five times some listing of Canada/Australia, with clear motivation, after those five times Legacypac at last came up(24 Nov) with sources that corroborate his standpoint, and then apparently considered that a good opportunity to start screaming and lying and threatening and cursing AND even making a personal attack (“user pushing some agenda”) at me. By the way, Serial: what is my ‘snarky revert’ and what my ‘overreactive page warning’?
I understand from DocError that Legacypac has had his way with DocError in scaring him away from editing certain pages by screaming and threatening him and whatever other aggressive interaction and unilateral editing style. If that would be true, we would seem to have in Legacypac an editor that basically threatens Wikipedia. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

DocumentErrors edits from a clear pro-Iran, anti-American POV and did engage in forum shopping, but his efforts to push the Iran intervention in Iraq over the American-led one were largely unsuccessful. I'll go so far to say that DocumentError specializes in error - I and quite a few other editors have spent far to much time refuting his erroneous accusations. I ignore him and yet he continues to HOUND me damaging my reputation (which is my job, thank-you very much).

To Corriebertus I am sorry you feel attacked. My initial edit summary was not directed at you specifically as I did not know who deleted the Canadian airstrikes at the time. I did not like your edit summary (repeated above) that called me out by name. Let's try to improve your wikipedia experience. In Wikipedia we do not automatically delete everything that is not directly sourced. We just write stuff that is widely known or easily confirmed like "Canada is a country in North America" or "there is a civil war in Syria" with no need for a specific reference everytime. There are lots of things that are opinions or maybe gray area facts, but it is undisputed fact (not my opinion or standpoint) that Canada is bombing in Iraq in November 2014. Adding a cite to the fact improves the page, deleting the fact 5 times because you perceive some other editor(s) failed to provide a cite is really annoying. This behavior is perceived by other editors as POV pushing because you are making changes in a strange direction suggesting some unknown agenda. Editors get blocked and banned for behavior regularly. Your edits left the article saying Canada was NOT doing airstrike yet - which you can not support with any cite because it just is not true. Now can you understand the issue and withdraw your complaint here?

WP:IBAN is an interaction ban, ANi is here-Admin Noticeboard incidents. PBS is a specific Admin editor. Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Corriebertus:What ever comment that Legacypac felt was snarky. I don't know if actually was snarky. Please do find that edit and review it and take into account that they felt that it was snarky. This may help you in your dealings with them in the future. They seem to have realized that some of the things they have said may have offended you and it does seem they are going to try to take that into account into the future. As far as 'Overreactive page warning' I was referring to Legacypac warning or (as you called it threat) that they would report you. You both seem reasonable. There's really nothing for ANI to do here in my opinion. I do think you to can work this out amongst yourself.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks Serialjoepsycho for your level headed comments. To clarify - I never said anything was snarky (not a word I use), my only concern was the edit summary I quoted in the third paragraph from the top. I think Corriebertus and I can carry on happily. Now as for the comment below... Nothing in the next paragraph is true and the accusation that I have been cautioned about race-baiting is new and novel. I'd be interested in even one diff showing even a suggestion I engaged in race-baiting (perhaps DocumentError can't count past zero?) - That accusation is a HIGHLY offensive allegation against me for a bunch of reasons. I've spent more time defending these unwarranted attacks then anyone should need to - so how can I get the IBAN against DocumentError? Legacypac (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If I had more time at the moment I would file a separate ANI about this as you've already been cautioned about race-baiting, LP, more times than I can possibly count. You've also been told not to revert other editors contributions on the basis that they are "anti-American" as "anti/pro-American" is not a WP policy.

Corriebertus - the acidic style of LP's interaction with other editors, and his occasional penchant for vandalism (specifically making edits on topics that are open for RfC and unilaterally moving entire pages and, in one instance, simply deleting an entire page he declared was "anti-American") for which PBS (and many others) have cautioned him, is not worth your sanity. Search his name in the ANI or talk to other tenured editors like User:Supreme Deliciousness, User:GB fan, User:Drmies, or a thousand others who have crossed his path on articles related to political violence in the Muslim world (which are 90% of his edits). He's on a one-man crusade to save Apple Pie and Baseball, though frequently (as he did above) invokes the name of some vast assemblage of nameless "other editors" backing him up. The edit summary he left you in reverting one of your edits "What the hell is wrong with this guy?" [83] is eerily reminiscent to one he's previously left me. Every edit he approaches as a battleground in some vast war for the defense of western civilization against the circling hordes. As frustrating as it can be, I recommend you disengage completely and stay as far away from him as you can. Feel free to email me if you'd like to discuss it in detail or need to commiserate. DocumentError (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment @Serialjoepsycho:I am in complete sympathy with DocumentError and Corriebertus, and am another that he's abusing process and community standards repeatedly; and he's just done it again with a complete OR fabrication on Ottawa shootings article; please read this comment of mine on the other ANI launched by LegacyPac against me below, and note his edit warring and abuse of the RPA template on the article in question's talkpage. It's endless, it seems; I invite you to explore his usercontributions as indicated by DocumentError and Corriebertus above re this being a chronically disruptive and "hostile" editor and "edit warrior".Skookum1 (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This censor-deletion of my criticisms of his conduct on that article I have not restored due to intervening edits, and a mounting sense of irritation and futility dealing with him. Note that he did not just remove my comments but those critical of him for mis-using RPA for what were not personal attacks, but very provable notes about how his presence has impacted the article and the discussion page both. And note here @GBFan's: reversion of his second reversion of his censoring of my posts with invalid abuse of the RPA template; GBFan's comments were among those deleted/censored in the previous link. "If you don't want to be talked about for doing bad things, don't do bad things"....screwing with other peoples' posts and acting as a one-man censor are not a "good thing" are they? The persistence of this behaviour is noticeable all the way through his usercontributions, which I spent a day exploring while he was drafting the ANI below. IMO a broader ANI on "terror POV" is needed, but also in that context the behaviour of "terror campaigners", as mentioned in [section of the talkpage] in response to another "terror campaigner"'s attempt to euhemerize/neuter content on an "agenda" basis. i.e. that on that article, and on the Saint Jean sur Richelieu one, an ongoing abuse of sources mis-quoted, distorted, with OR claims/wording used willy-nilly, is an ongoing problem, just as it seems to be with the other articles such people frequent in their busy not-paid, not-at-the-office {yeah, sure} wiki-days.Skookum1 (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Skookum1:This is my opinion, There is nothing for ANI to do here. As far as the other ANI, in my opinion, some of the deletions were justifiable. The one that you linked to doesn't seem to have much to do with the article. It does seem to have alot to do with your views of the editors behavior. That would not be appropriate for the talk page of that article. The users talk page perhaps. If you feel they have violated some policy and have the evidence ANI may have been appropriate.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Context to discussion: One context in which the above complaint can be viewed regards the thread started by Legacypac (#Related Article nominated for deletion) which related to a content (2014 U.S. and allies versus Islamic State hostilities and conflicts) created by Corriebertus. I think that both of these editors can have tendencies to take solo paths and, although I have not had as much direct contact with Corriebertus, I think that Legacypac, to an extent and not to excuse solo behaviours, operates more closely in line with consensus. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Bullying, owning, meatpuppeting, and more!

I am having a problem with some soap opera articles. There is a template guideline that specifically states how the soap opera infoboxes should be laid out. You can see that here.

In regards to the Taylor Hayes (The Bold and the Beautiful) page, there have been two actresses who played the part. The guideline states they should be listed in chronological order. User:Arre_9 doesn't like that and feels one actress should be left out simply because she "doesn't think she needs mentioning." You can see that here, here, and here. I repeatedly show her the guidelines which state she should be there as she has portrayed the character but, she continuously removes her. She's even gone so far as to grant me his permission to leave her there (which I don't need and is total owning of wikipedia and not allowed) but, then she went and removed her again anyways even though that violates the guideline rules. She's vandalising wikipedia.

Another lack of respect for wikipedia's guidelines are her ignoring of character portrayals and durations which state they be listed with breaks reflected. However, she doesn't like that either and feels that if a character appeared in 1990 and again 2014, they should be listed as "1990-2014" even though there were multiple years in between where the character just wasn't there. That goes against wikipedia's guidelines that I have posted and I've made her aware of that to no regard. Instead, she's gone and brought User:Raintheone into the conversation because she knew he would agree with her. Raintheone then brought user:5_albert_square into the conversation for the same reason. Meatpuppeting is not allowed on wikipedia.

There are multiple other pages she has done this on as well but, I'm going to try and keep this as short as possible.

All the while, the three of them are saying there has been a consensus conversation that overrules the guidelines but, they don't remember/won't prove where the conversation happened. Bullying. That's not allowed either. I have repeatedly asked where this conversation happened as, the guidelines specifically mention any consensus conversations that have taken place and this "phantom" conversation is not there but, have been repeatedly told, "No." Most recently by Raintheone where he stated, "I cannot be bothered to link it. I know my stuff. You feel the need to be the policy cop and link to what everyone knows. Bored now. Shame you cannot display the same enthusiasm searching for consensus. You just need blocking ASAP!"

So, now I need blocking because I'm following the rules (rules, I might add, Arre9 showed me in the first place LOL) and, according to them, wikipedia now operates on an "I said it happened so you better just believe me or get the heck out of here" philosophy? I'm pretty sure that's not right.

Can I get some insight to this please? Are guidelines not to be followed anymore? Are Arre 9, Raintheone, and 5 Albert Square correct? Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and biased, but okay. Firstly, would you be kind enough to edit your post and refer to me as she, not he? In regards to this, you are really presenting a one-sided version of our conflicts. You have constantly made several personal attacks and disregarded any type of assistance or guidance. Brief break-down of all the problems you have noted:

• In regards to the temporary actress, most temporary actors have not been included in soap articles like this, unless they have a lot of coverage by the media and were of some notability. There are barely any sources which support Wolter as a temporary actress, so its best to only mention her in the casting section. Don't act like I am suddenly making things up in that I don't think that information should be present, because that is how it has been done to avoid clutter.
• I did not go and bring Raintheone into things because I knew he would agree with me. Stop it with your nasty accusations. I told you why I consulted Raintheone on his talk page, if you read it, you shouldn't have brought that up again here.
• In regards to breaks in duration on those infoboxes, it has been clarified constantly that if the actor wasn't gone for a full calender year, it is silly to list every single break - especially for some actors/characters who have various breaks a year. Once again, this is only to avoid making these articles cluttered up.
• I never said the duration should be 1990-2014, it should be (if correct): 1990-2002, 2004-2014. Stop making things up to suit your argument.

Overall, it's not just me here. Several other editors have come into encounter with you and you have shown a blatant disregard of their point of views, opinions, pointing out of guidelines, attempts to help you and their feelings as well. Vandalism is an overblown statement, which is rather dismissive considering I have made constructive contributions to this site for a couple of years. And bullying is a very serious accusation which you should not mention lightly; its also uncalled for, considering how you have handled yourself at times when encountering other editors. — Arre 04:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that bullying is a very serious accusation and I made it very seriously.

You have also just proven my points: you don't want one actress mentioned because she was brief even though the guideline states "multiple portrayers should be listed in chronological order" NOT "only add the ones Arre9 thinks were around for a suitable amount of time." You claim this other "consensus conversation" happened stating breaks should be noted only when they've lasted more than 12 months but, you don't link to it or state where it happened, the rest of the wiki world should just believe you. And in one sentence, you state that accusations are not called for and then make a personal attack. HAHAHAHA.

As I said on your talk page, sorry for thinking you were a guy. It's not like we haven't had multiple, multiple conversations in the past where you could have corrected me before today.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And you have proved my point as well...why should temporary actresses (barely any source on the internet even supports her portrayal - we don't even know how long - was it for a week? A day? Half an episode?) be listed when there is nothing to support notability, and it simply ends up being clutter. The guidelines of that template are immensely vague, and you keep treating them as if they are the 10 commandments. Also, I never dictated anything to you about info-box guidelines, my issues with you were about around your inability to understand what non-free/free images meant. How did I attack you personally? You are being a tad petty. Claiming that you have been bullied is not laughable, as it is a serious matter, but sad, as it is a serious thing which you are using to try and prove a point. No one has bullied you.— Arre 05:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The guidelines specifically state that only years should be listed and she only played the part in 1990 so whether it was a week, a day, or half an episode isn't relevant. Mentioning THAT would be clutter. You mentioning the infobox guidelines was our first conversation ever. It was on your talk page but, you deleted it recently. Do you want me to go find it?Cebr1979 (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Cebr1979, Raintheone asked for my advice about you, because you were not listening to what they were saying. They were confused because they told you that there is consensus on Wikipedia that soap opera characters who have had breaks of less than one year, the duration field does not change, yet you told them consensus talks do not take place on Wikipedia. Something you later contradicted.

I then sent you a message advising you that consensus is basically how Wikipedia works so there's no way that consensus talks would not take place as per your claim. I explained to you that this consensus was reached to avoid infoboxes becoming cluttered every time a character decides to disappear for a few months. When you say we haven't told you where these discussions took place, you have been advised on numerous occasions that I think it was at WP:SOAP, as that is the project page for soap articles. As the consensus has been in place now for the best part of some 4 or 5 years I'm not 100% sure.

I have also told you, again a number of times that you will need to take this discussion to WP:SOAPS, something which you are refusing to do.

You have also refused to accept the warnings issued to you and have been generally quite rude to myself and others.

Cebr1979 please take this up at WP:SOAPS--5 albert square (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

My error in regards to consensus talks was because I had confused that with meatpuppeting and I've made that clear. I have not ignored warnings issued to me, there were none correctly issued to me, they were bogus and I explained that to you in that same conversation. Plus, they were reverted back by both you and Raintheone even after I told you both you're not allowed to do that to my talk page (in that same conversation and here and here). WP:SOAPS is for when someone wants something changed, not when something is already there in black and white. You three have been incredibly difficult with your phantom conversations and made-up policies when I have stuck to one thing and one thing only: wikipedia's guidelines are there for a reason and that reason is because they should be followed. You guys need to go to WP:SOAPS if you want the guidelines changed, I don't need to go there and ask permission to follow them as they already are! Telling one editor not to do something that wikipedia say's they are allowed to do is wrong. Again, why don't you know this?Cebr1979 (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. You realise your first example of me being rude was actually me quoting what you had said to me, right? That's why I used quotation marks. I was QUOTING YOU but, only I was being rude (hint: since I was quoting you, you said it first)? The rest of them aren't rude at all. Frustrated, yes. Rude, no.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

All of our conversations have been linked to now. There's no point in us continuing our debate when it's clear we're not going to resolve this on our own. I propose we just let others chime in now.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've checked my talk page and you said that consensus is allowed when it's relevant, you've then accused Raintheone of coming to me because they know I'll agree with them. You haven't said that you got them confused, unless I'm not seeing something on the diff you provided, and I've already explained why Rain approached me above. I don't know why you won't accept this.

I'm not being difficult, I'm trying to help you. I would suggest that you ask at WP:SOAPS about it, aside from anything else maybe someone else there can remember then consensus discussion? However, as you are the one disputing this it will need to be you that asks about it

With regards to civilness, in my opinion you're even being a bit rude above by making out that we know nothing when we do know our policies. The diff that I posted above, I found the whole comment rude, but you were extremely sarcastic at the end of it. I had been trying to explain something to you I think on your talk page and I did say to you that I apologise if you found it offensive. Myself and others have pointed out that we found your comments rude and you haven't apologised once.

I agree with you though that we need to let someone else in now--5 albert square (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

What would like me to apologise for, Albert? Getting reverted when my edits follow the rules? Asking for clarification when you say phantom conversations happened but, don't remember when they happened or where (the template has been updated multiple times in the last "4 or 5 years," if your conversation had happened, it would be there like all the other consensus conversations are and you specifically stated you aren't even sure the conversation happened at WP:SOAPS)? Me having to show you, a site admin, many wikipedia policies and then you still arguing that you're right and they're wrong? The fact that we're at ANI (mainly) because you, a site admin, are encouraging others to ignore guidelines you now know are real? Well, that won't be happening. Now, since you've agreed with me that leaving this conversation is a good idea, why don't we do that.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I was actually meaning the uncivil comment you made to me. As for ignoring guidelines I haven't told anyone to ignore any guidelines. I was trying to help and I suggested that you bring this up at WP:SOAPS as I thought that's where the discussion was 5 albert square (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There was no uncivil comment to you. I've already pointed out I was quoting something you said to me first. That can be seen right there in the diff you posted (along with more examples of you being wrong about things all admins should know *cough*talk page rules*cough*). You like apologies so damn much, go ahead and make one to me then. "Think about it" and then make your apology. I'll be here.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

already done 5 albert square (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Given Cebr's long-standing history of incivility (ie the majority of categories founded under "1" and 2A) with other editors, and their continued mis-interpretation of Wikipedia policy, this seems a case of if it quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's ultimately a duck. User continues to make accusations, something they've been warned against and blocked for by a Wikipedia Administrator, as well as personal attacks by DarkFalls and Diannaa, and their editing history clearly shows a continued line of edit-warring in the position of owning an article, by simply stating "no" or continuing to take things in their own perception, and feel they are above decisions and warnings heeded by Administration. They seem to be unable to take accountability of their own actions, and not accept that they might just be wrong from time to time. They've continued to edit an a destructive manner towards articles and other editors. If an edit is made they are not happy with, they revert it and then if someone (who they haven't achieved conflict with) re-does the edit, they allow it to stay — I do have proof of said situations, so if you'd prefer them, I will provide. Their editing pattern (DUCK) shows their mild attention to bait editors into conflict. They seek their own interpretation and desired result of their own desire, and when someone tries to edit alongside that, if they disagree, the edit(s) in question are automatically reverted, without talkpage discussion, yet if someone reverts their own edits, they have to open a discussion? Their editing on their own pretenses within Wikipedia, and their editing pattern with myself and other editors now show their incivility with other editors, and an inability to co-edit in a peaceful and respectful matter, especially if you disagree with their editing beliefs and opinions. It's disappointing this kind of editing has been allowed to continually fall through the cracks of this website by Administrations, and the fact another Admin has been dragged into this editor's disruptive behavior is quite disgusting, and as someone who has reviewed all diffs given in this ANI, the accusations of vandalism and bullying is not founded on Arre 9, but on Cebr1979, based on their interpretation of policies and things spelt out, and as someone who has edited alongside every single editor mentioned in this ANI, I just don't see how these accusations could be founded to be true. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikiprojects with many members have discussed the infobox. Duration discussions have taken place in years that have passed. Two recent ones in my mind are [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 9 here] here. The current infobox used for Soap characters is actually a result of a large merge with the table origninated from WP:EE (highlighting the latter discussion's relevance). It went onto shortening as much as possible, without detracting from the important bits. There are many discussions of recent times viewable in WP:SOAPS archives regarding the overall agreement cluttering an infobox with many elements of in-universe and minor detail is not needed.

Bullying is a strong accusation. Just because three editors disagree with you does not mean you are being bullied. I think it is all to easy to play that card. There are actual people going through actual bullying. A disagreement lasting an two hours on Wikipedia is no comparison. You are the one making jibes at editors, adding a bait aimed at Arre on my talk page. Expressing laughter in your replies at our expense. Accusing anyone with a differing opinion of making their own rules. Dismissing warnings and acting ignorant to them. They are valid and you do not want to accept that. I reverted because as a long standing editor, I disagreed at their dismissal - why not archive them as suggested. My verdict is that you are using Wikipedia as a battleground. You are using guidelines as weapons to gain your own way. This ANI is another tactic. I backed off to prevent any escalation of a pointless drama. User:livelikemusic provided some interesting information - noting that you have a history of this pull-all-in drama which resulted in a blocking. You also appear to participiate in edit wars. It appears that you feel the need to have it your own way and disregard anyone with a different opinion - in this case three editors. The meatpuppeting accusation is the most flawed. No one has recruited anyone off-site. No one has approached a group of people off-site likely to agree. These are long-standing members editing similar stuff. An editor contacted me regarding an issue and I asked for admin advice all on here. Seems more than reasonable and run-of-the-mill action to take.Rain the 1 03:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have looked and I have found this. Cebr you have accused every single editor of lying and making up this discussion, as you can see there have been many discussions about this--5 albert square (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

EngcolLab191480 and more conflict of interest

On the 15 Nov, JarosBaumBolles (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) was reported here for creating an account and using it for blatant advertising of their company at One World Trade Center and Two World Trade Center (Result:Blocked for COI). On the 17th Nov that account applied to change the name of the account to EngcolLab191480 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log).

That account, which is clearly still owned by Jaros, Baum & Bolles, is now being used to insert the same blatant advertising of their business into Two World Trade Center, here, and after a revert by someone else for blatant advertising here (now also reverted by yet another party).

This account is clearly being used by Jaros, Baum & Bolles to push their company within Wikipedia in flagrant disregard of the conflict of interest policy. Jaros, Baum & Bolles were made aware of the conflict of interest policy on the 15th Nov here. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with the contribution from DieSwartzPunk. I have reverted what seems to be blatant advertising only to see my edit reversed, without any explanation. These "edits" appear to disregard Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. They have already been warned by several editors and taken no notice whatsoever. Stronger action needs to be applied. David J Johnson (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It has just occurred to me that since the original account was the name of the company involved and has merely been renamed, that the advertising is originating from the same location (that is: the company involved). It thus has to be the case that the editor adding the advertising is being paid by Jaros, Baum & Bolles contrary to WP:PAY. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This can probably be closed with no action because it is stale by now. EngcolLab191480 has made no further attempts to insert their advertising anywhere so good faith suggests that it can be assumed that they have taken notice of the warning that I placed on their talk page. If this proves not to be the case, I (or anyone else) can raise a fresh ANI. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

COI editor edit warring page where they have received money

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

---

Hello. User:Ryulong decided to go on a self imposed topic ban due to his WP:COI on November 19th, having been taken funds from http://www.reddit.com/r/gamerghazi and as a result, giving him said WP:COI. However, recently, he has begun edit warring on Draft:Gamergate_controversy, a violation of his self imposed topic ban and WP:COI. Proof of the former: https://archive.today/PEKH2 Proof of the latter: [84], [85], [86]. This is in direct conflict of WP:COI and as a result, I am requesting that the user be community topic banned. Tutelary (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Claiming they were paid to edit something on WP is a somewhat extraordinary claim, where is your evidence for that? (the being paid money part) --Obsidi (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

They have received money from one side obviously affiliated with GamerGate, took a self imposed topic ban due to WP:COI, and then broke that self imposed topic ban. See WP:EXTERNALREL, I do not claim they are a paid editor, but a WP:COI editor. Tutelary (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

'Received money' from who? Where is your source for that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Archive links because some of the information has been deleted in order to cover tracks. Firstly is the thread Tutelary linked: https://archive.today/PEKH2 wherein the moderator mentions talking with Ryulong about the latter's stepping away from the article "admitting that they may not be able to continue to approach a subject objectively" (the moderator's words). The linked GoFundMe campaign http://www.gofundme.com/hhqw0c/ (https://archive.today/hF8c8). A subsequent thread was launched dedicated to the gofundme here: https://archive.today/PbN6M. Here is a later archive of the same thread including Ryulong's reply thanking them: https://archive.today/7jXsq. Weedwacker (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you gamergate people constantly rely on archive.today? And isn't this blacklisted sitewide or is that just in the article space?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Archive today saves pages that may have been changed, so "evidence" can be kept even if the source refactors/deletes their comments. It is also used to deny ad revenueRetartist (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why it's been used to archive pages on Wikipedia when Wikipedia does not use advertising and has existing permanent links to pages so long as they haven't been deleted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant to the current discussion as none of those links are archives of wikipedia pages. Weedwacker (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Not all that important Ry-san, but just remember some of us didn't use wikis before this. They aren't understanding that wikias and wikipedia don't need archiving. I typically only correct typos on fan wikis, so I'm still pretty inexperienced myself, which is why I didn't do any editing here.Ihadurca Il Imella (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, article.is is blacklisted, and possibly on in article spaces, I have no knowledge of archive.today's status on wikipedia. It is useful in providing snapshots of webpages where changes can be made. Weedwacker (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Aren't archive.is and archive.today the same thing? And I recall trying to add the phrase "archive.today" to the Gamergate page weeks ago but got hit by the spam blacklist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong made edits to a draft page, not a live article, and his edits reverted a brand-new WP:SPA who leaped into an edit war against longstanding consensus that the lede does not need inline citations, per WP:LEDE. The edits in question were clearly tendentious (a "citation needed" template on every sentence? Please.) Would it have been better for someone else to make the edits? Probably. But don't pretend it's not obvious who's feeding the flames here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I really don't believe there's a difference here. A self imposed topic ban and a WP:COI is a self imposed topic ban and a WP:COI whether it's a live article or not. And do tell me where it says in WP:COI where one of the exemptions is edit warring against a SPA. Tutelary (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

So basically you're admitting that Ryulong is guilty of nothing more than taking the bait from tendentious single-purpose editors with a demonstrated vendetta. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong is guilty of violating WP:COI by editing GamerGate topics after receiving money from one side affiliated with GamerGate. He edit warred with one of these topics. Also read your own essay. WP:BAIT is about making uncivil comments. It's not my doing that Ryulong violated WP:COI. Tutelary (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Either provide evidence to support that claim, or withdraw it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've already provided it within my opening post. Tutelary (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I can see nothing in your post that supports a claim that Ryulong has received money for anything. Pleas make clear exactly what it is you are suggesting is evidence for this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the claim at least is based off this: [87] a crowd sourced request for money. and on some reddit posts by someone with the name on reddit of "ryulong67" thanking them for donating ([88]. However 1) I don't see how you prove that this ryulong is the same one as the WP user 2) I have not seen a request by this ryulong asking people to donate money in any way related to gamergate (or promising anything related to gamergate). (I would also support the move of this to WP:COIN) --Obsidi (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence has been provided above by myself as wellWeedwacker (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverting a single purpose account on a draft space page that in no way will ever necessarily be a live article and the edits (reverts) I made that will be overwritten by any sort of subsequent edits to the page (do you really want {{fact}} tags on things that are suitably cited?) does not really weigh much in the end. I should not have taken the bait today but I did and thats all I'm really guilty of in the end.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not what this is about. You took money from /r/gamerghazi, a party affiliated with GamerGate via a GoFundMe and your defense is that it was an WP:SPA and therefore, it was justified? I don't believe so, and it's a heavy violation of WP:COI to be commenting verbosely on GamerGate topics here and at WP:AN given your COI and self imposed topic ban. (This one is an exception per WP:BANEX.) Tutelary (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware that individual members of a message board forum can be considered "a party affiliated with" anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's funny coming from a guy who claimed 8chan doxxed him and blamed GamerGate for it. Are we really getting into playing dumb here?

I posted a link on my personal blog to the gofundme page and never once personally posted any link to it on Reddit in any way. When I did so, I posted to the arbitration case page saying I would now have a conflict of interest and I would voluntarily step away from the Gamergate page and other topics. I would not know who necessarily donated to the page and where their affiliations lay. I was however notified that it was to be posted to both GamerGhazi and apparently some other unnamed pro-GG forum. I have the email to back that up. But saying that my conflict of interest extends to an unofficial sandbox version of the article being proxy edit warred over is ridiculous. All I've done is breach a self-imposed topic ban and for that I'm sorry.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Assuming this goes on I'd like to toss out a generic recommendation that this could be moved to WP:COIN to avoid further cluttering up on ANI. It's been shown that sanctions have not been broken thus this is exclusively a COI matter. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 22:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Following OP's logic, Ryulong has imposed a topic ban on himself thus we have no need to impose one from the community. Ivanvector (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Then he's fragrantly violated it. If they can't be enforced, then why even have the ability to apply one for lesser sanctions? Tutelary (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

1) If you can prove this is the same Ryulong and 2) if he had actually made an edit to mainspace or say voted in an RFC about gamergate, I would agree, but this wasn't that. --Obsidi (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Proof that ryulong67 is the same Ryulong: Reddit AMA [89] (archived [90]) which includes this proof shot [91]. Specifically this comment chain [92] (archive [93] which asks him to make an edit with the thread's url code, which he does here: [94]. Weedwacker (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I take [95] that as sufficient proof when combined with [96] that it is the same ryulong (although its possible that the reddit post was done after ryulong posted, I don't have time to track down exact timestamps, so I will presume it to be accurate unless ryulong objects and then ill go examine the timestamps closely). --Obsidi (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If the only supposed 'evidence' that Ryūlóng have been engaged in paid editing is that provided so far, there is no COI involved as far as I can see. And given the fact that the 'evidence' singularly fails to support the assertion, I have to suggest that Tutelary be sanctioned accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said Ryulong was a paid editor. He's not (as far that I can tell). He's a WP:COI editor who was rewarded money from /r/gamerghazi, a subreddit affiliated with GamerGate, not necessarily being paid by /r/gamerghazi to edit Wikipedia. He took a self imposed topic ban which he violated (not just on the draft, but on WP:AN and WP:ANI, this thread is the exception) and so far has only apologized for taking the bait, not for anything else. Tutelary (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit. You started this thread by stating that Ryūlóng had a conflict of interest due to having "taken funds". How can that mean anything other than paid editing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

His placement of editing GamerGate after he had taken funds is called into question. And WP:COI does not mean paid editing. It means biased editing based on certain factors in a situation, Per WP:EXTERNALREL Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. That he received funds from a GamerGate affiliated site for his living expenses makes me question his ability to be neutral in the GamerGate topic. The self imposed topic ban which was not followed is another issue. All I'm asking is to upgrade the self imposed topic ban to a community based one, one that has actual teeth if broken, unlike the self imposed one. Tutelary (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

So you have no evidence that any funds he may possibly have received are in any way connected with his Wikipedia editing? Just as I thought. A 'COI' based on nothing but insinuation. As for Ryūlóng 'breaking' a self-imposed voluntary topic ban, since he 'self-banned' himself, he can self-unban himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Lets say you worked for company X, wouldn't you say it is a violation of COI to say nice things about company X in their WP page? Now Company X may not have paid you to say those things at all, but that doesn't mean it isn't a COI. As the WP:COI page says "Paid advocacy is a subset of COI editing". But that said it also says "COI editors causing disruption may be blocked" and in this case, it is at least arguable that he was not causing disruption. --Obsidi (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No lets no 'say' anything. Let's stick with the facts - that a claim of paid editing was made, and no proof of this has been provided. Hypothetical digressions that assume things we have seen no evidence of are irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No accusation of paid editing was made only editing with a COI, WP:COI:"Paid advocacy is a subset of COI editing". Proof has been provided sufficient to show that he has accepted money from a source which is clearly biased as to the articles content. Now that may not mean Ryūlóng should be topic banned, but it is well within saying that this isn't just worthy of WP:BOOMERANG for lack of evidence (as to the WP:POINT problems discussed below about posting here rather then talking about it on the DS page, that might be a much stronger argument). --Obsidi (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with first principles here. User:Ryūlóng, do you think that there is the possibility of a COI if you edits on the topic at this point or not? I don't care about what other think at the moment. If not, then we can argue about whether other can or should as a separate point. That's two different issues. It sounds like Tutelary is assuming the first as an argument for the second when I don't know if that true. AndyTheGrump seems to disagree on the second even if the first was true but we don't know if Ryūlóng has another basis for believing it that Tutelary hasn't mentioned. Ryūlóng, if so, then I think it's fair to say that live or not and versus SPA or not, if that'd be violating the COI on the topic and so actually voluntarily withdraw. A voluntarily imposed ban that only a ban as long as it's kept is meaningless. And if it's acknowledged, then whatever, why not state that we agree to a three-month imposed one here for now and move on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I separately politely inquire as to why this was posted here when it has not been posted at the appropriate enforcement forum, and can I request that a proper filing be made there? Ivanvector (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Because I'd rather this be seen by more than 55 people watchlisting that section, and for the basis of a community based topic ban. Tutelary (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The community has authorized community sanctions for this topic area under WP:GS/GG, thus any sanction imposed there is pre-authorized by the community. The appropriate place to request such a sanction is WP:GS/GG/E. You may be aware that there is already a thread there about this editor, and I think about this specific incident (I'd rather crush my nuts in a bench vise than delve into the details), why don't you add your comments to that request? Ivanvector (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, respectfully, if you were aware of that thread (I guess that you were because you know how many people are watching the page) and you decided to post here anyway, you may be disrupting this noticeboard to make a point. Ivanvector (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't wish for it to be there. Per WP:BUREAUCRACY. Tutelary (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears the topic has been posted there Weedwacker (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There's also the issue that the sanctions don't work for certain editors who have a certain point of view. Regardless, of all of Ryulong's problems in this topic space, this is a bit of a reach. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

His self-imposed topic-banned, if at all seemed to be taken to avoid getting banned, this isn't the only time he's edited GamerGate related topics, he has added a notability tag and a neutrality tag to the 8chan article, twice. After getting reverted, he vented on his personal talk page about it. I ask admins to see this for what it is, it's paid editing, even if unintentional. The subreddit GamerGhazi is a self-admitted forum in opposition to the subject in question. He has recieved $350 after having made an AMA on their forum, in an obvious display of gratitude, and I'm SURE if any so called "pro-GamerGate" editor as Ryulong has called some, had been caught in this, he'd be, not topic banned, banned site-wide. Jimmy Wales, for what it matters, has referred to this on multiple occassions on both Wikipedia and his personal Twitter page and advised him to back down, not only for this but because it has according to him caused him stress since he's taking this into a personal matter. Ryulong then proceeded to say Jimmy Wales was "retweeting conspiracy theories" and then proceeded to delete his tweets. It doesn't matter if the money was for editing or buying some clothes or whatever, an anti-GamerGate forum wouldn't give a random user money if it wasn't because they saw it as a way to thank him, and if he had admitted this conflict of interest, it would have been left at that, but this is now outrageous that he keeps his constant behaviour, a behaviour that has been noted ad nauseum yet he refuses to take advice from the community, and moderators refuse to even reprehend him Loganmac (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I wrote on my talk page first. I made the donation page and posted it to my blog. I announced I'd be leaving the article. I went to sleep. I woke up to see one person gave me all I asked for. I don't know the affiliation of this person. I've informed Jimbo of all of the events that unfolded. His request that I extend my self-imposed topic ban from other topics, my attempt to tag a page that I perceive as having issues, and reverting someone in a sandbox page should not mean anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If I had taken that money from KiA you'd be the first to have made the general sanctions thread and we both know it, the gofundme wasn't posted anywhere else, if by "another pro-GamerGate subreddit" you mean /r/againstgamergate which allows dissent unlike GamerGhazi, then it's hilarious considering the subreddit title. That's the problem, this is the 4th time you've announced leaving the article, every time you get an ANI you say you're steping back but you're back in less than 48 hours. Loganmac (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Participating in discussions and editing non-article space drafts is permitted (if not encouraged) for editors with a conflict of interest. That being said, the evidence for a conflict of interest in this case is shaky, at best. CIreland (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

He hasn't only edited a draft, he has added a POV tag and a notability tag to the 8chan article, after getting reverted he insisted, he went on the talk page and continued to push for it, he then vented on his personal talk page [97] [98] he has admitted to taking money from GamerGhazi, hence his self-imposed topic-ban, which has since been violated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganmac (talk • contribs)

If the topic ban was self-imposed, he is free to self-un-impose it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Here's where you're wrong Loganmac. I posted to my user talk at 6 am my time and then minutes later I tagged the article. A few minutes after that I posted to the talk page. Four hours later the POV tag is removed. Two hours after that you remove the notability tag. Another two hours pass and I agree with the fixes to neutrality that I had issues with but I still felt notability was an issue so I tagged it again. Then Pepsiwithcoke removes it. There's nothing to the effect that you're suggesting.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Just so we're clear, I support the upgrade of the self imposed topic ban to a community based one for a period no shorter of 3 months just to make sure that Ryulong does not edit pages relating to this topic, given his WP:COI and his frequently broken self imposed topic ban. Tutelary (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY - Ryulong's edits while self-topic-banned improved the encyclopedia. Well done. Ivanvector (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × ∞) I also question whether a self-imposed topic ban is really a ban at all. There's no consensus for restrictions, thus they are invalid. Therefore, Ryulong's edits were not subject to the restrictions he attempted to impose on himself against consensus. So there could not have been any misconduct. The only misconduct was attempting to impose a ban on himself, and for that I propose he be sanctioned by having his self-imposed topic ban immediately reverted. Ivanvector (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You have voted to oppose twice, perhaps you should condense your edits to a single one. Weedwacker (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a duplicate - opposing separate proposals. See comments added below. Ivanvector (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about what WP:COI actually says. If the following applies to you: you are receiving, or expect to receive, monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (as an employee or contractor; as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public-relations purposes; as owner, officer or other stakeholder; or by having some other form of close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about. I don't see any evidence that Ryulong is an employee or a representative of any organization, nor do I see that there is any "form of close financial relationship" with the topic that is meaningful. Moreover, Ryulong hasn't actually edited the article in question, only a non-articlespace draft, and the COI policy expressly contemplates that editors with COIs may edit outside of articlespace. This seems to me to be an incredible amount of heat with absolutely no light. Oppose proposed topic ban. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That section title for that quote is "Paid editing" with the link WP:PAY, however the WP:COI also says that "Paid advocacy is a subset of COI editing (see WP:PAY below)." One does not need to be paid to edit to have a COI (and no accusation was made that he was paid to edit anything, only that he had a COI). --Obsidi (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The section title for that quote is "Paid advocacy." The allegation is absolutely that he was "paid" to edit something — otherwise no, there isn't a conflict of interest here. There are five categories of COI discussed on the page: Financial, Legal, Political, Campaigning or Writing about yourself and your work. As the latter four are obviously not implicated here, the allegation must relate to the first. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

He does have a Financial COI, just not that he is a paid advocate, he has other financial COI. --Obsidi (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct. He's not been paid to edit, but he's been rewarded for editing he has done. Tutelary (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support declaring that Ryulong's has a COI for Gamergate This does not mean he would be topic banned. As it says on the WP:COIN page: "The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits." In this case the edits appear to have been uncontroversial on a draft document, and as such I am not willing to ding Ryulong's too hard for that. That said he does appear to have a COI and that should be recognized and declared. This does mean that someone could add to the talk page of gamergate {{Connected contributor}}. And future edits to article space without discussion could cause a topic ban on them latter. --Obsidi (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose and trout proposer for violation of WP:OUTING. No evidence has been presented that Ryulong has received compensation for editing Wikipedia, and being a user of an online forum does not create a conflict of interest. (ec to add) That the user voluntarily stepped away from a contentious topic area when they were unduly accused of a conflict of interest does not establish that they have a conflict of interest. Ivanvector (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I've struck your !vote as you cannot !vote twice. Tutelary (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You can make that argument but he unambiguously received money from /r/gamerghazi, via a GoFundMe. What's being debated is whether that was intentional and affects his editing via WP:COI. Tutelary (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted your refactoring of my comment. There are two proposals in this thread and I am entitled to oppose both. I am opposed to the topic ban, and I am also opposed to declaring a conflict of interest where none has been disclosed and none can be established through evidence presented. Ivanvector (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support per evidence of WP:COI. The self imposed ban which has been violated should be upgraded to an actual topic ban of some amount of time. As Ryulong himself admitted when he stepped away from the article that further action of his on it would be seen as a conflict of interest, the topic being brought here is not a surprise. [99] Weedwacker (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not an admission of COI. That's a (reasonable and it turns out accurate) prediction of further drama. Ivanvector (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that we're not debating on whether Ryulong has received financial assistance from /r/gamerghazi. We're debating on whether that has financial assistance is a WP:COI for him to edit the article. He's admitted to having received financial assistance via a GoFundMe. The version of events that differ is whether that GoFundMe being funded by /r/gamerghazi and presenting it to be a WP:COI or whether or not that /r/gamerghazi just happened to pick it up and that was no fault of Ryulong. But the fact that he also does AMA's (Ask me anything, like an interview kind of) on the same subreddit is also a concern. Tutelary (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per complete failure to demonstrate that anything Ryulong has done on Wikipedia has been influenced by 'funds'. And because you can't sanction someone for changing their mind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. And looking in from a distance, I start to wonder if a WP:BOOMERANG might have to be brought out at some point. These repeated reports are really starting to smell of harassment. Resolute 01:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe, just maybe, that these repeated reports of a person's behavior is a sign of something...no not harassment, actual misconduct. When someone repeatedly is mentioned at the noticeboards, shouldn't that be a sign that maybe, they're doing something wrong? Of course it can't always be said to be true, as there are frivolous WP:ANI's made genuinely to attack a subject. But even truer still a person repeated brought to WP:ANI should have their conduct examined more thoroughly on -why- they're being brought to WP:ANI so much. Tutelary (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

When all the complaints come from the same group of people, many of whom are SPAs and many of whom are known to be using an off-site venue to coordinate campaigns against specific, named long-term Wikipedia editors, it tends to suggest that there exists an ulterior motive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Got a source for that serious accusation? Or please withdraw it. Tutelary (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. See the Pastebin, see the array of 8chan/KiA threads, etc. Just because they're "anonymous" doesn't mean we have to ignore the WP:DUCK in the room. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose both proposed declaration of COI and proposed topic ban. Adding this here per multiple requests for me to strike duplicated oppose comments which I maintain were not duplicates, but this thread needn't be more disruptive than it already is. I think my actual comments are best left where they are but I have struck through the bolded text for the sake of the admin who closes this, who I don't envy. Also, since several of us have gone and commented now at WP:GS/GG/E about this specific thread, it may be best for future comments to be made there, but I'm not telling anyone to do anything. Now if you don't mind my fiancée just snapchatted me a picture of a KFC order and a fridge full of beer, so I'm out of here. Ivanvector (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose community-imposed ban and ask for consideration of a boomerang on the original complainant. Also to close discussion. For starters, ArbCom is taking up this case and it's almost certain topic bans will be included there. More importantly, stones in glass houses something something. There are other editors in this thread who seem at least if not more "dedicated" to this matter as Ryulong. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 01:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC) (Previously failed to sign on the last edit)
• Oppose This is laughable, there is no evidence for anything claimed. Tutelary should be careful of WP:BOOMERANG, there are still some tensions after their last ANI. With that mentioned, isn't linking to associated accounts doxxing now Tutelary? How can you be sure this is said editor. After all, we were all convinced you were a hacker but apparently there is a completely different person using the same username as you to hack individuals --5.81.52.82 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This thread may be of notice to editors: [100] --5.81.52.82 (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

As to your question "How can you be sure this is said editor." this thread, combined with this Wikipedia edit shows that reddit user ryulong67 is Ryulong. --Obsidi (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and WP:BOOMERANG. Can an admin just step in and topic ban Tutelary from all articles related to gamergate and feminism? Add the other fringe POV pushers to that too. Also, just block all fo the SPAs that have infested the Gamergate Talk page, the clusterfuck of a GG/GS page and the 8chan Talk page? All being coordinated offsite, with Tutelary and others. How bad does this bullshit have to get before sane Wikipedia editors just say "Enough!"? Dave Dial (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I've not been active too much on the 8chan article, I was mostly on about the name and due to the 0RR obligation I can't do much about the content. There are some obvious problems with the page, namely WP:NOR and euphemism of Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, and Zoe Quinn. Please see the revision that I originally reformed it to. Also, this request against Ryulong should not turn into some harassment campaign against me because I dared to initiate the request against somebody who I believed violated WP:COI. Tutelary (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but what about people who might 'believe' that you started this thread to harass Ryulong? Aren't they entitled to their beliefs too? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh sure you can have that opinion. I just don't think people should be insulting me by claiming I'm a fringe POV pusher for daring to make a post on a noticeboard. I'm sure Dave Dial will also substantiate his accusations that I coordinate off site, or withdraw such a serious claim, right? Tutelary (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing daring about making postings. As for accusations of off-site coordination, isn't that what you were claiming? Or does being paid to make edits to Wikipedia not imply coordination between the person being paid and the person doing the paying? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Again misconstruing what I said. Conflict of interest is not always paid editing. I and other users have provided sufficient evidence for as a counterpoint to the 'daring to make such postings' remarks. He's garnered donations to his GoFundMe through an influence of /r/gamerghazi. That's not disputed. Ryulong has not disputed that. What is disputed is whether or not /r/gamerghazi picked it up randomly and without any influence of Ryulong. If so, that's not necessarily a WP:COI. However, since he's done AMAs on Reddit on the same subreddit, that's kind of suspect. Tutelary (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is 'kind of suspect' until you stop talking in unexplained jargon, and tell us what it is that you are claiming Ryulong has done to indicate that his editing has been influenced by 'donations'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@DD2K: you claim that All being coordinated offsite, with Tutelary and others without evidence, because you obviously don't know that 8chan doxxxed Tutelary. I'm not going to link to that. starship.paint ~ regal 02:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, twice I've been doxed for Wikipedia edits. Dave Dial, the revision of the 8chan article is what they did it to me for. Tutelary (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Saying "I am now going to step away from the page" is not "a self-imposed topic ban". Softlavender (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction on Ryulong based on unsubstantiated off-wiki allegations. It is possible, and likely, that Ryulong67 is not Ryulong, but a joe-job deliberately set up by Ryulong's enemies. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Except it's been confirmed that ryulong67 is Ryulong on Wikipedia. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ARyulong&diff=634184695&oldid=630686589

http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2mj5ds/im_ryulong/

Tutelary (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I would link to this part of the thread directly so people don't have to read through all those comments. --Obsidi (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Ryugate is about ethics in encyclopedia editing! I don't think there's anything it see here, as hyped as all of Ryulong and Jimbo's tweets were on reddit. Protonk (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I hardly see how this comment is beneficial to the discussion. Weedwacker (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It made me laugh a lot. That's clearly beneficial.ReynTime (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Motion to close

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

---

Since this very same issue is already being discussed on the proper enforcement page (WP:GS/GG/E#Request concerning Ryulong) I request that this thread be closed and editors invited to submit their comments to the enforcement request. Ivanvector (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I've already given you my response to this. WP:BUREAUCRACY. Tutelary (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Arkon (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:COIN is the better place for this (but I guess this board, or GG enforcement would work and there are already thread here and on GG). --Obsidi (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I am against this motion Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I also disagree with this motion. Weedwacker (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Motion to topic ban Tutelary (BOOMERANG)

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

---

As Tutelary aparently cannot keep themselves from stirring the drama pot unnecessarily by looking for minor infractions to disqualify and banish editors in opposition to the GG camp, I propose that Tutelary be topic banned from under the GamerGate General Sanctions authorization from GG (including talk pages, other editors actions reasonably within the GG topic space, requests for enforcement against other editors, Arbitration, etc.) for a period of no less than 30 days subject to the singular exception of appealing this sanction using a WP:NICETRY crafted appeal. In short, the it's time for the community to stand up and say that we will not tolerate Wikipedia being disrupted by witch hunts and personal vendettas in this topic space any more. Hasteur (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I would hardly call Tutlelary someone who is opposed to the opposition of the GG camp and specifically targetting those editors. She has been doxxed by 8chan and GG has raised issues about her. I myself would not say I always agree with her. If anything I would say she is a neutral party concerned with WP:COI issues that are threatening the integrity of Wikipedia. Weedwacker (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You know what to me seems like a witchhunt? A user trying to topic ban me because I disagreed with their enforcement request of DSA. While you seem to say that I'm 'stirring the drama pot', here you are making a subsection purely because you didn't like the comment I made at general enforcement requests. I'm also a bit sick of the WP:BOOMERANG mentality, which is an essay btw. The fact that people request sanctions against the person who decides that yes, a person's conduct needs to have a look taken into it to the proper avenue--WP:ANI you wish to ban them for the sheer act of daring to disagree. The personal attacks such as In short, the it's time for the community to stand up and say that we will not tolerate Wikipedia being disrupted by witch hunts and personal vendettas in this topic space any more. are unacceptable. I propose a counter ban proposal for Hasteur trying to silence other user's who took the notion of disagreeing with them. I've also been doxed, my house phone called (yes, one of those 8channers were skilled enough to get that far) and along with that, a death threat. I'm sick of being harassed for my Wikipedia edits. Hasteur seriously needs to stop. Tutelary (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC) See below. Tutelary (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:BATTLEFIELD and thanks for proving my point. Hasteur (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The pot calls the kettle black. Weedwacker (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm neither here nor there about this boomerang proposal, but I'm personally tired of reading about the doxxing. It seems to get mentioned way out of proportion to its actual relevance to matters under discussion, and has been to my mind repeatedly used as a card to justify behavior which should be justified on its own merit, not by events which happen off-wiki which have no actual bearing one way or another on this and some other matters. One off-wiki victimhood story, even concerning GG, has no bearing on wiki policy. Can we give it a rest? We get it. But victimhood ≠ innocence or license to abuse wiki protocol/policy/etc. (not saying she is, just saying one doesn't justify the other if she is). Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh I got it. I should just stay silent about it. No one wants to hear that a female Wikipedia editor got doxed for her edits. Completely irrelevant and no one wants to hear it. Got it. Doesn't matter that I'm seriously fearing for my freakin' life from the stuff that's happened in real life. Guess that gender gap might get just a teensy bit bigger on Wikipedia should I get sanctioned for wanting to bring stuff to admins' attention. Tutelary (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure it's going to put scores of female editors from joining the project if an editor who relentlessly pushes an anti-feminist POV and is known for hacking [101] [102] [103] leaves the project --5.81.52.82 (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• If any user wants to request a topic ban against Tutelary under the GG sanctions, I recommend that he or she make an enforcement request at WP:GS/GG/E and provide the appropriate evidence. The reason we created that page was to keep this stuff out of AN/I, and to allow it to be dealt with in as a gentle a fashion as is possible. Let's take advantage of the resources we have, rather than muck up this place more. RGloucester — ☎ 06:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for the editor Tutelary, who must, in the end, be judged strictly on their contributions to and/or disruptions of this encyclopedia, as opposed to their real life or claimed gender. In my judgment, this editor is a cleverly tendentious and disruptive contributor in this specific topic area. Perhaps they can be productive in editing completely different topics. We shall see. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Even our Dear Leader has asked Ryulong to step away from the issue due to various conduct issues and yet, despite repeatedly promising to step away, Ryulong is going all Brokeback Mountain on this topic. I don't think Tutelary is in error in asking for action against Ryulong as a result.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban for Tutelary. The frivolous throwing around of WP:BOOMERANG in this topic has become over-utilized to dissuade editors from raising concerns about the questionable conduct of other editors. Weedwacker (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Trout and close discussion on this thread. We're clearly not going anywhere and there was arguably never anything to discuss in the first place. Trout the boomerang-related editors with final warnings on ANI frivolity and personal vendettas. Users should be encouraged to post at WP:GS/GG/E if they want to seek topic restrictions. (Non-administrator comment) ♪ Tstorm(talk) 07:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Nah, people should just wait for the ArbCom case to open, because it is painfully clear that silly enforcement page was only ever a doomed-to-failure attempt at blocking the inevitable ArbCom case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have to mournfully agree with this sentiment. An admin at WP:GS/GG/E said this should be here yet here it's said it should be there. That enforcement page has shown it's ineffectiveness. Weedwacker (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Very well, I can agree on both points. The does leave things in the air as to whether short-term sanctions will be put into effect at the start of the case, so that's my only concern. I will stand by the trouting recommendation and desire to close, however. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 07:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Because a boomerang is offensive to me as an Australian. (and im sick of all these grenades going everywhere) Retartist (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment It was suggested above that this be sent to WP:COIN. I don't think we can fix it over there. At WP:COIN, we mostly check references, remove unverifiable content, trim peacocking, propose article deletions, and clean up messes created by COI editors. If an editor has to be sanctioned, that's referred to WP:AN/I here. John Nagle (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tit-for-tat bullshit like this is by far the worst thing about this site. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Cullen328 put it very well. There have been more repeated frivolous attacks on users (of which Ryulong is clearly a frequent target) than there have actually been productive discussions on the articles in question. This kind of thing is exactly what the sanctions should be working to curb. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 08:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Tutelary is not helping the encyclopedia but is instead using every opportunity to push a discredited line regarding their favorite topic. That would normally be standard operating procedure for Wikipedia, but there are only a small number of good editors willing to spend hours every day combatting the nonsense, and Tutelary is working hard to knock them out—WP:NOTHERE. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support This is the second time Tutelarys edits have seriously disrupted the encyclopedia. They have been relentlessly pushing an anti-feminist POV for some time and are now focused pretty much exclusively on promoting fringe views per GamerGate. It is not unusual that they are attacking Ryulong because he has been the target of repeated harassment from GamerGate message boards. I am almost certain that Tutelary reads these message boards and most likely contributes. What is happening here is that the harassment from said message boards has been taken to the website and Tutelary is using their account (that has many edits) in an attempt to legitimise said harassment. Do we have no rules on the website to prevent harassment? There are plenty of websites on the internet if a person wants to harass another individual, Wikipedia shouldn't be one.

Furthermore, this users support of adding libelous content to BLP articles (such as Zoe Quinn), the repeated promotion of fringe anti-feminist views and part in creating dedicated articles to the fappening are just some ways in which Tutelary has used Wikipedia as a platform to attack women. I recommend any blocking admin reads this past ANI [104]. There are multiple editors who are uncomfortable with Tutelarys actions --5.81.52.82 (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Tutelary's attempt at bringing up WP:COI issues was misunderstood by some to be an accusation of paid editing. Also unfortunately for Tutelary, she didn't bring up all the key evidence in the first post. More evidence was brought up slightly later by Obsidi and Weedwhacker, and I have a feeling that not everyone has read all of the other evidence. Compound these two factors together and you have a situation which seemingly paints her in a bad light when all she wanted was to bring up a potential conflict of interest Ryulong has even admitted to. Trout, at most. starship.paint ~ regal 12:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per Johnuniq. ReynTime (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, close and trout: Ryulong has, at least, an apparent conflict of interest (as acknowledged by Ryulong and Jimbo), that makes it not an example of "witch hunts and personal vendettas" and as such not a valid WP:BOOMERANG to bring up. Furthermore, many of people on this thread seem to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as to there being actual evidence that Ryulong did actually accept money from what he at least believed to be someone on /r/gamerghazi. Now you can believe that doesn't create a COI, but it is silly to call that WP:BOOMERANG worthy. --Obsidi (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I think that Tutelary's edits in the topic area GamerGate/men's rights movement tend to be unconstructive. I expressed and provided diffs for my concerns in this ANI discussion. Since then, it looks to me as if Tutelary's editing in the topic area has become more, not less, problematic. Take a look at this edit, for example. They restored and later fine-tuned a rambling mess consisting almost entirely of MRM original research. When I explained on the article talk page that they added back original research, Tutelary was unresponsive at first and then seemingly unwilling to fix their own mistake. It seems strange that they would restore claims from an MRA book that doesn't mention the article subject but delete a feminist study that does. Tutelary has made valuable contributions in other areas (e.g., fighting vandalism) but I don't think that their involvement in the GamerGate/men's rights topic area is helping the project. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seeking administrative intervention for disruptive editors is not in and of itself disruptive. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. If it all this belongs to WP:GGE Avono (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: Opposers on venue grounds (RGloucester—Avono—Tstormcandy) I'd have brought this up at the subpage for enforcement if I believed that there were any administrators there that were willing do do anything about it. I initially was for the subpage as a way to pigeonhole the drama from this, but when threads go on for multiple days with numerous SPAs/Sockpuppets juming up and down like angry monkeys trying to press any kind of removal of their opponents, the good faith on behalf of those administrators that monitor the page to do the right thing has been burnt up and the purpose of the subpage wasted. If accusers are allowed to lob accusations on whatever page tickles their fancy (and out of order on whatever page they want), then we should have no problem with proposing topic bans on any page we want. TLDR: If the enforcement page actually worked, I'd have used it Hasteur (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

When general sanctions are steamrolled in without community support, and then only used on one side of the issue, you can't then complain that they're not working. You should have thought of that before proposing them to begin with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support Cullen calls it right. Except that Topic Banning Tutelary will only ease the drama, because the editor will find other means to disrupt the project. Topic Banning from all GG articles broadly construed should help though. Dave Dial (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• @Hasteur: You are not allowing it to work. SPAs are rightfully ignored, I'm sure. It isn't as if the administrators don't have common sense. However, it takes time to evaluate evidence. If evidence can't be provided, they can't take action. Multiple people say "it isn't working", but that's because no one is providing a good case for why action should be taken. I wish you'd read the comments of the administrators there, and you'll see that they've been asking repeatedly for tangible evidence of sanctionable behaviour. Running to AN/I because one isn't satisfied with a process when one hasn't provided any evidence is essentially WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This does not apply to you, as you've not opened a request. However, this is exactly the type of behaviour you are encouraging. Subverting the system is only likely to result in more muck on these pages. RGloucester — ☎ 14:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @RGloucester: See the request that I made at WP:GS/GG/E against annother editor that was fully reasonable that you yourself closed as "No action. Resumption of this behaviour may result in a block. RGloucester — ☎ 18:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)". Now do you understand why I have exactly zero confidence in your attempts to solve this? Hasteur (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Sonicyouth86. I've observed long term pattern over multiple articles of non-constructive and tendentious editing from Tutelary, specifically in areas related to men's rights issues/interests. The topic ban proposed above seems generously limited in scope considering, and hopefully would serve as a wake up call regarding a general editing issue regarding this user which is disruptive to the encyclopedia.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per *spins the Wheel of Crapulence* WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. When you go fishing in this pond, all you catch is trout. Besides, it has been thoroughly established here and elsewhere that no community action can prevent the disruption from Gamergate spilling out into other forums, despite a clear community desire for all such requests to be posted to WP:GS/GG/E, thus not only is the proposal WP:POINTy, there is no conceivable way one could believe this would prevent further disruption, thus any block resulting from it must be punitive, which violates WP:NOTPUNISHMENT. To those of you griping about GS/GG/E "not working" because there aren't enough watchers, it seems it hasn't occurred to you that maybe there's a reason nobody is watching that page. Maybe the relentless petty drama is just not that important to those of us who are here actually trying to build an encyclopedia. Why don't we block all of you and nuke the whole GamerGate topic area from orbit? That would actually prevent disruption. Ivanvector (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

  I would support nuking the topic because it is clearly too contentious for progress to be made when enforcement of sanctions is so one-sided. In several months perhaps the idea of the article could be revisited. That decision is in ArbCom hands now and not ours to make. I question what you mean by blocking "all of you" as "those of you griping" sounds more like "those I disagree with". We all saw what happened the last time Ryulong tried that broad stroke. Weedwacker (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Retracted. That comment was out of line; I apologize to anyone who interpreted themselves as being part of all of you. However, "those of you griping" is indeed "those I disagree with", as I've indicated quite a few times here that this is the wrong forum, thus I do disagree with "those of you griping". Also on a "told you so" note, it seems that GS/GG/E is currently leaning towards a long topic ban for Ryulong, while the thread above was shut down as out-of-line forumshopping, so to those of you seeking that result, I'll reiterate one more time that GS/GG/E is the correct forum for these complaints. Ivanvector (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This is ridiculous, Tutelary's worries were logical, since even Jimmy Wales considered this a matter to look carefully. Tutelary didn't act in bad faith. It would also be better if topics regarding Ryulong weren't closed by admins like Gamaliel, Dreadstar and Future Perfect At Sunrise since they appear to be involved Loganmac (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I noticed this while looking for something else and am otherwise uninvolved with this entire mess. Support indefinite topic ban. WP:OUTING states "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block" so Tutelary should be thankful for getting off as lightly as that for this edit [105]. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Bloom6132

Bloom6132 (talk · contribs) (I am not notifying him on his talk page, for reasons you will see shortly) was last blocked for aggression/personal attacks (in discussions relating to DYK and the WikiCup) in October 2014 by Fram (talk · contribs). Since then, his fratching/aggression on topics relating to the WikiCup and DYK have continued. For some examples from the last few days, see his general battleground mentality at RfA (the insistence that he's the real victim when he is told that his conduct is out of order is a common trait), refusal to assume good faith, endless wikilawyering (see this, for instance, where he defends his ludicrous claim that ThaddeusB had acted in violation of NLT). Eventually, I closed the discussion where most of this was going on on "more heat than light" grounds. He responded by turning up at my talk page, and, among other things, apparently accusing Adam Cuerden of fascism. I gave a final warning (several people have told him his conduct is inappropriate in the last week alone), in response to which he posted a message at the top of his talk page saying that I was "banned" from leaving messages there, due to my supposed lies and harassment. I am of the view that Bloom's conduct, if anything, has gotten worse since he previous block, and that he should be blocked again. However, I am not going to do it myself, as he has made clear that even my posting on his talk page "will be imputed as harassment and dealt with accordingly" (whatever that means) and because he will insist that I am "involved"- if he means that I've been putting up with this and/or have been the target of his ire for months, he is correct. J Milburn (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with J. Milburn's assessment of the situation. The situation at the WikiCup talk page has been quite heated, but Bloom's gone a bit too far. Will block if consensus is for it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• This editor looks like the whole package of problems. Support long block. SPACKlick (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• User:Bloom6132 notified here The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support block This will be imputed as harassment and dealt with accordingly feels like its designed to have a chilling effect either at an individual or a wider range of editors. Personal attacks and accusations of breeching NLT seem to be at best unconstructive and at worst intentionally disruptive. Amortias (T)(C) 13:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• You've been here for six months, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what an WP:IBAN is. It's a two-way street BTW, so I'm not giving a "chilling effect either at an individual or a wider range of editors" as you had implicitly accused me of doing. For example, the first person banned on my TP hasn't talked to me since October 22, and neither have I. Unfortunately, this IBAN had to be violated just 1h38m after I issued it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Except, Bloom, that you can't unilaterally "issue" interaction bans. Take another look at the banning policy. "Bans are a possible outcome of dispute resolution. They may be imposed by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee or, in certain topic areas, by administrators." There is no interaction ban, here- there is you telling me that I'm not welcome on your talk page. J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of what an WP:IBAN is and aware of how it works. I am also aware that you can request users not to post on your talk page. Nowhere have I implicitley accused you of anthing (and if I gave that impression it was in error) I gave my opinion on the matter as how the statements read to me. Could you provide an answer or explanation of the other points metioned above such as the accusation of fascism. Amortias (T)(C) 14:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I can. First off, calling for more transparency and openness in the WikiCup is not a refusal to assume good faith. If anything, I think we (except for Milburn) can all agree that having a more transparent and fair competition is something we should all strive for. Unfortunately, not only does Milburn not agree with me on that, it can be said that he's failed to assume the assumption of good faith. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the comment pipelinked to fascism, what do you call someone who, as I put it, wants to "eliminate anyone who holds a different view to yours". Adam Cuerden implicitly called for Milburn to ban me from the Cup. This comes from the same person who went on a neurotic tirade against a fellow Cup competitor who dared to suggest that the points awarded for featured pictures be reduced. Coupled with personal attacks both behind my back and one insulting both me and Milburn, I can't think of another term to describe such behaviour. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you and Adam Cuerden should be blocked for personal attacks, calling people an "a**" is unacceptable. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how I personally attacked Adam Cuerden. I never called him a fascist, and describing his actions as a desire to "eliminate anyone who holds a different view to yours" is not a personal attack – it's the truth. I definitely don't see eye to eye with either Milburn or Nergaal, and yet he's managed to attack all three of us with vile vitriol. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You should be blocked not because of your behavior with AC, but for other reasons stated above. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't responded to the evidence I gave about the obvious baiting from you and others supporting Czar. Care to explain? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't bait, and I did not intend to. AGF. I don't know what you expect me to "explain". --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with this 100%. He has a battleground mentality as you can see in the discussions here. We (Me, Ritchie333, FreeRangeFrog, Secret, and others) were trying to have a civilized discussion, while Bloom was throwing accusations of "bagdering" and "abuse" at us. We were calm while he was getting worked up. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 13:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Of course you were all "calm" when implicitly impugning my integrity, accusing me of "twist[ing] things around", and calling me the reason "why RfA is failing" (same diff). And it's not just me, it's the same treatment you guys gave to anyone who opposed. Chris troutman was also blamed for being "reason why RFA is broken", as well as for stack voting. Even supporters of Czar were reminded you guys not to corner those who voted to oppose. And yet you call this a "civilized discussion". More like baiting. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Those diffs don't make you look better Bloom, they show you over-reacting to civil discourse. SPACKlick (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, "civil discourse" made hand-in-hand with passive-aggressive behavior. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support block It's a shame, as I have evidence (from his GA and DYK contributions) that he's a good editor, but he hasn't assumed as much good faith as I would have liked in discussions, his beef with Czar over the WikiCup sounds like a grudge (and when I said I agreed I thought the WikiCup had problems it was ignored), and his talk page brings to mind WP:OWB #48 : "People who put lists of users they don't like on their user pages won't be around for long" I've got a nasty feeling as soon as he joins this thread he's going to run out of WP:ROPE, which is a shame. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You called it. It is a shame. SPACKlick (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support block Whilst I agree with Richie333 that his content work is generally a positive, Bloom6132 really doesn't seem capable of conforming to community standards of behaviour - his inability to drop the stick in disputes and his apparent blindness to his own personal attacks on other editors (cf. this unblock appeal and my response) seems to generate conflict whenever he's required to interact with others. I don't see that positive content contributions balance out this kind of confrontational editing. (Caveat: it should be noted that I too am "banned" from Bloom6123's talkpage, for making attempts ([106],[107]) to curb his behaviour.) Yunshui ^雲_水 14:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"For making attempts to curb his behaviour" – first off, enough with the patronizing paternalistic tone. Secondly, you were banned for gravedancing during and after my block and rubbing it into my face. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• "you were banned for gravedancing during and after my block and rubbing it into my face" Banned? Gravedancing? Rubbing it into my face? What? Not what I'm seeing. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• "What? Not what I'm seeing" – says the person who has been baiting me non-stop over the past 2 days. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologise if you dislike my tone; that's simply how I talk (or write, at least). Like Amaryllis, I too failed to see any gravedancing or face-rubbing in those two messages, and I gave them extensive consideration after you posted your "ban" notice. However, I concluded that they read as I had intended them: one, an attempt to explain why your unblock appeal did not meet the requirements at WP:GAB and one to alert you to the fact that you were repeating the same behaviour that led to your block. At no point did I intend to demonstrate any levity over the fact that you had been blocked, but despite the fact that I do not consider the motives behind it valid, you'll note that I have complied with your talkpage notice ever since. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Apology not accepted. I know you're probably peeved at how I responded to your so-called "explanations". You may disguise it well, but the way you write to me (i.e. treating me like your subordinate as opposed to your equal) reveals how your support for blocking me is purely vindicatory. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspected that you (and possibly others) might see it that way, which is why I added the caveat to my original statement so that others could assess my actions as well as yours. However, although I am basing my support for blocking on my experiences with you in the past, I genuiniely believe, after reflecting on those experiences and looking at your interactions with others, that blocking you would in fact be in the best interests of the project. So far, you've said nothing that would convince me otherwise. I am sorry that you feel unable to accept my apology. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"I am basing my support for blocking on my experiences with you in the past" – that's all we needed to hear. Your use of "However" and "although" together reveal it all. Move to strike out Yunshui's "support block" vote from the discussion – it's made in violation of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE in order to retaliate against my previous interactions with him and to punish me for it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Strongly oppose striking Yunshui's support. I still see nothing wrong with what he said, and you keep overreacting. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this isn't up for voting, especially not from you. Until you address the damning evidence against you and Czar's support brigade of baiting voters who oppose, you should be viewed as a biased baiter. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Here's the situation, Bloom. Two admins are considering blocking you (though I suspect Yunshui won't because he has declined a previous unblock request and could be considered involved). You have not edited any articles for a week, preferring to focus on disputes, which makes me question if you've actually been here to write an encyclopedia for that time. You can accept that things have got out of hand and a little heated, agree to disagree, and go back to article work with the dramah level reduced. That's my preferred option. Or, you can wind a few more admins up, get blocked, and watch your talk page fill up with declined unblock requests. I've seen how these things go - if a general consensus amongst admins is that you should be blocked, it is very difficult to extract yourself from the situation. I'm not saying that's good or bad, more that it's a fact of wikilife. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"You can accept that things have got out of hand and a little heated, agree to disagree, and go back to article work with the dramah level reduced" – OK, I accept that completely. I'll disenfranchise myself and completely stay off RFA, for a time mutually agreed upon with the community. I will also not comment about "delayed updates" on the Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring page, except for a simple vote in favour of the proposal I made (or a modified form of it). Finally, I will have removed the talkpage ban I issued on J Milburn as a gesture of good faith. But if an admin still proceeds with a block, then I will rescind all these concessions. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Any other concessions you'd like me to make (within reason, and from anyone not involved)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that sounds good. If you want an article to look at, personally I'd quite like Canterbury Cathedral to have some spit and polish. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal As their post above a three month self imposed ban on the above sections. Three months appears reasonable (to me) due to the low throughput of RFA's. As an adendum to the above I would be willing to (with the communities backing) to have Bloom6132 pass any issues they see with an RFA directly to my talkpage. I will then evaluate and discuss these with Bloom6132 and if in agreement raise them at he RFA myself (I dont believe this will be in breech of the self imposed ban as I am aware of other situations where users have been told to raise queries through another user). Amortias (T)(C) 16:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I said I would not comment on the Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring page with regards to "delayed updates". Any other matters such as voting on next year's rules are outside the scope of that promise. And since you actively voted in favour of my block, I will not deem you a neutral third-party with regards to RFA discussions. I'd prefer someone who I've had more experience working with and gotten along well with over the years, and a fellow content creator like Go Phightins! or Crisco 1492 (provided that either of them don't mind). —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. I put myself forward as an offer as part of the original proposal as it seemed an appropriate way of allowing you to express your concerns but can understand if their is another alternative that you would prefer.Amortias (T)(C) 16:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Weak support Amortia's proposal, it'd be a shame to lose a good contributor like Bloom, despite his behaviour. So, I think this would be good, this would prevent most trouble, and blocks aren't intended as punishment. Sadly, I must support a block. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• I like Amortias' proposal, as for Bloom's request for another point of contact. Your initial offer was for complete abstinence, Amortias is offering to be there for important things which need to be dealt with in that three months. Notice that you can still just entirely abstain for three months, there's no obligation to engage in that part of the deal. SPACKlick (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I take exception to your ES accusing me of "biting the hand that's kind". I'm offering a viable alternative, so please assume some good faith if that's what you expect of me. And while you're at it, why don't you do something productive and produce content like I do rather than sit at ANI demanding "long blocks" for those who actually work towards making WP what it is today. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right to take exception and I unreservedly apologise (explanation but not an excuse. I opened the page, got heated, wrote a long snarky rant and put that as the edit summary. I stepped away, thought better of it, re-wrote the post and forgot to change the edit summary) That said, you then attacking me for my contribution pattern while spectacularly failing to realise that part of what you're "Making WP" is an uncomfortable place for other editors to work is exactly the sort of behaviour I saw that made me suggest a long block. I stand by the suggestion that you be blocked. I would be open to it being limited to RFA's and one narrowly construed topic ban (WikiCup delays) as you do good editing, however I wouldn't be hard to convince that it should be broader because of the way you interact with other editors. And just before you bring up Punative the reasons I suggest a block fall uner reasons 2 and 3 or preventative blocks to stop disruptive behaviour and encourage a more congenial style. SPACKlick (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'm, however, confused by your saying that you "like Amortias' proposal", but that you "stand by the suggestion that [I] be blocked". You can't have it both ways. Either you support blocking me and the proposal is irrevocably off the table, or I remain unblocked but adhere to the two topic bans and keep Milburn off my TP ban list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I thought the ban from posting at RFA except through one nominated editor would be a block. I would note, you're still acting like you're dictating terms here, I see it more as you trying to convince consensus for your proposal over other proposals. Also on the TP Ban thing, while you're free to request editors not post on your page, that's not a ban, it's a request. Unnecessary violation of that request could be harassing behaviour but posting some warnings and notices wouldn't be the sort of thing the community would take action against in the same way they would with say an IBan. SPACKlick (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to dictate terms, and I'm sorry if I give you (or anyone else) the impression that I am. I only think that it's fair that if I were to adhere to the three conditions in Amortias' proposal (which would address all the root causes of this discussion), then I should not be blocked. If I am blocked, then I should be able to come back with a clean slate. In response to your TP ban concern, I've changed the wording to "blacklisted", not banned. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose block – Blocks are not punitive, and should be utilized only after every other avenue is pursued. There is another proposal on the proverbial table above that should be tried before a block. I have found Bloom to be someone who not only can, but does make strong content contributions to the encyclopedia on a regular basis. While this does not excuse potentially detrimental behavior, it does mean we as a community should make an effort to try alternate avenues before a "block because it's easier" course. Go Phightins! 16:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Block and work to find a way forward for Bloom6132. I'd like to see a couple of things though - firstly, obviously, that he drop the battlefield mentality and move on from this year's WikiCup, it's in the past and it's not worth getting blocked over and wrecking other bits of the project over. I would, however, strongly implore the organisers of next year's WikiCup to take onboard the complaint Bloom has raised and ensure similar issues are mitigated against in future, so something productive comes from this complete disaster area. Nick (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Amortias's proposal, including the part where Bloom6132 brings RFA issues to Amortias's talk page. Looks a reasonable compromise to me, it's worth a shot. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd be more in favour of Amortias's proposal if this thread wasn't full of more of the same nonsense from Bloom (some of the comments display a mind-boggling lack of understanding- I'm not going to quote, just look up). If we are going to go ahead with a "three-month-behave-or-else" proposal, then we would need a ban from RfAs, a ban from anything WikiCup-related and a ban from listing users who are "banned" from his talk page, with the explicit understanding that anymore of this kind of behaviour result in a block. That seems quite reasonable to me, especially given the large number of people who are all for a block outright. (As I side note, can I express my unhappiness with Bloom's claim that if he is blocked, he will "reinstate" my "ban" on posting on his talk page. He is simply ignoring anything resembling the banning policy, and his comments about me and Yunshui need to be removed from his talk page immediately, whether or not he likes it.) J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed, it requires co-operation from Bloom, the "If I'm blocked, then everything I have promised is void" behavior's not helping, and telling me that I can't comment on things because I'm supposedly under scrutiny by him isn't either. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• @J Milburn – You have no right to dictate what I can do with my talkpage. It is, after all, my own talkpage, not yours. I retain the right to control every part of my own account and my own userpages, so unless you plan to take the unprecedented step of taking that right away altogether as part of the "compromise", I suggest you drop that unreasonable demand altogether. It doesn't bode well with the sprit of reconciliation started with Amortias' proposal. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Bloom, wrong again. Pages in a particular userspace "are not owned by the user". There is nothing in any policy or guideline that allows you "to dictate what [you] can do with [your] talkpage", nor anything that allows you to "ban" users from your talk page. I am not taking any "unprecedented step" in saying that you're wrong, I am just telling you what the Wikipedia policy on the matter is. J Milburn (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• You clearly haven't read WP:NOBAN – "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request". It is well within my jurisdiction to request certain individuals not to edit my talkpage. You have no right to ban me from requesting people not to edit my talkpage. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• It's a shame that you cherrypick policies just to fit your argument. The comments you made above (i.e. "I've been putting up with this", "more of the same nonsense from Bloom", and "whether or not he likes it") clearly demonstrate that you are pursuing my blocking purely out of vengeance, made in violation of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE in order to retaliate against my previous interactions with you and to punish me for it. If you were genuinely for a preventative block, you'd accept my major concessions, as voluntarily disenfranchising myself is not something I take lightly at all. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• You can request whatever you like to whoever you like. Depending on the request, they may or may not go ahead and do what you've asked. This is as true on Wikipedia as anywhere else. What I object to (among other things...) is you claiming that you have the right to "ban" people from your talk page, and especially listing people who are "banned" from your talk page for all to see. Concerning your second comment- the thought of you accusing someone of cherrypicking policies is hilarious. I see no reason to believe that you have any intention of behaving reasonably; as I've said (indeed, as you quoted), this thread is full of more of the same from you. If you want me to believe that you intend to change your ways, start right now. Drop the accusations. Stop playing the victim. Work on the assumption that other people are here/commenting for legitimate reasons. Stop being so confrontational. If you can't manage that, you seriously have to consider whether this is the project for you. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• No matter how you try to spin it, banning people from my talkpage has the same effect as requesting people not to post. Therefore, they are essentially the same. I see no problem in doing that, as it ensures no one will claim that they "didn't know" they weren't welcome on my TP. I'm sorry if my blunt and direct nature annoys you, but that's the culture I was raised in, and I'm afraid you'll just have to accept that. Addressing your second reply – since you're so keen on punishing me (in direct contravention of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE), I'll offer to indefinitely disenfranchise myself by never commenting on RFA again. Ever, even through raising concerns by a third party. I, however, will not accept your plan to ban me from the WikiCup – I haven't violated a single rule in my two years of participation, so your proposal is heavy handed and arbitrary to say the least. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Banning" means something very particular on Wikipedia; see WP:BAN. Someone you have asked not to post on your talk page is not "banned" from posting on your talk page. If you think they are, you are mistaken. There really isn't anything to debate in that regard- if you still do not understand this, just take my word for it. Whether you "see" a problem with listing users on your talk page, there is a problem- your refusal to understand that your behaviour is inappropriate and your refusal to change it (and I really don't care what kind of culture you were raised in- inappropriate behaviour is inappropriate behaviour, and I am not going to "just accept" inappropriate behaviour) is precisely why I feel you should be blocked, and precisely why a block of you would not be "punitive" (no matter how many times claim otherwise). I have not suggested that you have violated any WikiCup rules- I am talking about Wikipedia's rules. Your conduct has resulted in an awful lot of unhappiness at the WikiCup, you have wasted a lot of people's time, and eaten up a lot of people's goodwill. This is why I don't want you anywhere near it, even if you're still going to be on Wikipedia, and this is why my desire to be rid of you is neither heavy-handed nor "arbitrary". J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Being blunt and direct with regards to listing users on my talk page is hardly "inappropriate behaviour" – it's quite simple, if you don't want to be on that list, don't give me a reason to put you on there in the first place. And "inappropriate behaviour" has nothing to do with the culture I was raised in – stop lumping them together as they are two distinct and separate issues. Being blunt and direct is part of my culture. Inappropriate behaviour isn't. So if you're not going to accept my blunt and direct nature, you're essentially condemning me not for what I do, you're condemning me for what I am. All this coming from the same person who started this thread because he thought I was not "assuming good faith", who then proceeds to say, "I see no reason to believe that you have any intention of behaving reasonably". Which makes me wonder – where's your good faith? —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I do not object to your being direct (in fact, I generally prefer people to be direct), but some of what you call direct, I call inappropriate. (You're the one who raised your upbringing, which is and was irrelevant, so please do try to throw it back in my face. On a similar note, I've no interest in getting into arguments about what you do vs who you are.) I trusted that you were acting in good faith for months, but there's only so far I can go. And, to repeat myself once again, I would be more willing to assume that you have an intention of behaving in a reasonable way if you started now. You are still arguing the toss, still trying to turn conversations around to make yourself look like a victim and still treating Wikipedia like a battleground. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@J Milburn: could you post diffs or point us to diffs of anything in particular Bloom has done at WikiCup. Just for clarity. SPACKlick (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

All of the diffs in my original post were at least somewhat WikiCup related. The opposition to Czar at Rfa was due to Bloom's belief that Czar acted inappropriately in the WikiCup, many of my quotes were from this thread on a WikiCup talk page and comments from after this thread was closed (my talk page and Bloom's) concerned the WikiCup. J Milburn (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support outright block - user's combative posts here and at WikiCup, and placing a banner on their talk page instructing other editors that they are "banned" from posting there, are clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Wikipedia is not about winning; if the user is here to build an encyclopedia, their apparent history of quality editing will serve them well in a block appeal. Ivanvector (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Block - I was pretty disappointed at his childish tantrum at Czar's RFA. He needs to take it easy with his side Wiki-Cup stuff... Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Block Weakly, and sadly. His behavior has stayed the same, and after more thought, a block may be in everyone's best interests. :( Regards, --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we all wind this down please?

First of all, WP:WIKICUP says "The purpose of the Cup is to encourage content improvement and make editing on Wikipedia more fun." This does not seem like "fun" to me. Perhaps J. Milburn could disengage, "unclose" the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Scoring#adding_rule and let the other two judges address the scoring issue? I see that judge Miyagawa asked a reasonable question here [108] but the discussion was overwhelmed with all the back and forth.

Secondly, Czar's going to be an admin in a couple days (current tally 78/3/3) and a couple months from now no one is going to care about a few opposes on their Rfa.

Bloom has a common but significant misunderstanding about WP:OWNTALK -- while "NE Ent's talk page" seems to imply it's mine, it's not, of course, the page is WMF's and the content is CC-SA licensed. User talk pages are community pages for leaving messages to users. While normally requests not to post on a user's page are honored under courtesy, they should just be made in normal dialog. The "declaration" about Yunshui atop the page falls within the spirit, if not the letter of, prohibited conduct under WP:ATTACK and I hope Bloom will remove it soon. NE Ent 23:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"This does not seem like "fun" to me." Agreed, and this is why I don't think Bloom should be involved in the Cup. As I said in my closure of the discussion in question, if someone else wants to pursue a rule change in the spirit of Bloom's proposal, I have no objection to that, but there's very little chance that that discussion will lead to anything productive. J Milburn (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, I think you've missed the point. This isn't so much about some comments on an RfA, or a particular WikiCup thread, it's about a continuing pattern of toxic conduct and a continued denial of wrongdoing. J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support block I never heard of Bloom6132 before yesterday, but have now had the opportunity/obligation to read dozens of their comments, first at the Czar RFA, and now here. This editor is astonishingly combative about the most trivial of matters. There is no culture on Earth where this kind of behavior is considered appropriate or justified. This is a collaborative project to build a free encyclopedia. It is not a brutal, take-no-prisoners competition to win digital virtual "Wikicups" consisting of just a handful of electrons. Bloom seems to be out of control, and needs a "time out" to work on regaining appropriate human self-control. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Cullen328 on each of his points, but what exactly are we talking about here? Short term, long term, indefinite? Because if we're talking about indefinite, I'm not sure that's warranted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I am not arguing for an indefinite block at this time, NinjaRobotPirate, and would leave the duration in the hands of an experienced, uninvolved administrator. The last block was 24 hours so at least 48 hours, but am not sure that is enough time for the editor to disengage and calm down. Perhaps 24 hours for every tendentious, repetitive, aggressive post in this thread. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
      • A short block like that would seem alright, but I'm not sure that it's even necessary any more – unless he's actively continuing to disrupt conversations through confrontational/insulting language. Standard, progressive blocks seem reasonable. I hope we don't end up indefinitely blocking him. I never heard of him before his posts to ANI (and their tone greatly annoyed me), but I don't think we're anywhere near Niemti-levels of disruption/personal attacks... yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Perhaps 24 hours for every tendentious, repetitive, aggressive post in this thread. – clearly shows your support for a block is made solely for punitive and vindicatory reasons. Move to strike out Cullen328's "support block" vote from the discussion – it's made in violation of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE in order to retaliate and punish. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion was made in the hope that such a remedy might serve to "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior" which you seem to be continuing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Engaging in genuine discussion is most definitely not "disruptive behavior" as you grossly misrepresent it to be. Dishing out 24 hour blocks for every post I make here demonstrates you are trying to shut down dialogue, and your "suggestion" is clearly punitive in nature (whether you want to admit it or not). If you were genuinely interested in a "remedy", you'd have suggested something constructive (like Amortias' proposal above) or a block that is completely unrelated to the number of edits I make. Mind you, I've already stopped editing on RFA, the WikiCup scoring talkpage and have taken down my blacklist. So your assertion that "disruptive behavior" is continuing from me is more like a fantasy to say the least. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose block : I think he should not be blocked, diffs only suggest that he is on the border, not that he violated the rules. He needs to be reformed and humbled. Per Go! Phigtins, we must remember that he is useful. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • {{This is a collaborative project...}} True, but the WikiCup is a competition, and it is the human condition that tempers flare during competitive events. In the real world cup, Andrés Escobar was reportedly murdered as a result of competition; so a little perspective is in order. Although Bloom's conduct hasn't been stellar the reaction to the criticism hasn't helped; disengagement, especially between Bloom and J. Milburn should be the goal, not what appears to bordering on a punitive block. Bloom is an editor with 14,000 64% mainspace edits; while that in no way exempts him from expected standards of conduct, it should inform our thought process on the best possible way to deescalate the conflict. NE Ent 04:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I have very little interest in having further interaction with Bloom if I can easily avoid it, but there is no way that this is some personal dislike between the two of us. The RfA, the previous block and the other people he's lashed out at over the WikiCup (in this thread, I've mentioned Adam Cuerden and ThaddeusB, but there are others) show that this is his go-to mode of interaction. J Milburn (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• The root cause of this entire fiasco boils down to the fact that I am calling for a more fair and more transparent WikiCup competition (namely, the institution of a rule against "delayed updates"). Milburn, Adam Cuerden and ThaddeusB (among others) are totally against this much-needed reform. However, if I'm so "wrong" (or if consensus is completely against me), then why have Snowmanradio and Nick (in his above post) express support for my proposal, which actually stems from Sasata's call for the rule back in October 2012. Two years, more than two years have past, and yet our pleas for this rule have gone unheeded and have been ignored outright. It's peculiar how those who support my proposal are all neutral third parties who don't participate in the Cup, while those who are so adamantly opposed to reform are stakeholders who participate in this comp on a yearly basis. Now, according to Milburn, demanding a more fair and more transparent competition (which is entirely reasonable) is now falsely portrayed as a failure to assume good faith. Milburn – you can continue your "Blame Bloom" campaign and claim I'm at fault for everything all you want, but it takes two to start a fight. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• If you actually look at the facts (as oppose to emotionally-charged calls by Milburn calling for my block), it's fairly apparent and obvious that I have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. My sole intention is to improve Wikipedia; in this case, by making the WikiCup more fair and transparent. Think about it – if I was genuinely acting in bad faith, why on earth would I call for a rule that puts me at a disadvantage as well. I don't benefit one bit from having this rule in place; in fact, introducing it would be detrimental to me as it's one less "tactic" I can use. But I believe in honesty and integrity; unfortunately, the way my actions and intentions have been misconstrued and distorted in every possible manner are the exact opposite of that. If Milburn didn't hold such a big WP:GRUDGE against me (no matter how many times he claims otherwise), he would have accept Amortias' proposal of in which I make three generous concessions that cover all the root causes of this discussion. I'm giving up integral rights here, and if that's not good enough for Milburn, I honestly don't know what will satisfy him. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No Bloom, it's not obvious at all. You respond to the slightest question or criticism with aggression, it smacks of battle ground to me. The problem has been explained several times and you still don't seem to have cottoned on. Try re-reading this discussion as if it's about an editor you don't know it might help overcome the understanding issue. SPACKlick (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the talkpage blacklist naming Yunshui – there is no more blacklist on my talkpage. But if I'm ultimately blocked, I will most definitely reinstate it (with more names of course). I've accepted the three conditions and went above and beyond what I had initially promised. The ball's in your court now – I either remain unblocked while adhering to those three sanctions, or block me and the deal is irrevocably off the table. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to a suggestion I made [109], Bloom has also indicated [110] they'll be finishing up a DYK and then taking three weeks off. NE Ent 13:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

[JM here, I can confirm later if necessary.] Bloom, at no point have I suggested that you should be blocked because you support changing a rule in the WikiCup. In fact, as you know, I have repeatedly said that such a rule could potentially be useful, I just struggle to see quite what it would look like (and I have also said that I have no objection to another user opening up a new discussion/making a proposal concerning said rule). To suggest that I am after you because you're some kind of WikiCup critic is disingenuous. Just as this discussion is not about your upbringing, it's not actually about a WikiCup rule- it's about your combative and aggressive attitude. I have repeatedly explained that you are wrong to say that I am calling for a punitive block, and now that accusation seems to have turned into a claim that I have some kind of grudge, or that my request is "emotionally charged" (presumably meaning "irrational"). I agree that you have no good reason to be combative; my claim (which I have defended by pointing to diffs) is that you are overly combative (this whole "accept my terms or the deals off, and a load of new people are blacklisted from my talk page" stuff is yet another example). 143.117.85.213 (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure whether I should even be interacting with an IP claiming to be Milburn. But judging from the same consistently patronizing tone telling me that "you are wrong", this seems to pass the WP:DUCKTEST. Once again, you misconstrue my words and intentions (not surprising though). I never said "accept my terms or the deals off" – don't put words into my mouth, that's simply unfair. Fact of the matter is you guys have a choice. Two options. I never said "you must pick option A, or else …" But each choice has its own consequences, and its up to the closing admin what that will be. I will accept either punishment, but I will certainly not accept both. Either a block or the 3 topic bans/conditions achieve the WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. But calling for both is punitive and vindicatory, and only serves the purpose of fulfilling – as you had unintentionally revealed above – "[your] desire to be rid of [me]". —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I endorse what User:NE Ent has said above, let us make sure that Bloom6132 has really got some reasons and the statements of the IP above proves him/herself to be a Wikipedia:DUCK. We can move further, Czar is probably going to become an admin and as for wikicup, it can be sorted without remembering about any of these conflicts. I would have originally supported the block for Bloom6132 if he was causing any kind of error on main pages or talk pages, but he is not doing so. I will refrain from talking about any other sides as our topic is Bloom6132 only. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:DUCK is irrelevant; the IP said he's JM. Bloom continues to be combative in their posts here, saying they'll remove the battleground-y notice from their talkpage only if there is no block, but promises to put it back otherwise. That's not how it works here - they're defending their treating of the talk pages as battlegrounds and declaring that they intend to continue - that is not acceptable. There is no deal to be made here; the deal is: abide by community standards or be blocked. Reaffirming support for an outright block per WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE #2 and #3. No conduct issues have been resolved here. Ivanvector (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

JM needs to confirm that he is that IP, before anyone makes any assumptions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"the IP said he's JM" – yeah, just like many people will say they aren't engaged in sock puppetry even when they are. Point is, how do you know for sure – are you going to take a person's word as being the truth just because they said it is? Addressing your quote, "There is no deal to be made here" – you clearly didn't read my statement. I'm not proposing a deal. It's a choice that the closing admin will make, and – like everything else in life – there will be consequences for each of those choices. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@IP who claims to be Milburn – "[A]t no point have I suggested that you should be blocked because you support changing a rule" – no, but you have equated my legitimate request for reform with refusing to assume good faith (a blockable offence). Hence, you are essentially calling for me to be blocked because I demand fairness and transparency (no matter how many times claim otherwise), which you are only now jumping on the bandwagon expressing lukewarm open-mindedness to the idea of having a rule that enshrines both. Delaying updates in order to deceitfully hiding points from other competitors is gaming/abusing the system. I'm simply calling a spade a spade, and I never implicated anyone in particular as being guilty of such malpractice. So your claim that I am "overly combative" is puzzling – to whom am I being overly combative there with that statement? Is demanding fairness and transparency really too much to ask for? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Bloom a legitimate request acting in good faith wouldn't imply other users were gaming the system it would say that users were disadvantaged by the lack of information without implying people were doing it deliberately. It wouldn't call them or their actions deceitful. They wouldn;t imply, as you did further up the thread, that anyone who disagree supports unfairness, and has no integrity. It's not the rule you asked for that lacked good faith it was the way you asked. SPACKlick (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

SPACKlick – My comment implied any hypothetical competitor who engaged in behaviour such as delaying updates in order to hide points would be gaming the system. Calling these actions anything but deceitful would be utterly dishonest on my part (and I'm not the kind of person who tells lies – I say it as it is). A "lack of information" is therefore irrelevant if hiding points from other competitors is done deliberately. There's no lack of good faith in the way I asked, because there is no good faith to be assumed in such a hypothetical situation. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The anonymous poster claiming to be me was me. I stand by what I said. I consider my characterisation of Bloom as offering an "accept my terms or the deal[']s off" proposal as perfectly reasonable- to quote Bloom himself: "I either remain unblocked while adhering to those three sanctions, or block me and the deal is irrevocably off the table". J Milburn (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

convenience break

• Question - Right now it looks like there is enough of a consensus to block, but I am wondering if the people who gave their opinions earlier think that a topic ban will be more effective in preventing further disputes/troublesome behaviour. Tagging Ritchie333, Cullen328, AmaryllisGardener, Ivanvector, Sergecross73, and Yunshui. I should note that, if a block were to be implemented, it would be first and foremost to prevent further disruption. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Disrupting what? Bloom's current activity Special:Contributions/Bloom6132 mostly consists of editing What Child Is This and some DYK stuff. They've been asked to disengage on the Wikucup stuff and they have. NE Ent 12:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• A topic ban from what, exactly? This is about the user's combative attitude everywhere they go on the project, here, at WikiCup, and especially on their own talk page. Behaviour for which they were recently blocked, and which they resumed when the block expired. No, I don't think a topic ban is preferable in this case. In the discussion above, I don't see a user who's understanding that their actions are viewed unacceptable by the community and agrees to change for the better, I see a user who's trying to bargain to avoid a block. Furthermore, the previous block didn't apparently encourage the user to check their attitude at the login screen, thus I see no reason at all to believe the user's simply going to step away from it now. I once again reaffirm support for a full block, which prevents the user's disruption from continuing, and which they can appeal by convincing an administrator that they genuinely understand the reason for the block and understand that they cannot continue that behaviour. Ivanvector (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• After much thought, I must oppose this also, it seems that Bloom has problems with his attitude wherever he goes. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:1RR expiration at WP:MRMPS

The 1RR restriction on men's rights movement pages expired on October 27, 2014. NE Ent, who is more on top of this than I am, removed the restriction from the sanctions page.

The restriction originally expired in October 2013 and then was extended another year. The question is should we extend it again. On the one hand, the last time anyone was sanctioned for a 1RR violation was in June of this year. On the other hand, the restriction undoubtedly prevents disruption on MRM pages.

I propose we extend the restriction for one more year from the date this discussion is closed. I've created two subsections below, one for votes, and one for discussion.

Proposal votes

• Support as proposer.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I see some vandalism on the page, but 1RR isn't going to stop that. We should wait and see if any edit wars flare back up before extending it. --Obsidi (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The whole arena has cooled down, there only has been a handful of sanctions this year and now that Memills and CSDarrow are blocked there's even less action to be expected. The last 50 edits of men's rights movement go back to September, I don't see any edit wars, mostly vandalism. You simply state you propose reinstating 1RR, but what's the rationale? --Pudeo' 04:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the rationale in the proposal. If sanctions haven't been applied for close to half a year, then the restrictions would appear to be unnecessary. I can appreciate that this specific topic will likely attract vandals, and the removal of sanctions could potentially increase their numbers, but that's an issue to be dealt with when it happens rather than applying restrictions to the page permanently. If there shows to be a trend of vandalism and/or edit wars after the restrictions are removed, then sanctions could be discussed once more. demize (t · c) 04:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as it seems not to be needed anymore. There is already enough rules that are hard to enforce here. Legacypac (talk)
• Oppose Let us see how things go without it. We still can enforce edit warring without it being a #RR violation. Chillum 17:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't usually impose these kinds of restrictions on a permanent or proactive basis, This should be done as a response to a clear problem where lesser measures have either failed or common sense precludes their being attempted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose without prejudice against immediately reinstating 1RR the moment a new edit war breaks out. Ivanvector (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

72.196.204.230

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

---

I learned via e-mail that 72.196.204.230 (talk · contribs) fraudulently attempted to get my user password reset. What is the standard procedure, if any, for dealing with that kind of behavior? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Ignore it. There have been lots of comments in various places about this, example: VPT archive. Don't bother with the advice from one user there to change your password, except, anyone with a weak password should change it anyway. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

What if you're a weak user with a strong password? Wikipedia body lifting?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Then you don't know your own strength ;). But yeah, what John said; the password reminder hack is still the most amusing attempt to 'hack' your account, which as far as I've known has never succeeded. Nate • (chatter) 01:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Of the various attempts trolls have made on me over the years, this was the first time for this one. I can imagine a convoluted approach which might succeed, but it would scarcely be worth the effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

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

Kenneth Stern (rugby player)

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

---

Hello.

An editor at Kenneth Stern (rugby player) is inserting content which appears possibly libellous, which I had reverted after being unable to verify the source. The editor continues to reinsert. Please advise. Thanks. 2602:304:59B8:1F19:518F:91C8:654D:E10A (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

2601:c:6000:72f:541a:e213:6398:a696 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Lor^Chat 02:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

 (Non-administrator comment) Note Not enough warnings to be worth blocking over. I have warned them though for the first (And only) Revert. Lor^Chat 02:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked - if this were a good-faith addition and we were dealing with an editor who wasn't familiar with Wikipedia policies, I'd agree with going through a full course of warnings. However, given that this person added libelous content repeatedly using a source completely unrelated to their claim means they likely weren't trying to make good-faith contributions. m.o.p 02:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

New user able to create account for others

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

---

New User:IQBAL KHAN Director appears to be able to create users without the account creator permission nor access to the interface. New user log revealed the following:

09:08, 28 November 2014 User account Aryan Iqbal Director (talk | contribs) was created by IQBAL KHAN Director (talk | contribs) and password was sent by email ((Redacted))

RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 10:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

RegistryKeyThis is normal, it may need to be questioned why he even created the account in the first place. But all users can create more than one account technically speaking. The account creator permission just lets them create more than a certain amount in a certain amount of time. Lor^Chat 10:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are emails showing up in the log? --NE2 10:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The part in brackets at the end of an account creation log entry is the 'Reason' field on the signup page - the user must have written the email there. Sam Walton (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Mr Bill Truth

Possibly bearing out item number 14 at WP:CGTW, this editor has been adding material advocating the fake cancer cure Essiac[111][112], and adding dubious material on Manuka honey treating cancer. Despite being advised to heed WP:MEDRS, Mr Truth is edit warring and continuing to add poor health information sourced e.g. to the Daily Mail[113]. Would be grateful if an admin could take a look. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

He appears to be edit warring to get his contested claims into articles and demanding that other people discuss it before they revert. I've explained that it is supposed to work the other way round and that consensus is needed before adding it again. Squinge (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've re-added this comment as it was removed in an edit conflict. — Strongjam (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

As an indication of the problems with this contributor, consider for example his statements on Talk:Essiac, where he describes material from the American Cancer Society as "grossly misleading", and argues that our article should state in the lede that "A page about Essiac Tea on the American Cancer Society website says Some reports of interactions and harmful effects may be published but has not included any citations or references to studies to back this up". So (contrary to Wikipedia policy), 'Mr Truth' demands that sources in turn cite sources themselves. Or does he? He goes on to suggest that we add an "Unconfirmed and possible reports of success from notable publications section" with the following text: ""In the Beaver County Times on Apr 6, 2000, Dr Doug Knueven said he had heard of pet cancer patients that were helped by Essiac. Reference: Beaver County Times on Apr 6, 2000 C5 New pest treatment is safe and effective Dr. Doug Knueven" [114] Needless to say, Dr Knueven fails to actially cite any specific sources. 'Mr Truth' rejects statements from the ACS for not citing sources, but wants Wikipedia to include vague assertions from a vetenarian who not only doesn't cite sources, but doesn't actually say that the stuff works - merely that he has 'heard' that it does.

This is but one example of 'Mr Truths' self-evident disruptive POV-pushing in promotion of a substance which has not only been tested as a supposed cancer treatment and found to be ineffective, but has actually been shown in some animal tests to increase the rate of cancer growth. Needless to say, 'Mr Truth' has repeatedly been told that Wikipedia content regarding medical claims needs to comply with WP:MEDRS, but to no avail. 'Mr Truths' next effort on Talk:Essiac starts thus: "Despite these claims, there is evidence that it does help, as in the case of Billy Best. Therefore, the statement that there is no scientific evidence is completely false, since at least one case exists to refute those claims. Nearly 20 years later Billy Best is still cancer free. In 1939 at a cancer commission hearing in Toronto, there were nearly 400 people who were ready to testify about the restoration of their health and the role of Essiac in this restoration of health. In 1924 Rene Caisses's aunt was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Following the non cobnventional treatment of Essiac, she lived for 20 more years." [115] Anacdotal 'evidence', not even remotely compliant with WP:MEDRS. WP:RS, or any objective standard of evidence whatsoever, sourced to the usual credulous 'alt med' sources we have been rejecting per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Fringe theories and pseudoscience for years. And this fingers-in-his-ears-I-can't-hear-you exercise in spamming the talk page with worthless anecdotal drek continues - today he has posted yet more 'sources' he wishes to cite in promotion of this so-called 'treatment':

* Billy Best cancer free 50 Critical Cancer Answers: Your Personal Battle Plan for Beating Cancer By Contreras Francisco, Kennedy Daniel

** Billy Best made the national news in 1994 The Boy and His Death: A True Story By Marga Beukeboom - page 69

** Billy Best rejected Chemotherapy. Yes strict diet was adhered to which could have aided the Essiac treatment Cancer: Conquering a Deadly Disease By Alvin Silverstein, Virginia B. Silverstein, Laura Silverstein Nunn

** At 20-something years later, Billy is cancer free! The Raw Food World News Posted in: Health, Lifestyle, Medicine, News by Heather Suhr, Staff Reporter/Editor on 31 Aug, 2014

** 400 people were ready to testify that their health had been restored, Essiac: A Native Herbal Cancer Remedy By Cynthia B. Olsen, Jim Chan Caution And Disclaimer

** One doctor who came from California intending to stay for a day. She stayed there to observe for a month! She left Rene’s clinic, convinced that Rene had a cure for cancer. Womens Health Watch Womens Health Watch Rene Caisse’s Natural Cancer Cure – Essiac Tea

** Dr. Banting who was the co-discoverer of insulin, found that Essiac tea had stimulated the pancreas to produce insulin in a woman who had diabetes. The woman had type I diabetes The woman didn't need insulin anymore! Womens Health Watch Rene Caisse’s Natural Cancer Cure – Essiac Tea

** Dr. Charles Brusch cured his own cancer of the lower bowel, using Essiac alone. One of the most respected physicians in the US he was also John F. Kennedy’s personal physician Womens Health Watch Rene Caisse’s Natural Cancer Cure – Essiac Tea

** Hundreds of testimonies to Renee Caisses credit Rethinking Cancer - Essiac-Press release to Detroit newspapers By Pat Judson, President of FACT Metro-Detroit [116]

It should be noted that 'Mr Truth' has also added content regarding Billy Best into the article - adding his own personal opinion on the case, claiming that Best shows that "the statement that there is no scientific evidence is completely false". [117] As the above demonstrates, it seems self-evident to me that 'Mr Bill Truth' has no intention whatsoever of providing material compliant with Wikipedia sourcing requirements - in fact I can see no evidence that he has even bothered to read WP:MEDRS, despite repeatedly having it pointed out. Instead, we have been confronted with the same worthless repetitive anecdotes and unreliable sources, time and again. And apparently he has been doing much the same in regard to other articles (see e.g. Talk:Mānuka honey). What we have here is a 'contributor' who is not only promoting fringe 'treatments' based on sources rejected per long-standing policy, but is doing so in a manner that makes meaningful dialog impossible - he simply refuses to accept that Wikipedia policy in regard to this matter exists. Whether this is a simple lack of competence, an attempt at stonewalling intended to sap the willpower of other contributors, or actually an act of trolling from someone who doesn't actually give a damn about Essiac or anything else I'm no longer entirely sure, but however you look at it, it is almost impossible not to draw the conclusion that 'Mr Bill Truth' is a contributor Wikipedia can do without, as a waste of time, effort and brain cells. 'Contributors' who repeatedly and disruptively refuse to acknowledge the existence of Wikipedia policy can play no useful role in this encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Has Mr. Truth been alerted to the WP:ARBPS discretionary sanctions? Ivanvector (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm aware - but given his refusal to acknowledge the existence of Wikipedia policies in general, I'm not sure it really matters. Compliance with policy (as opposed to sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending it doesn't exist) applies everywhere, not just in regard to pseudoscientific quackery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions are in place so that we don't have to go through this every time. You are absolutely right of course; all I'm saying is if he's been warned and continues to disrupt, a discretionary block is an easy solution. Ivanvector (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Anytime a user includes words like "truth" in their ID, it's usually a big red flag. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've alerted the user using the pseudoscience template and logged the alert. Later it was pointed out to me that this page doesn't fall under the subject of homeopathy, thus my note below the alert may have been inappropriate. I'll note here that regardless of whether the edits to Essiac fall under the topic of homeopathy or not (I think now that they probably don't) the editor has posted about pseudoscientific medical claims, thus the alert is nonetheless valid. I don't think alerts can be retracted, nor should this one be, but I will accept whatever consequence comes out of my error, if it is determined to be sanctionable. Ivanvector (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/87.228.204.54

I can't tell if this is blatant vandalism or inside jokes or just being disruptive. Special:Contributions/87.228.204.54 This IP is making changes on FunkMonk userpages and making hoax/borderline attacks on templates this site and foreign language wikis. @87.228.204.54: care to comment?

Disruptive and abusive personal attacks on Talk:Lift(force)

An ip editor is repeatedly making abusive non-helpful comments on the page. Since the user does not have a Talk page it is not possible to use that venue to clue-in him or her regarding acceptable behavior. Several editors have simply removed the abusive material only to have it re-posted within few hours. Diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lift_%28force%29&diff=prev&oldid=635606254

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lift_%28force%29&diff=next&oldid=635628095

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lift_%28force%29&diff=next&oldid=635634376

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lift_%28force%29&diff=next&oldid=635714074

Request semi-protection of talk page and parent article (so far the problems are isolated to the Talk page, but I dont want semi-protection to spill over to the article itself). Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a rotating IP address but there's other IP addresses that seem productive so I don't know if semi-protection is the best option. Maybe a short range block? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, there has not been a productive ip address contribution to the talk page in the last six months - I didn't look back any further. I don't know how one blocks a rotating ip, other than maybe a ip range block. A short term block would probably help. Meanwhile, the abuse has been re-posted. Diff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALift_%28force%29&diff=635837295&oldid=635758314

Hard to have a productive discussion with this sort of disruptive abusive nonsense being injected.

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Threatening statement by blocked user

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

---

The blocked user Thetoolkitbrah has posted a threatening statement on their talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked User:Jac16888. Amortias (T)(C) 15:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Blanking content with misleading edit summaries

User:Bigbadbass has been repeatedly blanking sourced content from the article about parody British politician Lord Toby Jug, all of it with deliberately misleading edit summaries of "fixed typo" and "fixed grammar". I gave a warning template about the false edit summaries, and the editor has cranked up to a level 4 warning for blanking sourced content this afternoon, but they've ignored all of it. AIV declined to block when I reported the editor there because "some of the edits appear to be OK" and suggested I raise this at ANI. So here we are.

It seems that the editor objects to the article mentioning Jug's real name (which is sourced to press coverage and does not appear to be secret) or describing him as being "expelled" from his party (which is what all the sources say). The editor seems to be a fan of Jug's work and to dislike his critics. But when all of this is being blanked and reverted for being "typos", it's hard to know what the problem actually is. --McGeddon (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Chillum while I was in the process of moving this report from WP:AIV. Amortias (T)(C) 17:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Given the edit warring, deceptive edit summaries and continuation of the same behavior after warning I have given a 72 hour block. I have also told them that if there are urgent concerns about the article they can mention it on their talk page, otherwise they should take it to the article talk page after the block has expired.

If this continues after the block the duration will escalate. I have the page on my watch list. Chillum 17:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Compas

Hello.

I am posting here to report an ongoing issue at Compas regarding neutral point of view. Please step in. Thanks. 2602:304:59B8:1F19:21CB:A4AF:A6F9:1D0 (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The 'issue' seems to be an ongoing edit-war with no attempt by any of the participants to discuss the matter on the talk page. I suspect that any 'stepping in' is liable to consist the whole lot being summarily blocked. Nobody is going to try and figure out what the unspecified 'neutrality' problem is while nonsense like that is going on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess. "Ongoing" = there seem to be a handful of editors who have been fighting over this article for upwards of a year. I'm very quickly judging by all-caps and "Dear Sir" style edit summaries going back to the start of March of this year that this involves an off-wiki cultural dispute and a fair bit of socking. Might I suggest this article needs a heavy dose of full protection? Ivanvector (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is so much sourced to "Pintade, Wikipedia editor"? That's just the same as WP:OR. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be someone who edited that article. I've notified them of this discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Pintade seems to have some WP:OWN issues with a number of articles.[118]. I've been taking a hacksaw to a number of them but that doesn't really relate to the editing issues reported here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Pintade

Can another editor warn User:Pintade that you can't list "Pintade, Wikipedia editor" as a source and removing it is not vandalism? I'd do it but I'm now involved being the editor who removed the content (and was called vandalism perpetrated by an egotistic mind" The editor has made it clear he is going to "repost the original article in its integrality" regardless. I'd ask for page protection as well from the nonsense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Currently moving up the chain of standard warnings for original research. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir I am sorry to have treated you this way. It has not been easy keeping this article due to vandalism. Compared to zouk, cadence-lypso and kizomba, the compas article has more sound references and I will improve it by next year. I am in the process of writing a book on Caribbean music and at time I am using some here. Sorry for using the Pintade reference I thank you for the reminder. The problem with zouk and cadence-lypso editors is that they haven't shown a clear understanding of "music style, music genre, innovation, addition of technologies or new instrument" they don't understand what make a style unic or its distinguishable features, etc.

In several occasions I took the time to discuss the matter with them but unfortunately they are more guided by passion and narcissism. they just want to have a proper music style while refusing to fully acknowledge another existing style. they want credit for kizomba or coladeira even though they didn't even have a music in the 70s. they always come up with a merger or fusion to justify new music while it is not as easy. Another point is the fact that before Webert Sicot frequent tours of the Caribbean with his cadence there was no such things. now that they have been initiated they are talking about cadence lypso that they play and dance the same..Hope you understand. I don't mind giving them as many credits they want since they are also players of the compas or cadence style but calling compas zouk or cadence lypso is another thing. It is like rock n roll; Englishmen and other nations who have adopted it did not change its name.

The main reason behind the French Antilleans vandalism and resistance is because they have made so much noises with the zouk that faded away in the 80s; now in order to stay alive they have been promoting compas as zouk; but everytime you intervene that creates a problem for them since they have taken credit for influencing this or that music. cola zouk, kizomba. Haitian bands have influenced Cabo Verdean music since the 70s-80s...zouk love being compas they cannot take fully credit. NO matter what I put them they will complain because it will be detrimental for their survival.

Regards and once again sorry Pintade (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok but at least that editor is putting in the effort to find sources for their statements. If you have contrary sources (or can show that they are misinterpreting the sources), then that editor's antics won't succeed. If you legitimately think they are different, help us figure out the evidence to support that. Otherwise, why should anyone believe you over them? All we have right now is two yelling parties here and that's a long-term solution. If you know this to be true, how do you know it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, with this edit ("You have demonstrated your ineptitude even on Caribbean music") I can't tell whether you are serious or not. I have asked you before, who exactly are you accusing here? There's a serious case of righting great wrongs here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

History of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Hello.

I know I'm lodging quite a bit of reports here, but 99.247.57.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be making undiscussed changes in violation of WP:NPOV. Thanks. 2602:304:59B8:1F19:21CB:A4AF:A6F9:1D0 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Per the note at the top of this page, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page". AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Persistent Disruptive Editing of Amanda Eliasch - Request topic ban

Aromavic has been engaged in a long running campaign of disruptive editing on the article Amanda Eliasch. Among the abuses are repeated frivolous AfD nominations, repeatedly attaching non-applicable maintenance tags, vandalizing the text, and falsely accusing editors working on the article and who reverted their vandalism of being sock puppets to the point of opening a patently bogus SPI. Aromavic is a SPA whose sole purpose since registering appears to have been to sabotage the article in question. This pattern of behavior has continued to the present day despite an endless stream of advice from other editors, warnings and reversions ad infinitum, all to no avail. In the end I have reluctantly come to conclude that this is a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE. To which end...

I respectfully propose to the community that Aromavic be permanently topic banned from any and all editing on the article Amanda Eliasch and its talk page, with the stipulation that any violation of the topic ban would result in a long term block.

CC:  Philg88  -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide evidence in the form of diffs or any form at all?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Their contrib log is linked in my opening statement, as is the bogus SPI. Almost all of their edits are attacks on the article. You can also peruse their talk page and the talk page of the article. I am proposing the topic ban as a last chance alternative to a block. But to be honest they should probably be indeffed on the basis of NOTHERE and I would have a hard time arguing with any opposing !votes that take that position. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Is this still going on? I closed the last AfD as Speedy Keep on 5 September and assumed that was the end of Aromavic's crusade. Based on their behaviour since, including addition of g11/a7 CSD tags less than two weeks after the AfD, I would concur that a permanent topic ban is in order. Should this SPA then pick a new target, an indef block for WP:NOTHERE seems appropriate.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for now in the hopes that a indefinite block isn't needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per costs outweigh the benefits. To do a topic ban, we all gotta vote, and then an admin has to close it and leave the blah blah on the user talk page and they or a gnome add the entry to WP:Editing restrictions, not to mention the ban appeals that follow ... for what? This is an SPA on a mission -- they've done nothing in three months except pursue their grudge against Eliasch; look at User_talk:Aromavic -- many volunteers have taken their time to try to engage and Aromavic has replied never. Someadmin please just indef the account already. NE Ent 14:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - User:NE Ent appears to be opposing the topic-ban because they support an indef block instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - User:Aromavic is an SPA whose sole objective is to delete or disrupt Amanda Eliasch. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support an indef block. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban as the second choice. As NE Ent has explained, an indef is easier to administer than a topic ban, and the effect is the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - Personally, I don't think an indef ban is needed. I don't see any disruption outside this subject, on this account. If this continues after the topic ban, and there's no forseeable sign of the user stopping, then yes, maybe an indef really is necessary. At the current time though, no. George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 18:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/109.87.221.201

IP is going around articles adding "FirstLeaks.com" as a reference. He added the site as a reference to an album's length, even though his cited source doesn't mention the album length. I'm currently undoing all of 109.87.221.201's edits. FirstLeaks - as the title suggests - is a site that provides illegal downloads of officially released material. It may seem spam-ish at this point, but this may be something for admins to watch out for. This site referencing free download links to officially released material would be problematic, to say the least. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: Blocked for 72 hours to prevent further disruption. Thanks for the heads-up, we might consider blacklisting this URL considering it's unlikely to be of value. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the site is unlikely to ever be of value. The site seems to exist solely to provide illegal download links (ie, Mediafire, Uploaded.net, etc.) to officially released material. I'd suggest immediate blacklisting. Homeostasis07 (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah... if the page frequently links to places to illegally download stuff (and especially if this is its sole purpose), then odds are high that this isn't something that we'd want on any Wikipedia article ever. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79 and Homeostasis07: Not being familiar with using the blacklist myself, I've made a report of this at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#firstleaks.com. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Joe Rogan Experience

An AFD that I filed was closed a few days back with the result of Redirect. Since then, a long time editor of the page has been edit-warring to reverse the result. They've been warned via edit summary that they should take it to deletion review if they disagree with the close, but have continued to revert. I don't think that the closer is an admin (and so is not really able to enforce the close, though I could be mistaken in this), and since I originally nominated the page I'm heavily involved. So I would like to have an uninvolved admin step in. IMHO the warring editor, User:K.A.Gesell, needs to be warned in no uncertain terms to either respect the close, or appeal the close to the proper avenue. But that they should not continue to edit war against the AFD's close. I'll notify Gesell and the AFD's closer right after submitting this... - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. The two I mentioned already, as well as another editor who has reverted a couple of times to **enforce** the close, have all been notified. - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I put it back to the redirect. It doesn't seem that they have made any effort to discuss this just reverts. No revert messages. They have reverted in 4 times since the 24th. If they revert it again they should be indeffed. Really there's enough reason to block them now.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'd recommend a temporary protection (a week at most) for the redirect to discourage any further attempts to re-create the article without going through deletion review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Just coming at this from another angle: if it's a non-admin close, and some users have objected to it by reverting the redirect, it should be re-closed by an admin. Even though the closer pretty clearly judged the discussion correctly. Nobody is entitled to edit war over it though. Ivanvector (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

An unmarked revert doesn't count as an objection. If tyhey object they need voice their objection and not leave it up to mindreading.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

BKPATIL1234 continuing to create contentless stubs after warnings

BKPATIL1234 (talk · contribs) is a newish editor (created 17 Nov) who is creating many stubs about Kannada-language films. S/he creates an infobox, and nothing more. Many articles (example) have been proposed for speedy deletion, inappropriately as they do contain an infobox. Others (like Bhagya Jyothi) have been PRODded. A couple have gone to AfD (example). The editor has been asked/told numerous times on their talk page that articles need text, not just infoboxes. This advice, and warnings, has been ignored. This morning I have warned at levels 3 and 4 but the creation of inadequate stubs continues. There is no evidence that the editor has read anything on their talk page. I suggest that a short block by an Admin might draw their attention to the problem and encourage them to stop adding such inadequate articles to the encyclopedia.

A short stub is fine, preferably with sources, but it does need to have a lead sentence. (Note that I've fixed up their more recent creations, out of a wish not to have such inadequate stubs littering the encyclopedia.) PamD 09:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be just as quick to write a one-line lead sentence based on the infobox as it would be to tag with PROD or file an AfD request? This seems like someone who's trying to help (but perhaps isn't sufficiently confident in English to write lead sentences), so might a bit of collaboration be worth trying? Squinge (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

But it shouldn't be necessary for another editor to do either of those things: write a lead sentence or nominate for deletion. And if an editor is not confident enough in English to write a simple sentence "X is a [date] Indian film in Kannada language", then perhaps they should not be trying to help create the English language Wikipedia. WP:CIR. PamD 11:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not about what *should* be necessary, it's about cooperating to build a globally-useful encyclopedia, or have you forgotten that? So instead of aggressively tagging everything this person is creating (and they're films starring notable actors directed by notable directors in the most, so don't you think there might just be some chance they're actually notable?), how about trying to offer constructive help? Squinge (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

PamD, you should better read Wikipedia:CIR, your use of Template:Uw-mos4 was definitely inappropriate.[119] You are complaining about the article creations and trying to convince us that it is impossible to contribute into his article. If he is not adding a lead you must tell him about it or you should contribute yourself. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've gone through some of these contributions and added simple lead sentences based on the infoboxes, and have added relevant stub tags. I'll do some more later when I have the time, but until then wouldn't it be nice if all those people on a tagging/deletion spree could channel a little of their energy into helping this new editor by checking for notability (*before* declaring articles non-notable) and helping expand the stubs? You know the way we're supposed to be working together here? Just a thought. Squinge (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• You can also ask for assistance on some of the relevant pages like Wikipedia talk:INB and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Pam's got a bad habit of drive-by tagging/prodding/warning newbie users who are creating articles in good faith. A recent example was declined and easily turned into a decent DYK. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• It appears I have been warned by @Owais Khursheed: for removing a PROD tag, using inapplicable BLP PROD reasoning! Squinge (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• @Squinge:Common man it was not an BLP PROD but it was only PROD. Please see your talk page. Night Fury (A good day to Die Hard) 13:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• PamD triggers Template:Uw-mos4 for not adding lead and Owais Khursheed triggers Template:Uw-blpprod1 for making a movie article better than it was.[120] Seems like Wikipedia:Twinkle is being abused. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• At the first place i didn't tag the article by BLP PROD it was only simple PROD, the edit summary provided by @Squinge: is "That is *not* a BLP PROD and you are *not* allowed to reinstate it once it is contested" but it was not tagged by BLP PROD. Second thing is that on the talk page of Squinge i have not mentioned that he has removed BLP PROD. It was a simple warning about removal of PROD. Night Fury (A good day to Die Hard) 13:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Your message[121] still read "don't remove these PRODs from articles unless they contain at least one reliable source or were created before 18 March 2010", anyone who has spent 3 hours in patrolling new articles would know that you are referring to the article about a living person that has no citations. You are patrolling pages for months and you still don't know that? I think you should stop until you have enough knowledge about patrolling new pages. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bladesmulti: I have not abused TW, I would never think of abusing because i love it but TW has no option of warning a user whose has removed PROP tag other than BLP PROD, if u find it, please let me know. Night Fury (A good day to Die Hard) 13:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• The warning you gave me was "Please don't remove these PRODs from articles unless they contain at least one reliable source or were created before 18 March 2010", which is *only* applicable to BLP PRODs - I am allowed to remove an ordinary PROD at my discretion and you are not allowed to reinstate it (or to warn me for having removed it) Squinge (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• @Owais Khursheed: Re: "TW has no option of warning a user whose has removed PROD tag other than BLP PROD" - That's because it is *perfectly acceptable* to remove a PROD tag and *wrong* to warn people for doing so! If you're going to patrol new pages and taggings, you need to learn the policies rather than just guessing as you go along! Squinge (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Then u did the right thing the PROD tag was right on the article but it was right to left a message on your talk manually. I didnt know March 2010 stuff is only applicable to BLP. thanks Night Fury (A good day to Die Hard) 13:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it was not right for you to leave a warning on my talk page of any type whatsoever, because I did not do anything wrong. I accept you didn't understand and you made a mistake, but the honorable thing to do in such circumstances is apologize rather than keep on insisting you were right to warn me. But I forgive you anyway. Squinge (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There are over 40 of these infobox-only stubs now and it is natural that people will respond to them in different ways and occasionally slip up in deletion procedure, or put on a questionable template or whatever. So let's not niggle at each other but address the original question. A dialogue with the editor would be much the best but it doesn't seem possible. So we either have to block or let the process continue, we don't know how long. It's a dilemma: to balance creation of what may turn out to be valid articles, against the the extra workload being created for others and the presence, at least temporarily, of stubs that don't meet our minimum standards: Noyster (talk), 18:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What I find sad is that a newcomer trying to expand Wikipedia's very thin coverage of Kannada language films finds not help, but a barrage of warnings, criticism, and deletion notices - and is reported to ANI without anyone doing anything to help expand the stubs. Now, I really don't know if these films are sufficiently notable, but with foreign-language films (especially those in a language using a different script) being considerably harder to source, a bit of extra effort and time really would have been nice here. Squinge (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

They are notable as long as they have included the contributions of multiple notable movie actors and filmmakers. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I brought this matter here because I hoped that Admins might help to encourage this editor to add at least a single sentence of text to each stub s/he creates, and perhaps sources too. Articles with no text are contrary to MOS, so the uw-mos series of warnings seemed the most appropriate. I have not tagged any of these articles for deletion, though many other editors have. My first comment on the editor's talk page was 8 days ago when I pointed out that all articles need to have text. This, along with all other advice on the editor's talk page, seems to have been completely ignored. How can we encourage this editor to add sources and text to the stream of stub articles they are producing, if talk page messages have no effect? The editor's talk page shows that many editors find these stubs problematic, though of course they are not eligible for speedy deletion "no content" as they contain an informative infobox. PamD 21:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you heard of collaboration? Squinge (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

As you have seen, those who find them to be problematic have failed to explain their point. If article creator is not going to write enough, then someone else will have to. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I find it problematic, and I'll tell you why: I think it is rather rude to just drop infoboxes and expect other editors to do even the slightest amount of work--like writing a single lead sentence that establishes unequivocally that we're dealing with a notable topic. This is creating extra work for lots of other editors for whom the relevant information, we can safely assume, is not as readily available as it was for the person who "wrote" the infobox. PamD and I have not always agreed, but on this we do. I find blocking to be somewhat draconian and I wouldn't do it without looking into it much further, but the editor should be aware that there are legitimate complaints about their editing. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I appreciate both the efforts Squinge and sentiments expressed by them et al with regarding to not biting a newbie, it's been my observation that new editors who do not respond at all to posts on their talk pages are disruptive to the community process -- see the second nutshell line in WP:Civility - "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors." So I'd suggest a hopefully short indefinite block -- that is, until the editor begins communicating at all, however imperfectly -- might be in order. It simply should not have to be the efforts of PamD et. al. to be their "editing assistant," if you will, and we owe our readers articles that have at least some content. NE Ent 6:04 pm, Today (UTC−5)

(edit conflict) (x3) There's no rule that says a new stub article has to be taken to minimum standard by one single editor, and I didn't find it a problem writing some simple lead sentences based on what's in the infoboxes and was happy to do so - it's one way in which collaboration can work. Anyway, I think I've said all I want to now, so I'll just repeat that I'm saddened to see the experience this new editor has had - that wall of templated deletion warnings was surely not the best way to deal with this. Squinge (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not hard to standardize his article. I just did his last 3, took 5 minutes, including a page move. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There's more to it than that -- does Madhuve Madhu Tamashe Nodu, for example, meet WP:NOTFILM? NE Ent 23:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at some of those main points, I cannot be sure about the notability. But there is some possibility that those who have worked in these areas have idea about these movies and the reliable citations, maybe asking on a relevant page like WikiProject:Film would work. These types of articles have usually got those citations that are not available in English. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

69.121.122.165

69.121.122.165 is constantly putting up future shows that are gonna appear on WGN America. It is considered crystal balling unless you have a valid source. He has been blocked before and he did it again today. To avoid an edit war, I discussed this in the talk page. He ignored my warnings. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Promotional User Page

Can a admin please ban Cygnus Flare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He is using his userpage to promote his unnotable band (recreated after deletion & removes csd tags) Avono (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

And Now we also have a sock DavidGab98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [122] Avono (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

And another one 46.19.102.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [123] Avono (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

created report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cygnus Flare Avono (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of referenced established assertions per wp:idontlikeit , and even refusal to discuss

User Athenean seems to be removing assertions established as per consensus as a result of wp:idontlikeit in the Article about Himara based on nationalistic sentiments . As proven by the talkpage, there was an attempt from my behalf for a solution , even though the act of deleting that text , was abusive to say the least . Only to get a reply of i don't even want to discuss it with you . At this point i feel that there's nothing else that i could do other than ask for some outside help . I ask that the referenced assertion (established as per consensus) to be restored , or all the nationalistic wp:synth as per wp:Lede to be removed because the 2011 housing census shows the exact opposite of what is being claimed . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

In other words, he is asking for someone to edit-war on his behalf because he has maxed out his 3 reverts for the day [124] [125] [126]. He claims that sources from 2010 are "twenty years old" [127] [128], and makes false claims of consensus. Athenean (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

And you still continue with the WP:PERSONAL . I am not claiming anything , neither i am removing those 20 year sources , i was just advocating the fact that by the same right that those sources have a place in the lead , so does the 2011 census especially considering the fact that the census does not support what those sources claim . You seem to be looking this as a Revision war , rather than a discussion to find a platform of consensus . And is especially ironical that you value so much your sources , while you deny the right of a sourced 2011 census to be on the lead too , which in fact was put there as per consensus . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S Needless to say , his 3RR warning on my wall was posted after he replied here , as shown here . And i find it ironical given the fact that he has the same amount of reverts as me Gjirokastra15 (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing personal, just pointing out the inconsistencies in your behavior and false claims you make so that the community knows what kind of editor it is dealing with here. Athenean (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope you understand that this was also a personal attack . What kind of editor am i and where are the inconsistencies ? It does not take much , what someone can do is check the article's talk page , the established consensus and the revision history ... Gjirokastra15 (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

1. You claim that I won't discuss with you, even though I am the one who started the discussion [129]

2. You claim that the sources I have posted are twenty years old [130] but they are not [131].

3. You claim that no sources have been provided regarding the boycotting of the census by ethnic minorities, but there are sources to that effect. You just choose to ignore them.

4. You claim the your edits were added by consensus, but you can't point to that consensus.

5. You claim that I am making personal attacks, but nothing of what I have written is a personal attack.

Credibility is very important, don't be so careless with it. Athenean (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to intentionally pretend like you do not understand the point . And let me make it very clear , my point is NOT removing those sources , i have never objected them neither tried to remove them . I am here because you remove the 2011 census results , yet you want to keep those sources , of which 1 DOES NOT WORK , and 1 other is from 1993 (i have not had time to check the other 2 yet ) . That's called double standards . Did you even bother to check them ? That is absolutely fine with me ... after all i am not the one removing referenced assertions using the 3RR game . Said more simply , i am more than fine with that referenced assertion existing in the lead as long as the 2011 sourced census which is being used by the CIA world fact book remains on the lead too .

Here your revert shows exactly why i am here : Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You are here because you are hoping to recruit someone to edit-war on your behalf ("I ask that the referenced assertion (established as per consensus) to be restored"). And you do not understand WP:LEDE. The point of the lede is to provide a summary of the article, not to have a lengthy discussion on demographics. That's what the demographics section is for. The fact that you insist that the census results be included in the lede, even though they conflict with reliable sources, is very POINTy. And you falsely state that my sources were 20 years old, as if that would somehow discredit them. Athenean (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You say that there is a consensus. Link to it real quick so we can see.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I am here because your actions show a very non collaborating attitude . As per wp:lede the phrase that that area is predominantly populated by Greeks cannot be put there because the census does show the exact opposite . Thus the best solution was to include both of them on the lead , thus the established consensus .... And you came and deleted everything on a wp:idontlikeit basis and on top of that you even refused to discuss Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Serjaljoepsycho , the consensus is located on the talk page of himara with the title  : wp:lead problems . Is number 29th , continue reading from there . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Are the two of you aware of the various processes of dispute resolution on wikipedia? WP:DR? There's a number of processes and noticeboards you can use. This seems to be more of a content dispute than a conduct dispute. ANI does not handle content disputes.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

As per your advice i have already opened a dispute resolution . Although i believe that removing referenced material which is a product of a consensus and then refusing to discuss is a conduct dispute also . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It does seem that they have been discussing it with you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Admin Help With Copy Paste Moves Needed

Che'Nellefan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Rihanna-RiRi-fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making copy and paste moves relative to 808s & Heartbreak. He's made such a mess I can't even provide useful diffs, you'll need to sort through his contributions to figure it out. -- Calidum 20:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks and sounds as if they may have done a move wrong.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

He (it's one user with two accounts) did this yesterday as well, and an admin was able to deal with it then. I've moved the article back to 808s & Heartbreak (the original and correct title). 808s & Heartbreak (Kanye West album) (the one they copy-pasted to) needs to be deleted, and probably protected to prevent another copy paste move. The recently uploaded image File:808's & Heartbreak (Kanye West album cover).jpg needs deletion (it's a duplicate of File:808s & Heartbreak.png). Portal:Redirect 808s & Heartbreak (Kanye West album) needs to be deleted too. That seems to be the gist of what needs to be done, besides possibly blocking the editor in question to prevent further disruption. As a further note, it appears 5.81.225.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is related to the user in question per the contributions. -- Calidum 20:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The original article needs deleting; people without any admin or roll back or whatever can not edit it; which to be honest is unfair and it should be redirected to the one that was created Rihanna-RiRi-fan (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rihanna-RiRi-fan or Che'Nellefan. There's no obvious reason why you are unable to edit 808s & Heartbreak; the page is not protected in any way. Regardless, creating a duplicate article is not the solution. Please don't do that any more. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of why you won't or can't edit the main article is because these are sock accounts of MariaJaydHicky. I have requested checkuser assistance at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Calidum 05:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Insistingly adding contentious material without adding a proper sourcing

After several requests from different users for providing a page for this edit in order to comply with WP:Verifiability the users are again reinserting the same material in this inadequate way. After listening to some ugly accusations to my person for properly adding other sources and opposing the addition of a controversial edit not properly cited and impossible to verify, I am requesting you gentleman here please to take action against User:The Banner as his conduct is disruptive in this highly sensitive article. I am not going to be called POV-pusher and white-washer only because requesting proper sourcing. I warned them that if they restore the edit without adding the page number that they will be reported, and they made fun of it. FkpCascais (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact, there is another edit war going on on Kosovo war where people are removing a statement about low moral that was clearly inconvenient. It is interesting to see that just FkpCascais is filing this case, as he was [canvassed to join in in this dispute. As far as I can see, the IPs all geolocate to Serbia. I do not know why user:Bobrayner mention the meat puppets and sockpuppets, I leave it to him to explain. The Banner talk 22:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Page 332 [132]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That article is in my watchlist and I participated in the previous discussion about it, so it is indifferent for me if someone leaves comments on my talk-page of things I see at my watchlist anyway. I want to thank AndyTheGrump for bringing the page so now the claim can be verified. I still beleave it is very inappropriate for someone to be called POV-pusher and white-washer for asking for a page of a citation. Attacking someone because is requesting proper sourcing is a no-no. FkpCascais (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I can not help to notice that you were also talking about POV-pushing and a fake-page (Removing clear POV pushing by users that dont even provide a page for their edit. If you restore the edit without page or with a fake page youll be reported) And sorry, I do not buy your bluff and rude behaviour. Ow, you may find this interesting: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo The Banner talk 22:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That was my answer for your provocations already. When you add something to the article of such contentious nature, add it properly, or don't. FkpCascais (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sir, this is not a battleground. We try to discuss things. Removing a sourced text just because the source lacks a page number is not a good way to open up a discussion. especially, when several removals were done without even mentioning the page number. That request only came when you were pushed to give a good reasoning for the removal (and not only by me). There are several people involved in this case, why are just just attacking me? Why not user:212.178.243.185, why not user:2602:304:59B8:1F19:65C6:59E1:C52B:9B3A, why not User:IJA, why not User:Bobrayner or User:Vanjagenije? They were involved in this edit war too... The Banner talk 23:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It's the most reliably sourced content on the entire page; citing an acclaimed historian published by a university press. However, an obvious sockpuppet of a banned editor canvassed both FkpCascais and Vanjagenije to remove it. Both happily complied; this is normal in the Balkans. (You should see how many times FkpCascais helped with Evlekis' editwars). The sooner the meatpuppets and sockpuppets are stopped, the sooner our articles on the Balkans will reflect what reliable sources say. bobrayner (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: The text actually does have a citation; in fact, the quote is sourced to a book published by Yale University Press. Why do you say that the edit was not sourced? --Biblioworm 03:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Because it was not properly sourced. The page was missing, and we had instances in the past when claims were cited only by adding the name of the book and then it turned out the text was not exactly what was being added to our article. If an editor is adding a quate, besides adding the publication, he should add the page number, just as we all do. What is so hard to understand there? FkpCascais (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

And because the page number was missing, you used it as an argument to remove the information. Information you clearly did not like. The Banner talk 11:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

False claims about sourcing are just one of FkpCascais' tools for whitewashing any mention of what Serb forces did in the Kosovo war. See also: [133]. Of course FkpCascais does not apply such demanding requirements to all the other content - some of the text that FkpCascais adds has genuine sourcing problems. This is tendentious editing, as is the canvassing, and the regular tag-teaming with socks of banned editors, and the personal attacks, and encouraging blocked editors to use more sockpuppets and meatpuppets, and adding copyvio... Nobody really believes that text is badly sourced; such claims are just one more tool that FkpCascais can use in POV-pushing. bobrayner (talk) 13:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that my comment on the talk page "Kosovo war" has been removed for no good reason by another user. If any experienced editor would please help, I would be grateful. 212.178.243.11 (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Bobrainer, as I already once said, you seem to be a fine editor on some subjects, but when it comes to Balkans you become extremely partisan. You said that your own mission here is to fight against Serbian POV and Serbian myths. Regarding this particular situation here, you saw that quote, probably added by someone else as you couldn't even add the page number during all this time, and you loved it because makes quite an unique claim of an unnamed Serbian commander allegedly saying he was shooting children :) You liked it that much that you even made a section just for it. This same edit was discussed already: Talk:Kosovo_War/Archive_6#Morale_Section_Should_be_Eliminated. User:IJA agreed and removed it. You know one of the main goals of NATO was to brake Yugoslav moral and it was not going well for NATO as seen in the sources I brought yesterday. So highlighting a quote which is exceptional claim of an unnamed allegedly Yugoslav commander saying that he was shooting children... hummm... but anyway, it is sourced now (finally can be verified thanks to Andy who did the homework you should have done before edit warring) and it is in the article, although still making the quotation seems undue weight. So before accusing others of the things you said, look at the mirror. FkpCascais (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, stop removing IPs comments, what is a matter with you? FkpCascais (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC) What sock? Show me the sockpuppet investigation link first. FkpCascais (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You know it's a sockpuppet. I know it's a sockpuppet. We all know it's a sockpuppet. There are so many Serb pov-pushing socks that it's hard to keep track of them all. FkpCascais regularly tag-teams with these socks and pretends that they're legitimate editors; that's just what he does. bobrayner (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers

The subject of this article has publicly complained about her Wikipedia profile on her Twitter account. See here, especially the post titled "we heart games" made on November 26, in which she objects to this edit by Objectivesea. I have been trying to do what I can to make Sommers's article neutral and in accord with BLP, but numerous recent edits to that page, where full article protection only recently expired, have been destructive and unhelpful and I'm unsure how to deal with them. Some edits, such as this one by Dashing Leech, have been well-intentioned but misguided. Other edits, such as this edit by Maunus and this edit by Sonicyouth86, seem seriously biased and dubious under WP:BLP. Sonicyouth86 has unfortunately suggested that Sommers's objections to her article should simply be ignored, which I find unacceptable from an ethical standpoint. I would like to see administrators step in to prevent the continuing biased editing at that article, and if need be protect it again. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• The page has had visits from several SPAs and sleeper accounts in the past few days ([134][135][136][137]) as well as some editors involved in the GamerGate stuff. Sommers is a vocal GamerGate supporter so that was to be expected. Still, I'd appreciate more admin eyes on the article. Now on to ImprovingWiki's statement. It's important to understand what ImprovingWiki understands when he says neutral. He originally wanted the article to say that Sommers is a feminist: [138][139][140][141][142]... He has argued that it's sufficient if someone describes themselves as something, a feminist in this case. We should accept it and move on. For the record, not even Sommers call herself feminist. She says that she's a "freedom feminist" or "equity feminist". I asked ImprovingWiki to provide some reliable sources stating that Sommers is a feminist but ImprovingWiki hasn't provided any such sources so far. Here is the list of RS that we have so far on the question whether Sommers is a feminist or antifeminist:

ImprovingWiki argues that we must disregard these RS because Sommers objects on Twitter. He call it "biased editing" if someone tries to reflect both what Sommers says about herself and what reliable sources say about Sommers. I restored a stable version of the lead once, only to have ImprovingWiki re-revert again. I'd appreciate it if someone explained to them that he needs to establish consensus for his changes. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It's quite true, I did originally want the article to say that Sommers is a feminist. Then, I changed my mind. I consider that I have a perfect right to change my mind, and I'm not sure why that should be a problem. I have no idea what Sonicyouth86 is trying to accomplish by mentioning this. The "reliable sources" that Sonicyouth86 lists to try to show that Sommers is an anti-feminist (and which include, for instance, a book by Katha Pollitt, who is a poet and an essayist, not a political scientist) are only a diversion from the issue of the rights or wrongs of the particular edit that Sommers objected to, as none of them is a source for the statements in the lead to which Sommers objects, as you will see if you bother to actually look at that edit, linked above and in this post too. Sommers appears to be objecting to the change of "Christina Hoff Sommers (/ˈsʌmərz/; born 1950) is an American author and former philosophy professor who is known for her critique of late 20th century feminism, and her writings about feminism in contemporary American culture" to "Christina Hoff Sommers (/ˈsʌmərz/; born 1950) is an American author and former philosophy professor known for her opposition to late 20th-century feminism in contemporary American culture". Her objection is reasonable, since that change is one editor's interpretation of her and her work, one she finds to be a misrepresentation. It isn't based on those sources Sonicyouth86 makes so much of. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been arguing that Sommers is a feminist, that "antifeminist" is a slur and that Sommers rejects the notion that she is an antifeminist who opposes feminism. That's why you reject the stable version of the lead that said "opposition to feminism". I suggested that we find reliable sources that call Sommers feminist or antifeminist and see how she is portrayed in RS. I started adding quotes from RS, you weren't able to find RS in support of your opinion. It's all here in this section on the article talk page. Most changes made in that one offending edit were removed several days ago. It's about the "opposition to feminism" part in the lead and you know it. It's the part that you changed without consensus and then re-reverted despite my objections on the article talk page. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I'm the one in a position to say what I am arguing, not you. I do not argue that Sommers is a feminist. I don't even care about that point. I reject the version of the lead that said Sommers opposes feminism, which although you call it "stable" was introduced only very recently, because it offers a biased account of Sommers and her work. There was no source in the lead that backed up the description of Sommers that she objected to, and removing it was the right thing to do. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There were plenty sources on the article talk page and there was an ongoing discussion in which you participated. But you disregarded the RS and the discussion and changed the lead, justifying your change with Sommers' objections. Your version is the one with no RS. "I do not argue that Sommers is a feminist. I don't even care about that point." – the diffs show that you do. Let's wait for comments from uninvolved editors. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No. As I said on the talk page, neither version is supported by reliable sources, which is why there is a need for careful discussion on the shape of the lead. Your behaviour and comments are not helping in this respect. As I said, I do not care whether Sommers is a feminist or not. It is fairly petty and childish to tell me that I hold views that I explicitly reject, and I cannot imagine what you think you are accomplishing that way. It hurts your credibility, not mine. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@ImprovingWiki and Sonicyouth86: So, let's be clear that the Twitter complaint was specific to the removal of content about her book's recognition from the New York Times and its replacement with critical commentary, not the other issues discussed here. That inappropriate removal has been addressed already, so there's nothing else to say on the matter. The complaint indeed unspecific, so stop using it as a rationale for reverting content— it's disruptive. This argument over "called antifeminist" / "considered antifeminist" / "known for being an antifeminist" seems somewhat frivolous given the number of RS that refer to her and her work in exactly that manner (though non-RS should be avoided here, of course). "Considered," as was pointed out, does not imply definitive fact, and "known for" should describe how most RS describe the subject and/or their work. Both seem fine here. I don't see any evidence of actual bias in editing on the matter in the provided diffs and description. ImprovingWiki, contrasting RS will absolutely be needed to contest these matters and nothing less than that. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Statements like "Third-parties that are characterizing Sommers as "anti-femminist" are acting like TERFs by excluding her" exemplify what's wrong with the article and discussion so far. I appreciate JethroBT's statement. With the influx of new SPAs and editors from the GamerGate discusions the page needs more uninvolved and experienced editors to help enforce our content policies. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel

This is a ban request, and ANI is really for requests for specific actions, not community discussions. Moved to WP:AN#Gamaliel. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Reporting User for breaking WP:BRD and not assuming good faith

User:Ian.thomson just broke the three revert rule on this article, claiming copyright infringement (for a third time) on an article that has continually been paraphrased and edited for over a year. As the possible copied text was being removed, the user continued to revert the article, accusing plagiarism and thievery instead of assuming good faith and using the discussion page per WP:BRD. Bin4K2 (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I've only made just three reverts, which is not going beyond three reverts. Try actually reading rules before citing them. Oh, wait, if you did read it, you'd just plagiarize it like you did with that article, for at least the second time.

The article Woodie (musical artist) still uses plenty of lines from the original sources, which you removed to cover your tracks. Considering that your current account is a sockpuppet account (and clearly a WP:BADHAND account), that you don't seem to be able to learn from any of your previous accounts blunders... One cannot assume both good-faith and minimal competence from you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

And now he's intentionally readded the plagiarized material. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Barek for the quick clean up. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Bin4K2 (talk · contribs) is now blocked for one week due to repeated posting of copyvio content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder that "Removal of clear copyright violations" is one of the exceptions to WP:3RR; even if he'd made a dozen reverts, we wouldn't have sanctioned Ian. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Effy770

Five days ago I posted the following here:

Effy770 (talk · contribs) is obviously an adherent of Chabad and specifically of the messianic division of that organization. So am I, truth be told. He edits only articles related closely to the Chabad movement. On Chabad messianism he did a major rewrite of the article, providing much information of a general nature. I reverted his edits and explained to him on the talkpage why I did so. He undid. This has been repeating itself for a few days now (without 3RR violations). Please somebody explain to this new editor 1. that he should take advice from more experienced editors 2. that he should not simply undo reverts because he thinks he is right, per WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I hate to bite the newcomers, but on the other hand I am really fed up with all these aggressive, reverting editors. This case is especially serious, since we are obviously dealing with somebody who is not familiar with the Wikipedia pillar of consensus, and has apparently not yet learned how to balance his own fanatic, religious points of view with an active position in modern society. Debresser (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Today I find it necessary to repost this, since this editor continues to undo my reverts of his edits. Unfortunately, he simply doesn't understand what I am trying to explain to him. For example, he thinks that he should add the {{Citation needed}} template to 6 statements, 4 of them in the same paragraph which are sourced to a certain book, just because he wants to know the page. Likewise, he deletes information, claiming it is not in the footnotes. Just because a link is now dead or needs a subscription, is no reason to remove the footnotes. He also adds information of a (too) general nature to the article, and continues to do so, even after I explained to him on the talk page that such is not a good idea. In short, he doesn't know how to really improve the article, but he knows all too well how to press the revert button, and I am pretty fed up with it. Debresser (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) First of all, you need to provide diffs. Second, I would suggest you go to WP:RPP to request page protection. I'm tempted to revert his edits, as he's inserting malformed wikicode and appears to be removing sources, but I can't quite tell what's going on from the page history alone. Also, I have no clue about the subject matter, so I couldn't say whether his changes are applicable to the article or not. For the content-related aspects, try WP:DRN. You might also try contacting a relevant WikiProject. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to protect the page, but I'm going to give him an "only warning" for edit-warring; regardless of how good or bad his position is (I've not looked), hitting the "undo" button is edit-warring and harmful. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, now I see this discussion here. Debresser has actually been undoing every single edit I have made on the page. Each time I add something he deletes it. And doesn't explain it. Please have a look at the talking page of the messiah subject. I wore some of this there and on my talking page, but putting here all can see. Debresser has been undoing and reverting every single edit I have made to the page, no matter how big or how small. He does not like any of my edits and changes them all without using the talking page. He has also repeatedly called me an idiot who makes lousy edits and a fucking prick. I want consensus and am not trying to edit war, please don't get the wrong side of the stick. I am not trying to disrupt wikipedia style, I am trying to follow it by making the page better. At the top of the page there is a notice to try fix the page. But any time I try make the page better, by either adding new information, adding a new footnote, or removing a footnote that leads to no where, Debresser just undoes it without discussing and without explaining. When he does say something it's in the realm of "idiot" or "lousy" or "f***ing prick" (without the stars)! Should I really be getting this warning then? Or should Debresser also be getting a warning not to undo any edit that I make and not to insult me for no reason. I want to discuss, and I want to make the page better. But it seems that Debresser thinks he is the only one that can say what goes on that page. I hope I was clear and respectful and I hope you can understand. I am also newish to wikipedia. I don't know much although my brothers use wikipedia a lot.Effy770 (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I do explain, both in edit summaries and on the talkpage. I have written 7 posts (in 10 edits) on that talk page section. See the talkpage history. My latest edit was very detailed, because I really want to help you, and I really dislike edit wars. And, as I said on the talkpage, if you don't want to be called a "prick", don't behave like one. You undo my reverts, even though I try to explain to you why I revert you. However, you don't seem to get the point, and make the same mistakes time and time again. So either you don't understand or you ignore my explanations, but insisting on your edits, knowing and acknowledging that you are a new editor, is the way of a prick. Debresser (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

By all means, please check out and see if Debresser is saying the truth here. He did write 7 posts but for more then 10 edits. It's interesting he refers to them as edits, while in fact every single edit of his was hitting the undo button that he accuses me of! Also, the first (7th) decent response on the talk page (other then aggressive posts calling me idiot etc.) came only after he tattled on me here and needs to save face. If he really wanted to help and didn't like wars as he claims, he would have been more detailed to begin with, not only after continuously hitting unto to all of my edits. I'm not sure your not liking my edits allows you to call me a fucking prick. If anything it just shows me you have an agenda. As I said many times on the talk page -- please have a look at it -- I want to make the page better, but any change I make whether I add information, add a footnote, remove unfootnoted information, anything at all, Debresser just hits revert. In fact, I woke up this morning to see that all edits I (and other editor) made last night, were all undone by Debresser. Because of the warning I got I can not put it back, but I ask others to have a look. Again, I am not trying to disrupt, I am trying to make the page better, but an obviously bias editor is just acting like an aggressive owner is just undoing every single edit I make while calling me a fucking prick. Also, lets remember that he had been undoing all my edits for a nice while, clear violation of brd.Effy770 (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz

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

---

Walter Görlitz said this to me on a discussion page: "Don't bother posting another word here". Is suggesting other users to stop discussing content a good behaviour? SLBedit (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

He actually said, "if you can't find a reliable source that states that your club has more than 251,000 members your old sources are no longer relevant and I'm done talking with you. Seriously. Don't bother posting another word here unless it's a RS that supports that claim." Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You said it. SLBedit (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Your diff shows they said more than that. Their statement was qualified. This looks very much to be a content dispute. It seems to be about a source and that sources reliability. We have a noticeboard set up for that. The reliable sources noticeboard. Here is a link: WP:RSN -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Help please at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roon100

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roon100

Could use more eyes here and help from an admin to close this and carry out the associated blocks on the sockmaster and socks.

It's a clear case of WP:DUCK, with the sockmaster and socks using the exact same wording: "I am a publicist from Bengal", etc.

Unfortunately right now the sockmaster is carrying out disruption posting to multiple different user talk pages, ignoring advice to them, seemingly per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:FORUMSHOPPING.

One article page in mainspace already had to be WP:SALTed because of this disruptive user.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, — Cirt (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You opened an SPI. Admins and check users will review this as soon as possible. Is there any immediate reason to block them other than uour sock suspicions?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Not anymore; I took care of it all. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much to Jpgordon for taking care of it. — Cirt (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof

Has been disruptively editing Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian, redacting discussions about information found on verifiable sources (her own personal blog). His history shows numerous anti-gamergate edits and complaints from others. I asked him to stop harassing me and he will not. Please intervene. Xander756 (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The complaining user has repeatedly and persistently inserted and reinserted unsourced/poorly-sourced and clearly-defamatory content regarding living people on Talk:Anita Sarkeesian, including two abuses of the rollback privilege, for which I intend to request that it be revoked for misuse.

I made several different attempts to warn the user that their edits violated multiple policies, including but not limited to verifiability and the biographies of living persons policy, and [143] suggested that they discuss the issue on the talk page, but they ignored or rejected my requests and simply continued to revert the material into the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• NBSB appropriately redacted negative claims you made about two living people based on a source that doesn't meet our sourcing standards. You reverted his redactions without discussion twice, and then added a third inappropriate claim. Please read WP:BOOMERANG an my comment on Sarkeesian's talk page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with NBSB that your use of rollback was inappropriate, and note that you have previously had it revoked for using it to editwar. I have revoked +rollback from you, per the standards for its use found at WP:ROLLBACK. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm it seems he is now deleting my comments on this incident board. That should be added to his list of offenses. As I was saying, I cited a primary source, Anita's own personal blog, to connect her to pick-up artist Bart Baggett. He didn't like that information because he is anti-gamergate. He has a long history of b eing anti-gamergate and getting into many kerfuffles on Wikipedia. I do not. I am an objective editor with no history of editing anything related to gamergate. He is trying to censor information he doesn't like no matter how factual it is. That's not how wikipedia works. Here's the source: https://web.archive.org/web/20070912100534/http://www.neonandchrome.com/events.html Xander756 (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Xander756 is correct that there should be admin intervention. Thanks to Kevin Gorman for taking the first step, but more is needed. Even after all the above, Xander756 has again posted "it means she's connected to pick-up artist [living person]" (diff). That degree of tenacity regarding the highly troubled Gamergate issue (see WP:GS/GG) should result in a topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Kevin appears to be a feminist based on his edits and profile page. He is clearly not unbiased when it comes to Anita Sarkeesian so it comes as no surprise to see that the information should not only not be included but not even DISCUSSED for inclusion on her talk page. I would like other administrators who are NOT CONNECTED to this subject to weigh in. Should someone who has never edited a single gamergate or feminism article in his lengthy wikipedia career be "subject banned" or should the people who are biased and have numerous edits to gamergate, feminism, and other related subjects be the ones subject banned? Xander756 (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I have never edited an article about gamergate, and only have a peripheral familiarity with what it is. I've written a number of articles about feminist philosophers, but there's a wide gap between writing about Alison Jaggar and being too opinionated to enforce policy on an article about a living person involved in a controversy that I've purposefully primarily ignored. Moreover, WP:INVOLVED has an exception for actions that are obviously correct - and making nastily negative accusations against both Sarkeesian and Baggett without a reliable source certainly meets that standard. If you looked around, I think you'd probably notice that John and I aren't exactly besties; in a situation where we are agreeing, you would probably be best served by re-reading WP:BOOMERANG and taking some time off from the article. To hopefully demonstrate to you that this my opinion is not singular, I'll wait for someone else to formalize it, but will note that I agree that a topic ban should be handed out here. To passersby: it's worth looking at his rights history, his talkpage history, and his recent edits to Sarkeesian's talk as well as my own usertalk. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Xander's old user page says he writes for the Examiner and provides a link; his examiner profile links to a twitter account that is currently calling for people from an anti-Sarkeesian viewpoint to swarm her article. The Examiner bio also provides a link to another social media site, on which Xander uses slurs against Sarkeesian that I shall not repeat here. Since he uses the same handle everywhere and had this info on his user page for years, I'm both confident that it's correct and comfortable stating it publically as a cause of action. Since Xander was notified of the discretionary sanctions before this thread, I am indefinitely topic banning him from topics related to gamergate broadly construed given his behavior on-wiki coupled with trying to attract offsite editors to push a pont of view, as well as blocking him for the next two weeks. I am intending the topic ban as an action under WP:GS/GG, and the block as a normal administrative action (if any admin views two weeks as overly harsh, please feel free to reduce the length of the block without consulting me first.) I was going to hold off on taking action on this, but offsite brigading and using rollback to insert BLP problems on an article talkpage that is already under discretionary sanctions already means I see less than zero way that Xander can productively contribute to topics related to gamergate at any point in the near future. His edits at Brianna Wu were also highly problematic. Enacting and logging my actions after I post this. Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Endorse topic-ban and block: this is textbook BLP disruption of the kind that is supposed to be prevented by discretionary sanctions. Compounding that by attacking other editors as "feminists" (if that's an attack, it appears to be meant as such) and evidence of off-wiki calls for attacks on the subject call for immediate action to stop the disruption. Eyes please on related articles. Acroterion (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Fleetham

Fleetham has been asked by Wuerzele (see #635418845) and by Ladislav Mecir (see #635489158, #635766997, #635829315, #635830178, #636015423, #636015452) at Talk:Bitcoin#Achieving neutral point of view neutrality dispute and at User talk:Fleetham to respect WP:NPOV and cease employing WP:ICANTHEARYOU. The edits are:

• #633444683
• #633445806
• #633586783
• #635363006
• #635438273
• #635438747
• #635439305
• #635828640
• #635829763
• #636012427
• #636012830
• #636014925

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and socking across multiple pages

• Template:History of South Asia
• Mehrgarh
• Template:History of Pakistan
• Soanian

And more, you will find two IPs who are actively editing and reverting, they are 99.247.57.5 and 76.69.36.238, with pseudo-historical theories like "History of Pakistan begins with evidence of early human activity 500,000 years ago in the Siwalik region of Pakistan's Potohar Plateau, during the Soanian culture" and edit summaries like "WHAT ARE YOU DOING? STOP VANDALISING MY WORK IT TOOK ME HOURS TO DO THIS!)"[144](also see [145]) IP hopper has already proven himself to be Wikipedia:NOTHERE. On Wikipedia:RFPP board, I had requested protection for 1 page and 1 template, but I don't think that pages are going to be protected because admins there usually look for on going disruption for multiple days. He is also using a sock account now, called User:‎HistoryPK15. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Socks have been blocked for pretty obvious block evasion. If this behavior resumes after the blocks end, protection for the targeted pages would be an appropriate course of action. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)