Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page - email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.

Sections older than 36 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Shortcuts:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so.

Centralized discussion

Noticeboard archives



Contents

Long-term disruptive editing by editor with confirmed COI (User:John Foxe, article:Bob Jones University)[edit]

User:John Foxe has a COI with Bob Jones University as a professor there. (He disclosed this under his enwp username [no real name divulged] to a newspaper in Jan 2011 and confirmed this at WP:COIN in Dec 2014.) Here are my concerns:

Issues with article ownership. He has contributed 1105 of the 4077 total edits to the article, and has made 8X more edits than any other editor (per tool). He has been accused of exhibiting ownership by four different editors at three different points in time: in Feb 2007 by User:Emote (diff1 and diff2) and by User:Barang (diff3), in May 2014 by User:Abductive (diff4), and in Dec 2014 by me (diff5).

Usage of misleading edit summaries. Recently, he has made several edits either removing controversial info about the university or changing its meaning under edit summaries that are misleading. For instance, in diff6 he used the edit summary "the "crest" is different from the logo" to make a minor wording change about the uni's logo but also to remove info about how the uni president disparaged two religions using the official uni website. In diff7 he used the edit summary "put the "cult" statement in a more logical place" to not only move the info of the the same event but also to completely change its meaning.

Preventing change to POV statements. Two editors (diff8, diff9, diff10) removed a POV statement from the lead ("Though the conservative religious, cultural, and political stances taken by the university have often generated controversy, they have also resulted in greater institutional influence than might have been anticipated from a college of its size."), which he reverted each time stating that he "can provide a reference", which he never did until after the recent COIN investigation, and which failed to validate NPOV anyway.

Based on his contributions to this uni article, both recent and past, I am unconfident in his ability to contribute directly to the article without bias and feel action should be considered. I propose an article ban that excludes the talk page (that way he can still suggest edits). 鈥Eustress 21:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm unembarrassed to say that, with perhaps the possible exception of one other person, I know more about the history of Bob Jones University than anyone living. I've just finished a scholarly book manuscript that covers its early years. It's hardly surprising that I've made more edits than anyone else鈥擨'm simply more knowledgeable than anyone else.
I admit to having been sloppy about edit summaries on occasion, but the nature of the changes I've made in those circumstances is in the eye of the beholder. I'm more interested in correcting bad grammar, sloppy syntax, and disjointed paragraphs than in making ideological statements that would be reverted anyway.
The alleged POV statement in the lead had a proper citation until Eustress himself removed it here. I restored the footnote, then replaced it with a substitute that Eustress suggested.--John Foxe (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
If Eustress believes I've edited the article in a biased way, he should prove that allegation by providing examples.--John Foxe (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you may be obfuscating the real issue, as the citation you're referencing pertained to a separate POV quote (as shown in the diff provided) you contributed to the lead. Had the same citation supported the POV statement in question, another ref tag should have been placed. (As an experienced editor, you're well aware of WP:PAIC "ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies".) The point is, two editors excluding myself tried to remove a separate POV statement, which you obstructed.
You say above that you are "more interested in correcting bad grammar, sloppy syntax, and disjointed paragraphs than in making ideological statements", but the myriad diffs above prove otherwise. I'm not proposing an action that would prevent your knowledge of BJU from being incorporated into enwp, as you would still be able to suggest edits to the talk page with an article-only ban. You're a professor at BJU and your actions have been very disruptive. 鈥Eustress 00:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
No comment on anything except the lead statement. Does anyone question this idea? Do we have any published sources that say otherwise? The school seems to attract far more attention than the typical 2800-student college (how many Americans have heard of Waynesburg University, for example?), and through things ranging from the publications of BJU Press (popular among Christian homeschoolers throughout the US) to its interracial dating stance (well documented and very unpopular among most people throughout the US), it definitely has a lot more influence, whether influencing people toward its positions or against them, than any other school of comparable size in the country. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Nyttend, yes, two editors (myself excluded) questioned this idea (see diffs above). The point is, John Foxe's editing behavior regarding this one line of text is further evidence of biased and misleading editing. 鈥Eustress 00:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Neither in your diffs nor in the article history do I see any evidence of reasonable opposition to this statement on NPOV grounds. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
(sorry, I failed to include diff10 as evidence) 鈥Eustress 00:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
As another but separate example, on Bob Jones III, John Foxe removed all reference (see diff11) to Jones' role in a sexual abuse scandal at BJU with the edit summary "I'd be happy to work with you on an appropriate summary statement." 鈥Eustress 00:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Eustress, You say, "You're a professor at BJU and your actions have been very disruptive." (made a comma error, by the way). It makes no difference if I'm Bob Jones III, you need to prove my editing of Bob Jones University has been "very disruptive." You haven't even proved it that it's not NPOV.
Think about it this way: the person who knows the most about the history of Brigham Young University is probably a prof at BYU and certainly a Mormon. Would it be COI for that expert to edit the BYU article?--John Foxe (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is very clearly a conflict of interest for someone to be editing the article about their employer. There are few more definitive examples of a conflict of interest. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Even if the editor is an expert in the subject and has edited in a NPOV manner? (I'm presuming that in the hypothetical above, if the expert about BYU history were retired from BYU or just a Mormon, you believe there would be no COI).--John Foxe (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Your rebuttal here exhibits textbook COI -- per WP:COI, "People with a conflict often 'esteem too highly their own reliability', and fail to realize the extent to which the conflict has affected their judgment." 鈥Eustress 18:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Sort of like the Salem witch trials: if you say you're not a witch, that proves you're one.--John Foxe (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, even if the editor is posting in an NPOV manner - that would be merely showing dealing well with having a conflict. It doesn't eliminate the reality that the editor would have an obvious interest in serving the needs of his employer. Having a conflict of interest is different from exhibiting bias... which they seem to realize at Bob Jones University, as their appeals process for concerns over discrimination or harrassment has those two possibilities as different reasons to accept an appeal. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Do I understand correctly that John Foxe does not deny his conflict of interest (working for the University and writing a book about the subject)? If so, they had to post a notification about the COI on their user page long time ago and do not edit this University page, or at least never make reverts on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some of the editor's edits do look helpful to the article and are not as obviously biased as might be expected in such a case. Overall, the article is pretty well written and illustrated, and the editor might be a large part of why that is so. I'm not saying there's no problem here, but ... 鈥BarrelProof (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
If they post a notification on their user page about their COI and stop edit warring on pages related to their COI, that might be just fine? My very best wishes (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If an editor has a clear cut COI issue, then there is every reason for that editor to adhere to COI principles. Both being an employee of the subject university and having written an (apparently?) yet to be published book on the subject would both constitute very good reaasons for suspecting COI, as both at least potentially relate to the possibility of the editor having some sort of monetary conflict of interest. Obviously, if the book to be published were to be perhaps found significantly inconsistent with other reliable sources, or perhaps misrepresentative of the subject in some significant way, admittedly unlikely as that seems, that would be a reasonable grounds for COI questions on the basis that demonstable questionable reliability of the book might impact any proceeds to the author from it. There is no reason for the editor in question not to adhere to general COI guidelines and suggest significant changes to the article on the talk page, and receive positive feedback on the proposals, before making them. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Eustress only knows that I told a reporter in 2011 that I was a BJU faculty member. He doesn't know that I'm one now. He needs to present credible evidence that I've edited the BJU article in a non-NPOV way.--John Foxe (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'd like to state that I've never edited at Wikipedia or written a book for pay. (I wish I could say otherwise for the books.)--John Foxe (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you acknowledge that you have a conflict of interest and promise not revert any other editors on pages related to BJU? My very best wishes (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
No. It's my position that I've edited the BJU article in a consistently non-NPOV manner and that it's your responsibility to present credible evidence to the contrary. I've made more than a thousand edits. There should be plenty of evidence. Set forth your case.--John Foxe (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Too bad. If you refuse to adhere to COI guidelines, that can be a reason for a topic ban or worse. My very best wishes (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
He didn't "refuse to adhere to COI guidelines"; he refused your suggestion of a self-imposed zero revert limit; there's no policy requiring that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • From what I can gather, John has provided a source for the statement in the lead but it was later removed? You can't state that an editor is violating NPOV after you remove the sources supporting the statement. Whether the statement in the lead represents a synthesis of the source is another matter entirely though. Edit summaries aside, I am not seeing serious issues that require sanctions although the editor should pay more attention to COI issues - the proper process for editors with COI is to suggest edits on the talk page, rather than to implement them directly. The removal at Bob Jones III is justified, given the original form violated WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP, although the current form seems to be adequate. 鈥Dark 00:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is irrelevant here. Everyone suppose to follow WP:NPOV on the project. WP:COI is a different official guideline. Here is the problem: John Foxe is in state of conflict with other contributors (as obvious from his reverts) in the subject where he evidently has a COI. Moreover, he refuses to acknowledge his COI and comply. Given the fact that he is prone to edit warring [1], that means he is probably going to continue reverts. That does not look good. Indeed, this user seem to be under an 1RR restriction which he has violated two days ago [2], [3], in a page were he has a conflict of interest. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding that 1RR restriction referred to above, is that something imposed after the apparent lifting of such a restriction in August 2013? (Regarding the removed source citation, I think that citation was attached to a different sentence than the sentence being discussed.) 鈥BarrelProof (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't aware of the 1RR restriction. is it still in place? I will let another admin review whether a sanction for that is necessary. Also note that COI is a policy formulated to ensure policy compliance in terms of NPOV and verifiability so I have no idea why you say that it is irrelevant. I should also note that he seems to be edit warring with an SPA, which I have since blocked for disruption. Seems evident that it was an account created solely to edit war/harass the editor. 鈥Dark 02:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: Having looked at the lifting of the 1RR restriction and your participation within it, I will say that I do not appreciate being misled and it does nothing to help your case. 鈥Dark 02:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, 1RR was lifted. I forget about this previous ANI discussion and only looked at his block record (I have a lot of other things to do besides editing here). I withdraw from this discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
And he said he will continue the same [21]. No wonder, because he effectively receives an endorsement on this noticeboard so far. That's fine with me. I do not edit these subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I tend to agree with DarkFalls here. Obviously the guy has a COI but he seems to be willing to put forward an effort to color inside the lines. @John Foxe:, I recommend that you avoid editing in a way that could even appear to be disingenuous, such as using edit summaries of, shall we say, fuzzy accuracy. That's just not playing fair, as your edits are numerous enough that other edits are going to rely on your edit summaries to see what you're doing. I also recommend that everyone on the page practice WP:BRD as a matter of habit. As a side note, anyone want to own up to Subterreynean? That was a particularly disgusting outing attempt. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I apologize about those edit summaries. I edit a lot of non-controversial articles and get used to writing summaries like "stylistic tweaks." That doesn't (and shouldn't) cut it at an article as potentially radioactive as Bob Jones University.--John Foxe (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is the question. Should an editor, who evidently has COI, officially acknowledge that they have COI and do not revert other editors on a page where they have COI (as required by the official guideline), or they can edit just as any other contributor by claiming to adhere to WP:NPOV? If the latter, then we do not need this guideline. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Leaving aside the question of whether a college prof bears the same relation to his employer as say, the Chief of Information at Megacorp, it is incumbent upon Eustress to prove that my editing at Bob Jones University has been (as he has claimed) "very disruptive." He correctly stated that in 2011 I told a reporter鈥攚ho was writing an article on edit wars between Mormons and non-Mormon at Wikipedia鈥攖hat I was a teacher at BJU; but he can not say, without revealing my identity, that that's true today. The only way to prove that I have a COI is to demonstrate that my editing here has been non-NPOV鈥攐r, I suppose, by having a buddy at the Deseret News call me again.--John Foxe (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
JF, please assume good faith ("buddy" comment?) and stop taunting editors to out you. I was concerned by your behavior at BJU and was troubled to learn about your employment at the university. Since you have been editing surreptitiously on enwp, I thought it appropriate to pursue COIN/ANI to air out the issue. (WP:COI, "If you have a financial connection to a topic 鈥 including, but not limited to, as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder 鈥 you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles directly.") I outlined the disruptive editing from the beginning: you've contributed 1105 of the 4077 total edits to the article, and 8X more edits than any other editor; there are 5 diffs pointing to ownership issues, 2 diffs regarding misleading usage of edit summaries, and 4 diffs signaling POV pushing. I still think an article ban with exclusion of the talk page would be the best way to incorporate your suggestions into the encyclopedia while adhering to our COI guideline. 鈥Eustress 22:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Userspace for fans of keeping track of oldest people[edit]

There is a group of users who seem to be insistent on creating their own versions of "Lists of oldest whoever" as their main contributions here. So far, I've found User:Bensonfood (see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Bensonfood), User:Deaths in 2013(Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Deaths_in_2013/My_OR_stuff), and now User_talk:Pascar, User:Tanough/SC_Portal, User:Tanough/SC_Portal/Table_B, User:Tanough/SC Portal/Oldest people/Spain (blanked by anonymous users), User:Tanough/Top_10 and I'm sure there's more. There is a small amount of editing in mainspace for these individuals but I'd like to see if someone here can beat a cluestick into all of them about forking before I just block them all under WP:NOTHERE (although any other admin is welcome to do so). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Deaths in 2013, I'm just gonna leave this here. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
If anyone is curious how widespread this is, check out the fun I'm creating at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#December_18.2C_2014. Already found four more users. Let's see how far this rabbit hole goes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
This is probably the Yahoo World's Oldest People group and/or the 110 Club fanboys again. The area of human longevity ended up at arbitration about 4 years ago, and while some of the nastiness is gone from the area there's still a strong undercurrent of people who view longevity-related material as their own private fiefdom. Accordingly, they treat Wikipedia as the Gerontology Research Group's official output and insist on keeping massive walled gardens of content. See the history of User:NickOrnstein for an old example, just to show how longstanding this problem is. This sort of thing should be met with swift warnings and blocks, because if not immediately stopped the cleanup gets to be overwhelmingly large. The Blade of the Northern Lights (瑭便仐銇︿笅銇曘亜) 22:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like it, there's at least a half dozen others out there. Note that I just deleted User:Deaths_in_2013/Sandbox as a copy-paste recreation of the one from the MFD. I hope that's not a concern. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I joined Wikipedia around a year ago. I don't who was the first to create these kind of user pages but I imagine that like myself, many other people with an interest in longevity saw other people keep longevity-related lists in their userspace, and so presumed that this was okay. I now understand that the guidelines do not allow for such things so am attempting to merge some of the content on my user page to existing articles.

But you know what, I see the comments that you lot have made above and I think: "Sod it, why should I bother?". Ricky, did you not bother to read the recent discussions on my talk page about this? If you had, then you would realise that I am trying to work towards a positive solution. But instead, you say that you'd "like to see if someone here can beat a cluestick into all of them about forking before I just block them all". Brilliant.

Maybe one of the reasons that others do not make more contributions to the main Wikipedia is because they do not wish to collaborate with "bullies". That is, people who show no appreciation of the fact that newer users are less experienced and do not seem to take in to account the intentions of the users.

Oh, and the Yahoo World's Oldest People Group is not for "fanboys". It's a place to post news/research about longevity claimants and is used by a number of experts in the field.

Ollie231213 23:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the members of the 110 club as fanboys, although in my experience the label does fit many of the participants at the Yahoo group as well. he What in the world is the utility of lists like those linked above? Setting aside the horrific formatting and blatant WP:FLAGBIO violations, which was one of the more bizarre and rancorous disputes I had to help force a solution to in the topic area, there is no possible way that anyone besides those referred to above would seriously want these as Wikipedia articles. Allowing them to indefinitely languish in peoples' userspace is therefore an obvious violation of WP:UPNOT, and encourages more such violations, so they should be deleted. Some of them, such as User:Tanough/SC Portal/Table B, are also blatant attempts to keep a preferred format (one that contravenes WP:FLAGBIO) and should accordingly be deleted on those grounds. The Blade of the Northern Lights (瑭便仐銇︿笅銇曘亜) 23:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have another idea -- perhaps an editor concerned about other editors failure to follow policy could follow the recommendation at the top of the page:

  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.

As Ollie points out, the most likely explanation for the behavior is observing it going unchecked on other editor's pages; I understand it's a hassle to post the same message to multiple folks -- if there's not a standard twinkle message perhaps one could be added. NE Ent 23:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Having visited (in one fashion or another) a few of these accounts I can tell you that they are resistant to sugestion... sometimes downright hostile. This is not a matter of a few slightly errant editors that just need a friendly little twinkle message to nudge in the right direction. This is an entrenched dysfunction that requires the very real threat of deletion to even get a serious acknowledgement. And even then there is perpetual resistance. In the end, the wall surrounding this group has to come down and either they participate constructively... or they don't. 鈥 JBarta (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking at [22] and [23], I'm not seeing any evidence there was any attempt to engage that particular editor. Although the page is obviously not compliant, it's unclear what possible harm it's doing? It's not affecting mainspace, it's not affecting any other editor... why the rush? Of course we're going to get resistance if our first engagement is hostile WP:FAKEARTICLE wiki-ese. (It's also not following policy -- WP:AGF is a code of conduct, not a probability assessment. NE Ent 00:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Many of the experts/correspondents on the WOP Group are also members of the 110 Club. The latter was in fact created with the intention of making a forum to have semi-formal discussions about the topic of longevity. It has a wide range of members, from those involved in research to those who just have an interest. So, let's not start some petty name-calling.

Why do these kind of pages exist? They were probably created because Wikipedia has an auto-update function, so all ages change automatically. The tables are also neat, so user pages were considered to be a good place to keep these informal lists which were designed to be looked at by only the user and other users with an interest in longevity.

Now I'm not saying that this is okay. Clearly, these violate guidelines. Fine. I know that now, but I did not before, and I imagine that many others did not either. What I object to, however, is the way that this issue is being dealt with. We have a load of experienced users (who know the guidelines inside out) who just come along, like a stampede of rhinoceros, and accuse the lesser-experienced users of this that and the other (such as not wanting to help contribute to the main Wikipedia) and threaten to delete their pages outright.

These accusations may or may not be valid for individual users, but don't paint everyone with the same brush. I'm sure most people will be happy to cooperate with the administrators if they are polite and and explain why they are in the wrong.

However, when you see some say: "check out the fun I'm creating at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#December_18.2C_2014", it sounds as if they are getting a rush from having power over others. People are NOT going to be willing to cooperate with people like that.

Ollie231213 23:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yea, sorry about that. Unfortunately Wikipedia has very few administrators for the amount of work to be done, so sometimes they can get a bit cranky. Might I suggest using one of the Wiki hosting services? Some are free (advertising supported), and should support most of the same functionality. Once you've got your stuff copied over, we'd appreciate if you'd place a {{Db-userreq}} on your user page so a passing administrator can clean up the page. NE Ent 23:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for your helpful suggestion, NE Ent. I appreciate it.

Ollie231213 23:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

One thing that needs to be borne in mind is that some of these lists are entirely unsourced, and accordingly violation of WP:BLP policy - they make specific claims regarding longevity, which is obviously potentially contentious, and clearly should be sourced. They also give precise dates of birth, which may possibly violate WP:BLPPRIVACY. If there was any evidence that these lists were actually intended for article content, there might be scope for some leeway, but given the pointless duplication, the clear unwillingness to comply with sourcing requirements, and the disregard for multiple other policies, I can't think of a good reason why we shouldn't give them say a week to copy the lists elsewhere, and then summarily delete the lot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Another is that to these people, keeping track of the world's oldest people seems so obviously encyclopedic - as in the most appropriate data anyone could have in an encyclopedia, ever - that all the admins trying to get rid of it seem like irrational meanies. The prominence of the world's oldest person records in the Guinness books likely exacerbates that. --NellieBly (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
An encyclopaedia doesn't normally have multiple incomplete versions of similar content scattered all over the place - and per established Wikipedia policy, we require sources for content referring to living persons. If the contributors responsible for these lists wish to contribute sourced content to articles, there is nothing stopping them. That doesn't appear to be their objective however. AndyTheGrump (talk)
I found this to be a fairly accurate summary of the problem (for the now-removed section being linked to, see this and the associated edit summary). The Blade of the Northern Lights (瑭便仐銇︿笅銇曘亜) 06:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:NE Ent, you seem to acting like I'm WP:BITEing these editors because I won't simply let them continue with their userspace lists that they've created and used for years. In partiuclar, User:Tanough hasn't edited since 2012 but the history at User:Tanough/SC Portal is continuous until today. I came here following the close of Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Bensonfood. The editor has been here for six months, and when told it's inappropriate, copy the contents to two other places for me to hunt down for deletion. User:Deaths_in_2013 has a similar AFD, I deleted that page, the sandbox page he copied the contents to and yet there's still this and this movement which shows little intent to actually deal with these issues. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when told at places like Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#List_of_supercentenarians_who_died_in_2014 is not going anywhere fast. Besides, under hte BLP policy, they should all be deleted immediately and the editors can try at deletion review or wherever to get them restored. Listing them for AFD is being extra-ordinarily nice in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I just follow the evidence. Bensonfood may have been here for six months, but the first talk page message I'm seeing indicating anything is amiss with his edits is this correct but less than warm and fuzzy message two days ago [24], followed 11 minutes later by a notification of this ANI thread [25], and I've already addressed the Ollie situation. Of course BLP violating content must be deleted expeditiously but it should be addressed in a manner consistent with the rest of Wikipedia policies. The first step should be a polite user talk page explaining why it's inappropriate, and a request for them to copy the material off-wiki and then CSD U1 it. Way less fuss than Mfd's and ANI threads.
I think the key word in Ricky's post is "these editors." They are individuals, and unless there is evidence they are sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or part of an intentional conspiracy, should be treated as such. I understand the frustration -- when I volunteered at WP:WQA there are days when I wanted to scream when the N + 1th new editor complained that an established editor had "rudely" just removed a message left on the veteran editors talk page -- but I forced myself to remember than the one was a different potential new editor than the N who came before. And when I just couldn't stand it anymore I logged off for a month ... or two ... NE Ent 23:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
My experience in the longevity articles is that most of these people are meatpuppets in all but name, and frequently in name as well (see WP:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts (2nd nomination) for a demonstrative example). Certainly not all, but most. There's little point in trying the approach above (an approach I highly endorse in most cases) because their presence results in things like what I linked to above being spread across literally hundreds of pages, and getting it down to a more reasonable size gets resistance at every turn. It's much easier and more efficient to head it off at the pass. The Blade of the Northern Lights (瑭便仐銇︿笅銇曘亜) 05:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"MOST of these people are meatpuppets"? And how exactly did you come to that conclusion?

Ollie231213 12:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) I was looking at random "List of supercentarian" articles and the selection of articles I looked at appear to rely heavily on Gerontology Research Group, a non-reliable an essentially primary source, to determine information and age about these people. There are also a significant number of non-sourced entries in the articles. Am I right in thinking that these are BLP violations, at least for the recently deceased and/or still living? If so, what is the best course of action for dealing with them? Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The GRG is a useful source for this sort of thing, it's about the best you're going to get in most cases, so that's not so much of a problem. Basically, the best way to deal with these is through AfD; if the only non-trivial coverage is in GRG records, they're not notable enough for articles here. As to how I came to the conclusion above, look through the two Jan Goossenaerts AfDs and the discussion here for demonstrative, but by no means exhaustive, examples. I am expressly not saying that everyone in the area is a meatpuppet, there are several editors who do excellent work in the area, but there are a disproportionate number of one-off and longer-term editors who habitually display the traits of the participants in these discussions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (瑭便仐銇︿笅銇曘亜) 17:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to hear why you think the GRG is a non-reliable source, James. Ollie231213 21:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Ollie231213, please indent your replies by adding one more ":" than the previous reply to the beginning of each paragraph. I thought that the GRG wasn't a reliable source because the Wikipedia:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Databases says that No article should be based solely or primarily on any of these databases, and no article should rely on any one of them alone in order to make assertions about subjects' history of records broken, rank-order placement in longevity-related lists, or current status as alive or dead. I see now that this isn't exactly the same thing as not reliable - it's more like it's a primary source. I've struck out and changed my text above. Thanks for pointing this out. Ca2james (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

With regards to User_talk:Pascar, WP:FAKEARTICLE states that articles under construction are allowed if they include: "Short-term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template can be added to the top of the page to identify these)". The page even states that it is intended to become a full article. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

SiameseTurtle, it's a user talk page. It's not for creating drafts. I just blanked it, the history is still there. If someone actually wants to create the article, any editor can move the page. As annoying as it is, I'm willing to split up the talk page contents with the drafting editing and move it to Draftspace as long as all the unsourced names are removed (and kept out). Just ask me. The actual articles here have no sources and these ridiculous userspace drafts are what everyone is working on instead. There must be almost 30 pages listed all over MFD right now. The WikiProject was advised of this almost three years ago. Frankly the WikiProject people should be the ones wanting everything centralized so that they can create more robust articles rather than supporting this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Userpages are most definitely allowed to include draft articles, which you can learn more about at WP:UP. A constructive change would have been for you to suggest moving it to a more suitable page than the talk page - not taking actions against WP:POINT by deleting an article under construction. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Can't it just be moved to a sandbox? Afterall, it is a work in progress. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem; almost none of these are intended to become actual articles, they're here to languish in userspace. It'd be the equivalent of people keeping detailed track of baseball/hockey/[insert your sport here] stats throughout their userpages, those sorts of stats pages are regularly deleted through MfD. These present an even larger problem because many of them aren't sourced at all or have dubious sourcing, and given that we're talking about mostly private individuals it's a serious BLP violation to have these floating all over the place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (瑭便仐銇︿笅銇曘亜) 16:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Even though this might be unrelated, I know this "Deaths in 2013" person. Under a different username, he was a troll over on wikiHow. (He is currently blocked for six months.) --Biblioworm 16:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cig editors[edit]

See earlier ANI thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:TheNorlo[edit]

This user has referred to me as an Idiot here and a moron here. And than refers to me as a troll here. This makes it clear that he and User:FergusM1970 are referring to me [26].

This user is a WP:SPA who only edits material regarding electronic cigarettes [27]. They were previously warned about edit warring here and were at ANI for incivility here [28] Doc James (talkcontribsemail) 07:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As for the WP:SPA I can assure you that I am not affiliated with the industry. As for the idiot and moron accusation. I'm sorry Doc, please accept my apologies. I still think that you might be a troll though has your action seems to suggest. TheNorlo (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Its not just these two episodes, its the general "anyone who disagrees with me is a moron" attitude and incivility that characterizes TheNorlo's interactions with editors he disagrees with. And there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue in not addressing sources, but simply engaging in debate that consisists of merely repeating statements of unsupported opinion as if they were uncontestable fact and telling other editors that their opinion doesn't matter.

  • "Right now, the bottom line is that we need to remove the statement that says that there is no evidence.... Which is false, period.TheNorlo (talk) 6:01 pm, 17 December 2014, last Wednesday (5 days ago) (UTC鈭8)
It is false! The studies did find some evidence... Not strong evidence, but evidence nonetheless. See hereTheNorlo (talk) 鈥 Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "The new RfC is WP:DISRUPT and I suspect that his is intentional. Doc James opens up the conversation by saying that a Google search shows that health articles comprises the vast majority of articles, this is an outright lie. This entire RfC is based on a lie."
These are my basis to say that Doc James is lying, now I agree that it isn't very scientific but on the other hand, Doc James claims about google results showing that " If one does a google search one finds that by far the large majority of the articles discuss the potential health implications primarily were not more scientific. I have posted this in the appropriate section of the talk page.
I just did a quick google search in the news section using "Electronic cigarette" in the search fiels, and then complied the numbers of articles of the first 9 pages of google and I divided them in 3 main categories (Health, Regulation and Usage) plus one category (other), this is what I found:
  • Health: 23 Articles
  • Regulations: 22 Articles
  • Usage: 10 Articles
  • Other: 25 ArticlesTheNorlo (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In a discussion, mischaracterizing my position with a straw man argument: "Let me get this straight.... Formerly 98 oppose the proposal because he dislikes the title of this talk section? If that's the case, we have to disregard his opposition."
  • "You did not provide any other reason for opposing the proposition other than the fact that you were offended that I called the Grana review "nonsense" (I should of said garbage) how exactly did I mis-characterized your position? Opposing substance because you don't like the form shows a blatant lack of arguments and makes your opinion irrelevant."

Formerly 98 (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, Why have you never countered my "straw man argument"? because it wasn't one. My arguments were valid as you guys can see here.TheNorlo (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
More content disagreements. AlbinoFerret 19:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
No. This is not about a content disagreement. You are being disingenuous. This could result in a WP:BOOMERANG block/ban for supporting disruption. I think admins want to cut down on this kind of behavior. User:AlbinoFerret is one of the problem e-cig editors. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:AlbinoFerret. QuackGuru (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we know QuackGuru, anyone who does not hate e-cigs with a passion, is a problem editor.TheNorlo (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru No, this section against TheNorlo is over a content dispute QG. If you have some proof that it isnt, provide it. Secondly, that section you keep linking to was closed long ago with a finding of no consensus, and you forget there is a long section on your disruptive edits to go along with the dozens of others you have been blocked/banned over time. There was no finding of a problem with my edits even after a month, but if you continue to bring it up, I will start a section here about your slanderous comments against me. AlbinoFerret 08:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret claims it was a WP:POVFORK to include health claims in an article about safety but the WP:POVFORK was adding it to the Legal status of electronic cigarettes because the paragraph has nothing to do with legal status. The material is off topic for the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page but on topic for the Safety of electronic cigarettes page. QuackGuru (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

More content disputes, keep posting them QG, it only proves my point that this is all about content. AlbinoFerret 14:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for TheNorlo[edit]

TheNorlo, the problem is exactly illustrated both in my comments above and in your comments here.


On the basis of the Above, I propose a 6 month Topic Ban for Electronic Cigarettes be applied to TheNorlo. His behavior is combative and consistently fails to conform to either the letter or spirit of WP:CONSENSUS and the rules described at WP:TALK. His edit history consists of a total of 576 edits, of which 474 are are E-cigarette related articles or talk pages, and the vast majority of the remainder are on the talk pages of other editors focused nearly exclusively on these articles. He is clearly here to WP:ADVOCATE and not to build an encyclopedia, as shown by a consistent failure to seek consensus, by his incivility to those he disagrees with, and by his laser-like focus on a single article and topic. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Just to be sure it gets counted, I'll make the obvious statement that I support my own proposal. Formerly 98 (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
You guys are really on a seek and destroy mission to get rid of every editor that you disagree with it's incredible, is AlbinoFerret next? I never referred to WP:RS as garbage, I referred the study of Grana/Glantz as garbage 2 completely different things, a study that is frustratingly over cited by the article, +- 25 citations, that is almost twice as the other WP:RS source that we have there.
Please explain to me how this conversation here for example, shows me not trying to reach consensus? I could give you more examples but why would I? Just make your case and let's see how it unfolds. TheNorlo (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Circulation is one of the top medical journals. Hardly a "garbage" source. Lots of issues with incivility. Has been warned about them in the past. Doc James (talkcontribsemail) 06:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Again I referred to the grana glantz review as nonsense, not circulation and not WPRS policies.TheNorlo (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
This comment you made on Dec 22nd at 13:49 is inappropriate [31]. You were encouraging the harassment of another editor. And this was after your apology here on Dec 22nd at 07:39. Also to that "apology" you later added the comment "I still think that you might be a troll". So not really an apology. This was also not appropriate [32]. You appear to be too personally invested in e-cigs and I think it would be best for both you and Wikipedia to edit in another topic area for a while. Doc James (talkcontribsemail) 08:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Temporary 6 months topic ban on EC. Noteswork (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I am new to all this wiki bureaucratic procedures . Dont you get to say why you support or oppose, or is this only a matter of how many votes are pro\con? TheNorlo (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You have confirmed that you should not have insulted Doc James, yet you have also confirmed that you should have still insulted his comments. That's not even an apology. Noteswork (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I believe that insulting Doc James was an unacceptable behavior on my part, but attacking his comment as being stupid is justified. I still think that his argument is stupid. Doc James is a certified physician, stupid people do not become physicians, so I admit that the personal insult was out of line. TheNorlo (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Behaviour problems and non-neutral editing is well-evidenced above; the EC article is a fraught mess as it is, so this temporary ban would likely be a positive step in helping to improve that situation. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow, what non-neutral editing are you talking about? The article has been locked since the Big Bang. I am actually trying to improve this article, I am not the one engaged in edit warring, I am not the one that got this article locked. Whatever, ban me for six month and let's see how better and neutral this article becomes. TheNorlo (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • OpposeThis is a content dispute where one side is in disagreement with the other. Nothing pointed out rises to meriting a topic ban. This is an attempt to remove an active editor from a page that has a lot of disagreement over content. AlbinoFerret 11:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Note. User:TheNorlo informed User:AlbinoFerret on 07:28, 24 December 2014 about this before he commented here. This appears to be canvassing by User:TheNorlo. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I am not familiar with this whole procedure but I see that every editors that I disagree with are here supporting the ban, so I asked the other active editors of the article to drop their 2 cents here as well, If you dig deeper Quack, you will find that I notified more editors. If that's against the rules then I didn't know.... But something tells me its not really canvassing. TheNorlo (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@QuackGuru I have been involved in this discussion since December 22nd. diff I did not take what TheNorlo said on my talk page as asking me to comment here. I would have posted in this section regardless of his post on my talk page, because once I post on a topic I come back to it until the discussion is done. AlbinoFerret 13:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for what its worth. Some here claim that I edit in a POV manner but no one has presented any evidence of this. show me an actual edit that I have made on the article that shows a clear bias on my part. I dare you. I am the only one here that have admitted to be biased on the subject but I edit consciously so that I am as neutral as possible in the edit that matters I.e. the edits that ends up in the article. Again, show me where my bias as transpired on the article. As for the insults Doc James, I should not have done that, I should of said that your arguments were stupid, I should not have said that you were stupid, that was a mistake. You were saying that an ecig is only an ecig when its full of liquid and that it seased to be an ecig when its empty and therefor ecigs are drugs, that my friend is a stupid argument, espescially for a man as educated as yourself, as others have pointed out. TheNorlo (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. When User:TheNorlo was not logged in back in May he wrote "This is (Redacted) ridiculous! And they have the balls to keep removing the POV sign! There is no (Redacted) concensus!"[33] Rather than stopping this kind about behavior he has continued with similar behavior problems based on the evidence given by User:Formerly 98. He can't edit from a neutral point of view. For example, he wants to propose to drastically shorten the lede for the e-cigs article. The lede isn't especially long to begin with and the lede is readability for the general reader. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Come on Quack, This version, is number one, a work in progress, number 2 neutral, number three I am not the o ly one that thinks that the status quo is hard to read. If you think that it is to POV, you should comment in the discussion section so it can be fixed. This is clearly a content disagreement. TheNorlo (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban - Presumably its going to be said that I'm only commenting here after being notified but I have already contributed to this discussion and was going to make this comment anyway. I accept that TheNorlo has engaged in personal attacks which is unacceptable. However I'm not sure about any of the other evidence of conduct issues. I would support a warning for personal attacks which would give them a chance to correct their behaviour.Levelledout (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing again. User:AlbinoFerret was previously canvassed by User:TheNorlo. User:Levelledout was canvassed on 01:02, 25 December 2014 by User:TheNorlo. User:SPACKlick was canvassed on 01:05, 25 December 2014 by User:TheNorlo. User:KimDabelsteinPetersen was canvassed on 01:09, 25 December 2014 by User:TheNorlo. QuackGuru (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I just told you that. Read above. As I said, Every single active editor on the article that I disagree with is here trying to ban me. So I have asked the other active editor to pitch in their 2cents on this ban proposal. Is this vanvassing? I don't think so but again, I am not familiar with the inner workings of wikipedia policies. I am learning as I go here, give me a break. TheNorlo (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Not too wrong because you have notified involved editors. Noteswork (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
User:TheNorlo notified the editors who mostly agree with him and almost always disagree with me. QuackGuru (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh! I'm sorry Quack, I didn't realize that all this was about you. TheNorlo (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
As I said, every editor that I have profound disagrement with are here already. The editors that I have reached out to are the other involved editors. I do not believe that these other editors are particularly partial to me, I have had some content disagreement in the past with some of them but we were able to work them out (I think) TheNorlo (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC).
This is not true. The following editors have participated significantly on the Talk page and in editing the article itself
  • Zad68
  • Wnt
  • CFCF
  • Cloudpk
  • Yobol
But none of these editors was canvassed. Only his closest allies. Formerly 98 (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this list Ill notify them later in the day. No body seems to care that I am new at this and didn't know that I could notify people..
And it is weird that all of you guys are here, every editor that I deeply disagree with are conveniently right here to ban, just like that, magically, without any canvassing. TheNorlo (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes the efforts at canvassing are unfortunate. Another reason that I support a topic ban. Doc James (talkcontribsemail) 09:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is against WP:CANVASS. Your notice is barely neutral and you admit that it's only to get the votes you want. If you want to be taken seriously, you would notify all the relevant editors and argue on the merits here. I'm sure the closing admin will consider this not a vote and the fact that the only editors who opposed it were those you specifically sought out is clear vote-stacking and not helping you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I have never admitted such a thing, please don't put words in my mouth, thank you. I will not notify anybody else... I get it.... TheNorlo (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @QuackGuru, how can it be canvassing again when TheNorlo has not canvassed before? I was already involved in this discussion, on December 22 I made a comment above. diff. This is a subsection, the whole topic is one big section. SPACKlick has also made a comment in the discussion of these two editors so was aware of the section here. diff. While he may have canvassed the remaining two editors, its impossible to know all of wikipedias rules. TheNorlo is a newer editor, his first edit was in May of this year. He is taking this section seriously, as it should be, and looks to inadvertently broken a rule by informing two uninvolved editors. With the comments on the Electronic cigarette about this case with a link to it, I am almost positive all of the notified editors, SPACKlick, Levelledout and KimDabelsteinPetersen would have looked at this section and most likely would have commented, and SPACKlick and myself were already involved in this section on AN/I. AlbinoFerret 14:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Above User:AlbinoFerret opposes the ban and wrote in part: "Nothing pointed out rises to meriting a topic ban." User:AlbinoFerret wrote "But he appears to have outed you as one of his meatpuppet friends."diff I am debating on filing a statement on this on the sockpuppet board."[34] User:AlbinoFerret also wrote "Why did you and your secret friends do this?"[35] It appears User:AlbinoFerret has some issues with commenting on the talk page. That may be why he thinks it does not rise to the level of a ban. User:Ricky81682 warned User:TheNorlo for bias canvassing. User:AlbinoFerret, that is your opinion it was not canvassing. User:AlbinoFerret, don't be surprised if you get banned. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only one here that didn't understood a word of what Quack just said? TheNorlo (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
All I see is that QuackGuru just presented evidence that he himself and other editors were conspiring to edit (meatpuppets). If he isnt blocked for this, he should be permanently topic banned from all Electronic cigarette articles. TheNorlo was not involved in that so I question why he outed himself. I asked him for an explanation on his talk page, which he deleted and did not respond. I was thinking about coming here about it. I was also looking for another post where one of the named editors in a post replied with "We".
I never said it wasnt canvassing, but that it looks to be the inadvertent breaking of a rule by a newer editor. That the canvassing was really limited to two editiors because the other two named were already involved so cant be said to be canvassed. That the two who were would have most likely seen a mention of this section on the Electronic cigarette articles talk page and come here and commented anyway. AlbinoFerret 13:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Just to correct you, my first edit was the 26 of October 2013, a little more than a year ago. But as I said many times, I am still new at this wikilawering stuff. But I get it now... I will not notify any body ever again about anything. I just find it weird that every editor that disagree with me are here. I'm sick of this anyways.... Let them have their ways, Merry Christmas, I'll be back in 6 months. TheNorlo (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose And yes, it might look as if i've been canvassed to lend my support here to TheNorlo, but in fact i have/had read everything on this thread earlier. I am supportive of the ban below, but there was already a pile-up, and i couldn't see any reason to add more to that conversation. But in this case, i can't really see any reason to ban (topic or otherwise), because i can't see any real wrong doing or misbehaviour. We all as editors have views, and if we can't express these, such as saying that we (along with some rather eminent scientists[36]) find the Grana et al. review to be rather crappy, then you might as well ban me along with TheNorlo... There is some incivil language pointed out above, but really considering that almost every person who disagrees with QG, Doc James and Alexbrn etc. have been called socks, SPA's, unwitting industry shills, fringe supporters etc... then there should be a rather big ban-hammer going around - and maybe there should. But this isn't one of the cases. --Kim D. Petersen 20:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Kim D. Petersen "can't see any real wrong doing or misbehaviour." That is a problem when one of his closest allies supports the continued behaviour problems. I would recommend to the closing admin to consider banning the editors who continue to support the behaviour problems. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. TheNorlo (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: if you really want to discuss WP:BOOMERANG.. then we should discuss your behaviour as well - shouldn't we? But you can be relieved by the fact that i personally find this "lets try to eliminate editors who disagree with us on AN/I" behaviour to be rather dispicable and low. Please do not throw stones when you yourself are living in a glasshouse :) --Kim D. Petersen 17:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Doc James and Noteswork. Civility issues seem to be the main issue here coupled with potentially some competence issues on what constitutes a reliable source and blatant self-described advocacy issues a section below this. Since the user appears to only primarily edit E-cig articles and appears to be an WP:SPA at my quick glance, the best choice here seems to be giving them a break from the article either voluntarily or otherwise. Better for them to start out in less contentious topics to figure out how to approach things civilly.
I'll also point out that aside from Noteswork and myself, we're left with involved editors in varying degrees. I'd ask the closing admin to be mindful of that. The drama from E-cig articles appears to have the community wanting to avoid it as much as possible. After following the conversations through boards for awhile, it does seem like there are pervasive advocacy problems among some editors, some of which are amongst the current opposes. That's not to say there haven't been some issues on the "other side". However, my read of all this over time has been that there's a group of editors who are very passionate about the topic and some appear to reach the point of defending E-cigs who dedicate a large chunk of time to the topic to say the least. This has resulted in other less involved editors having to dig their feet in to try to combat the amount of passion and time these editors spend on the article (sometimes over 18 hours a day). This is a hallmark of why WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI (in terms of passion, not for being paid) like behavior are so tough to deal with on Wikipedia. No idea how to actually fix that, but that's just the view I'm left with as an outside observer. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Kingofaces43 One thing I will agree with you is that the community is avoiding e-cig topics. Not just here but on other notice boards. This makes asking questions impossible. I have started or been involved on sections on the OR, RS, and NPOV noticeboards that have gone unanswered by uninvolved editors. How are editors supposed to find out if what they are doing or thinking is correct if no one answers them? I also disagree with the idea that some are involved in advocay. There are checks and balances in having editors who disagree on edits. This imho keeps the edits conforming to WP policy and guidelines. AlbinoFerret 17:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a little bit more of a user talk page discussion, but maybe it'll do some good for other folks to see it. The main issue I see at RSN, etc. is that you folks basically take over the board and continue the argument there when the board should be a place for outside opinion. Someone should post a question, and other involved editors are welcome to clarify or state additional info, but the primary goal should be to let other editors comment. Instead, the thread is swamped with the same back and forth between involved editors from the article talk page, and that essentially shuts down the ability for an outside editor to make an effective comment. In your case, I would say you are one of those editors that stands out sometimes. That's not me saying it's due to malice or anything like that, but simply that you comment a lot at those boards and need to learn to step back a bit. If folks follow that approach, that will open up the atmosphere for more outside comments, but some of the damage has already been done for the time being too. As for advocacy, I'm just saying that's what the behavior I'm seeing is indicative of. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Kingofaces43 Here is a perfect example of what I pointed out above. link There are only two posts, both on the same day and the second only clarified my question. It went unanswered until it was archived. TheNorlo was the other party to post. All that was asked is if it was a reliable source, no back and forth. I for one had doubts if it were but to prove it to myself I asked the question. TheNorlo wasnt sure, and I posted the question and linked to it to show him that there are places to go and ask questions without arguing. I also agree that it would be better if this were on a talk page, but its an issue that needs more eyes on it imho. AlbinoFerret 18:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I recall those threads pretty clearly. There had already been other threads previous where the issues I described were more clear. That was a point where I decided it wasn't worth it to comment as an outside party as I'm sure many others probably did to looking at the lack of response. It was actually threads like those that my damage is done comment was based on. I don't have a solution for that specific problem now other than hopefully time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, in the short term this creates more of a problem than it solves. On a contentious article like e-cig where there are editors who have not been exposed to such articles, it gives them no opportunity to learn outside of the articles talk page. Since the talk page moves so fast because of the total number of editors, there is no time. It makes arguments more likely to happen on the talk page, because no one answers the questions, the editor who asks questions is left to what they think is right. Outside editors answering questions can and does stop this. AlbinoFerret 19:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Kingofaces43 WP:ADVOCACY is specifically directed at editors who disregard reliable sources, and the overall gist of the literature in favor of their personal opinion - not editors who know something about the topic, have the time, or who are passionate about it. If we only measured editors more positive on how disinterested or how little time they put into a topic, then Wikipedia is lost. Or in other words: Since when has "passion and time" been a Wikipedia no-no in and of itself? It is the disruptive behavior, and/or the disregard of the literature in favour of personal opinions that is a problem - not time and passion. --Kim D. Petersen 18:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I was still talking about advocacy with the passion and time comment, namely when it reaches the level of being tendentious. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you have the wrong group of editors when you say it contains a tendentious editor(s). I dont see one section of any of that page that fits TheNorlo or any editor that questions what the medical group is doing (that being 90% one editor). AlbinoFerret 19:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Thinking about the "other group" I highly suggest reading this [37] if you're up for tongue-in-cheek humor by replacing version with editor or group. I like to do that to give myself a bonk on the head when I'm tempted towards fingerpointing in a dispute anyways.
Tendentiousness is a broad behavior issue, so it can be easy to overlook since it's at a more general level than just an isolated comment that can be diff-linked to. Disruptive editing, IDHT behavior coupled with competence issues, and others that can arise within content disputes are problematic and can give the appearance of POV-pushing. Those are some of the hardest behaviors to address here at ANI too. I'm seeing more of those issues stemming not from the med group (though one does have a history of really digging their feet in on some fringe topics) but from the other side of the court more often. That's been brought up to individual editors and at these boards, but it doesn't seem like the point has gotten across as there are combined editor behavior issues that are snowballing together to form the drama here. Either way, this is all my 2 cents at this point, so after reading this, I'd hope all involved editors take a moment to reflect on things they potentially didn't hear some time ago. Otherwise, I've given my thoughts on it all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
First of all, I woukd like to say that I have learned a lot from this little episode and that regardless of the outcome it's been very informative and will probably make me a better editor. That being said, I believe that the only thing that should warrant me to get banned is the insults that I have targeted toward Doc James, I accept that they were unacceptable and unproductive. I do not accept however the advocacy accusations. I believe that an advocacy accusation would require more proof than simply me saying that I am passionate about the topic. I would like to know which edit I've made on the article that leads to this accusation. I also do not accept the accusation that I disregard WP:RS. I am not the only one that thinks that a certain review article is being given to much weight in the article, even experts in the field says that this review is rather iffy. Calling it garbage might of been a little to strong but should not warrant a ban. Anyhow, I will tone down my language (as much as I can) in the future. TheNorlo (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite community and/or topic ban, per evidence presented by Formerly 98. ElectricBurst(Is there anything you need of me?) 00:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban of at least six months from all e-cigarette articles, broadly construed. The editor's "passion" seems to have clouded their judgment. The insults and canvassing seal the deal for me. Perhaps some time spent working on topics where they can be dispassionate, and observing the destructive effects of the unbridled passions of others, will enable them to mature into a productive editor. Perhaps not. Time will tell. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970[edit]

This editor is more concerning with evidence of 1) incivility 2) meat puppetry

  1. Here they link to one of their freinds twitter feeds outing themselves. Another one of their friends also tweeted the entire thing to me.
    1. Here he refers to those who do not support e-cigs (known as ANTS as "illiterate fucks")
    2. He also says "I've modified my clock to sound more like Wikiproject Medicine. Now it goes "dick doc, dick doc, dick doc..."" and much more
  2. He also has used his twitter feed to direct people to edit the e-cig article with some success. User:Entropy72 join after being invited. Among a few others. There is an active group that is trying to change Wikipedia's content on e-cigs to be much more favorable of the products. With a number of the other WP:SPA currently editing likely also related.

They have a long block log [38] and have had previous unblock request declined due to incivility [39]

Doc James (talkcontribsemail) 07:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry what? Outing myself? As what, me?
This is a Wikipedia noticeboard, Doc. It is not the Internet Police. What I say on Twitter is nothing to do with AN/I and very definitely nothing to do with you. And as for what VapeMeStoopid writes, take it up with her. I wish you luck.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 07:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Doc do you have any Diffs of specific incivility on wiki from this user? SPACKlick (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Twitter can't provide diffs.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I have not, to the best of my recollection, posted a link to my Twitter account on Wikipedia and I would much prefer it if other editors did not do so.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • FergusM1970, without actually putting myself fully into this I will have to play somewhat devil's advocate here. I don't like doxing or really bringing in one's personal social media accounts- I actually try to keep my personal social media accounts private myself. However at the same time I have to say that if you make comments on a social media account about an incident that you're currently involved in, odds are high that it will be discovered and posted on here- especially if it is particularly incendiary or comes across as you trying to rally others to come on to Wikipedia to help argue a case or a viewpoint. This may not have been your intent, but that's why you do have to be careful about posting on social media outlets and what you post. It's why I try to never mention anything on my personal social media accounts, because I know that these things can and will be brought up on here. This doesn't mean that I particularly like the idea that I have to censor myself off Wikipedia in any form or fashion, but if you do post anything off Wikipedia then you run the risk of it getting mentioned here if an editor thinks it may be applicable to an ANI case or incident. In this particular case you made a tweet on 4:05 PM - 20 Dec 2014 where you asked people to come to the talk page for an article you are editing and vote on a subject- something that is highly discouraged on Wikipedia because many of the incoming editors are often completely unaware of Wikipedia policies and their opinions may not fall within said policies- especially if you're asking them to vote a specific way. (It's also seen as WP:CANVASSING.) Tokyogirl79 (锝♀棔鈥库棔锝) 10:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not objecting to him complaining about anything I said offsite, and I'm easy enough to find if anyone's interested enough to look, but I don't post links to my own accounts and I'd prefer it if others didn't either. I did ask current Wikipedia members to contribute, which I realize was suboptimal, but as the RfC has heavy undertones of WP:IDHT and WP:FILIBUSTER, being opened immediately after an identical one found no grounds for the layout Doc wants, I was somewhat frustrated. Doc has been very problematic at that article and has managed to get it locked twice in three days by starting edit wars.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 10:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @FergusM1970: I am quite honestly disappointed that you allege that Doc "refuses to engage constructively" yet you are involved in such childish behaviour. Honestly? Grow the fuck up. And I suggest you and TheNorlo read the relevant policies before I sanction you for your problematic behaviour. 鈥Dark 10:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of canvassing? Please explain how. And pkease explain how my behaviour is problematic, other than the fact that I laughed at a joke and that I inderctly called Doc James an idiot and a moron, to which I've apologized. TheNorlo (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
He's doing his best to prevent any changes being made to the article, which is in a dire condition. As of yesterday there were a number of discussions and attempts to find consensus, some of which were making progress, but Doc started edit-warring to restore his preferred version and got the article locked again. Now he's repeating an RfC that was closed a few days ago. He seems determined to bring the article under the scope of MED, even though there are no obvious grounds for doing so, and to prevent any improvements unless that happens.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 10:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
SO that excuses your behaviour? 鈥Dark 10:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I shouldn't have posted that link to TheNorlo.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 10:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
It was organized per WP:MEDMOS for a good 18 months [40]. Yes you managed to get a number of people to join this RfC through your hard recruitment. This user has since been blocked User:CheesyAppleFlake and it was closed as no consensus. Since than our WP:SPA pertaining to e-cigs have expanded in number. Doc James (talkcontribsemail) 10:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
But the point is that it shouldn't have been organised per MEDMOS because it isn't a medical article. I know that you have some unconventional views on the subject but they are not supported by either general or medical sources, so the article shouldn't be organized according to them. Exactly one person joined that RfC at my suggestion and he made what looks like a moderate and reasonable comment.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 10:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPA expands not because of canvassing but because of passion. Vapers are passionate people because (get ready for this unsourced claim Doc) Vaping works and it as changes their lifes! And vapers go on wikipedia read whats being sais on vaping and realize that this article is preposterous and that they must do something about it. So spare me your theories on how we are responsible for this mess.TheNorlo (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt they do see what it says, because it's unreadable. Largely because Doc won't let any changes be made by anyone who's not coming from a MED position.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
This sort of "the other side is wrong and unreasonable because they refuse to accept my point of view" is typical advocacy behavior, and is not productive debate. This is exactly why we should not have WP:SPAs taking over our articles and using them for WP:ADVOCACY. Many members of this group are on the page pretty much 18 hours a day. It is impossible for anyone who is not willing and able to dedicate their lives to this article to engage in a meaningful way with discussions held among hardcore advocates and "consensus" decisions being made within intervals smaller than that between visits to the page of most non-WP:ADVOCACY editors. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that WP:ADVOCACY is a strong accusation and needs to be backed up with proof. Its to easly tossed around when people disagree with the other side. That some editors find the subject interesting and want to devote time to the article is being twisted into some kind of negative thing. But that investment in time, is to them, to make the article better. Something that is also being twisted. The SPA accounts is something that has been disproven but seems to pop up as an excuse to silence active editors. If you find something important, spend time doing it. If not all this looks like is a stumbling block is being tossed in front of editors who are active and who some have disagreements over content. Both of these sections appear to be on silencing editors in a content dispute. The excuses for silencing them now appears to basically be I dont have time to discuss things. AlbinoFerret 16:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I would ask you to review WP:ADVOCACY, which is not the same as paid editing, but simply putting support for a POV above having as one's primary motivation the building of an encyclopedia. I think the evidence for this is pretty straightforward. While not an expert user of the tracking software here, I seen that Fergus has edited Electronic Cigarette related pages 1193 times, and there are an additional 193 edits on ANI and other dispute pages that are likely mostly associated with the same subject. This is out of a lifetime total of about 4500 edits, with the 1193 being mostly recent and many of the non-Electronic Cigarette edits apparently being for hire. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit]

Yesterday, when I followed the link in the talk page conversation where FergusM1970 was insulting User:Doc James, I was led to FergusM1970's twitter account where he advertises that he is a paid e-cig shill. To quote: "Veteran, vaper, writer and paid e-cigarette industry shill." And he links to where you can contact him to write. I followed the link and saw mention of Wikipedia work. I wrote to him by email to ask him about the situation and to give me a list of all of his Wikipedia accounts and all the articles that created or edited for hire. He gave me an initial list and then revised it a few times. FergusM1970 denied to me by email that he is paid to edit the e-cig article. And he changed the twitter profile to add "And yes, I know, some of you really ARE too fucking stupid to recognise sarcasm. Tough.Deal with it." after the bit that says he is a e-cig shill.

Since FergusM1970 is a tendentious editor on the topic of e-cigs, and I answered a RFC on that article talk page last month, I decided to pass the information to @ User:Nuclear Warfare (who has dealt with him in the past) for evaluation and further action. I've not heard back from him yet.

I woke up to see that this discussion was now on AN/I, and also I see that FergusM1970 is trying to remember all the articles that he wrote and list them on his user page. A good number of them were deleted for lack of notability which kind of shows the problem with doing this type of work. I regret to say that I don't think that FergusM1970 is the type of editor that fits in well on Wikipedia. He has been block numerous times for not understanding or following basic rules. Yet, he is soliciting work to edit Wikipedia articles. For that reason, I support a ban from editing Wikipedia entirely. And if is to return ever, I support a permanent ban from editing in all areas related to tobacco including e-cigs. Sydney Poore/FloNight鈾モ櫏鈾モ櫏 16:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"I was led to FergusM1970's twitter account" No you weren't. You went poking around in my business just because you could, and oh my, I bet you were excited when you found something you could invoke Wikipedia's arcane and stupidly bureaucratic rules to deal with. Who the fuck do you people think you are, Interpol? How DARE you sit in judgement of my behavior, however vile, on a site that has damn all to do with you? How's the total number of active editors doing these days? Still going down because new editors are put off by the alphabet soup of rules and self-appointed guardians of the One True Way? It's people like Doc, with his wikilawyering bullshit and little clique of lackeys, that are driving editors away. Ban him and that illiterate cretin QuackGuru and you might get somewhere. Anyway I'm out of here. RationalWiki here I come.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The reason my profile says "Paid e-cig industry shill" is that I was accused of being exactly that after correcting Professor Martin McKee when he misrepresented some data. People who actually are paid advocates don't generally advertise it on their social media profiles, and certainly not using the word "shill." It's sarcasm.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
My antennae go up at anyone editing Derwick Associates. [41] As an editor quite familiar with Venezuelan politics and the entire suite of POV Venezuelan articles, it always appeared highly likely that something was amiss when a non-Spanish-speaking editor engages an obscure Venezuelan lawsuit affecting a couple of high-profile people. Why Fergus was editing that article never made sense to me, and he most certainly removed reliable sources, as I pointed out in the earlier e-cig thread.

On the e-cig articles, having read through some of the article talk (which reads pretty much like these ANIs), it seems that Fergus and several others there are unable to confine their comments to sources and content, and have disrupted the talk page with comments on contributors. I suggest a review of the e-cig talk page could lead to some topic bans. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As someone who has read the e-cig talk page and read that its a personal interest of FergusM1970 because he is a user of e-cigarettes. I doubt a topic ban is warranted, but look and see. This is a content dispute in which one side is trying to use editing on other articles to remove an editor they have a content disagreement with on e-cig. I see no evidence or any proof of paid editing for e-cig. AlbinoFerret 16:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Off and on wiki, FergusM1970 doesn't show signs that he wants to contribute in a collaborative way. It greatly concerns me when a Wikipedia user in good faith is trying to collaborate on a talk page, and has to put up with the level of vitriol that he is throwing on and off site. It runs off all of the sensible people who won't put up with the negative environment. It is especially worrying on a medical related article with high page views when is it really important that we follow the highest quality references and not let pov pushers take control. Sydney Poore/FloNight鈾モ櫏鈾モ櫏 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
He didn't have to put up with it; he deliberately sought it out. As for POV pushing, I'd suggest you read the discussion I had with Doc a couple of nights ago on his talk page about why he insists e-cigs are a drug. He is making claims based on what I can only describe as sympathetic magic, such as that an e-cig only becomes one when filled with a specific type of liquid and, the rest of the time, is something else entirely. That's not just WP:POV; it's WP:FRINGE. As for the article it's not medical-related, and this is the entire source of the problem. It's about a consumer product that isn't licensed for medical use anywhere in the world.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
As for what's running off the sensible people, Sandy has a great quote on her user page about that.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Google is your friend; blog discussing paid editing on Wikipedia's Derwick Associates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You got me. Hands up, I did it. Not that it matters, but I really wasn't paid for the e-cig stuff. Bye.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
But you have been paid by e-cig industry to write about e-cigs. So, your statements on twitter and on Wikipedia that you are not an e-cig shill are not truthful. you answered request and being awarded the work to write 8 SEO articles about electronic cigs. We have no way of knowing if someone was paying you to start these threads, too. Or if you just want to please your previous and future clients. It is not possible to have collaborative discussion with you since you are paid to have a pov. Sydney Poore/FloNight鈾モ櫏鈾モ櫏 18:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been paid by mattress shops too. If I commented on beds would you call me a shill for Big Duvet? I'm a freelance writer. I've been paid to write about everything. I've even written web content for a male chastity device shop, and I now know far more about those things than I ever wanted to, believe me. Shill for Big Padlock? Urgh. However, it's how I pay my bills so I can keep on writing fiction and feeding the damn cat.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 19:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Full disclosure[edit]

I am a freelance writer. Like practically every freelance writer today I frequently get asked to edit Wikipedia; I would say this happens on more or less a daily basis. I turn down almost all of these requests because they're along the lines of "Can you create a site for my awesome new company?" or "We need 100 editors to tell the truth about what's happening in Gaza." I do not do promotional edits and I do not do paid advocacy. However if I feel an article is worthwhile and likely to pass WP:N then sometimes I will write it. Nevertheless I am not being paid to advocate for e-cigarettes. I am doing this of my own free will because the article, on a significant topic, is in a deplorable state on multiple levels. I have submitted information on all the paid edits I have made to FloNight for investigation; I have nothing to hide.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay so you add peoples CVs to Wikipedia for money such as Jerome_Katz and Tony Succar
And you adjust companies articles such as Derwick Associates removing content they may not like [42]
You appear to even be willing to edit war for pay [43], [44], [45] Doc James (talkcontribsemail) 11:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You got one out of three. User:FloNight knows the articles I was paid to edit. I think that'll do for now.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
That's nowhere near good enough. Wikipedia's Terms of Use require you to publicly disclose any paid editing you have done on your user page or the relevant talk pages. You indicate that you continue to agree to the TOU with every edit you make. If you do not, I will block you. (In fact, I think there are grounds enough for an indef as is, but I will leave that up to the community to decide.) MER-C 12:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that; Wikipedia's rules are too extensive and convoluted for anyone to know them all. I'll get it fixed today.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Done.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Note that TOU demands disclosure of all paid editing, not some. 鈥Dark 13:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yep. I've erred on the generous side and included articles I edited while writing eBooks on the topic.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
If you wish to play it your way, so be it. I know irrefutably of several articles that you engaged in paid work on, that are not listed on your userpage. I hope you understand the repercussions of partial disclosure. 鈥Dark 13:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you want deleted ones as well?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@DarkFalls:, Care to share how you know this for a fact rather than making vague accusations? SPACKlick (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The evidence will be shared with the arbitration committee upon request, but no, I am not inclined to share here. 鈥Dark 14:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
User:FergusM1970, you should fully disclose all contributions you were paid for. If User:DarkFalls knows for a fact that you did not do that, I suggest that you get blocked for indefinite time, i.e. at least until you disclose those contributions. Maybe your next edit should rectify this problem? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
DarkFalls appears to know more than I do, which is certainly not impossible. I've found and added a couple more. I'll have another look later. Right now I don't have the free screen space to do a line-by-line search of my records.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 16:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
A few other company pages you have written for pay are Cartell
And I assume you are paid to help people try to keep their articles [46]?
User:SandyGeorgia may wish to take another look at the Derwick Associates
Basically all your edits need to be scrutinized Doc James (talkcontribsemail) 11:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
She's welcome to take another look. As for Cartell I'm quite happy to tell FloNight why I created it. As I said, I have nothing to hide so you can scrutinize to your heart's content.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You could not pay me to care about Derwick Associates (and I already showed that Fergus removed reliably sourced info). There are much bigger POV problems in the Venezuelan suite of articles, and that is such an obscure topic that I've long wondered what would motivate a non-Spanish-speaking, uninvolved-with-Venezuela articles editor to find or even care about that article. Fergus, were you hired to deal with that lawsuit on Wikipedia? How did you come to be interested in an obscure Venezuelan lawsuit? Do you speak fluent Spanish? If not, how can you read the sources, the majority of which are in Spanish? I can assure everyone that editing-for-pay goes around in Venezuelan articles, because I've been approached several times (and refused, thank you very much). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I found it through "Random article". I do that sometimes when I'm bored. Usually I just have a read, correct some spelling or punctuation and move on (that's why I edit things like Orange is the new black, Archie McPherson or Sudarium of Oviedo. I'm not interested in prison porn, retired football commentators or fake relics either). Derwick was in such a mess I saw it as a challenge. As I said, I used a machine translator and calls to my sister in law in Salamanca.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 16:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but it still stretches my imagination that considering all of the routine and rampant Corruption in Venezuela, someone who doesn't speak Spanish and can't read the sources would care about an obscure lawsuit affecting a couple of very powerful people in Venezuela. Going to the trouble to make calls and machine translate sources on an obscure lawsuit in a country where corruption is the new norm isn't something that makes sense to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Frankly it stretches mine too; I have no idea why I bothered. Then again I have no idea why I spent so much time on the shroud of Turin either; arguing with relic believers is utterly futile. All I can say is it seemed like a good idea at the time.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 16:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You thought it was a mess, so on your very first day of editing there, you first removed numerous reliable sources and next tried to have the article deleted. You then went on to use a government source to add original research and POV.[47] And then, only nine days after you "found it through 'random article'", you are expressing knowledge of a Venezuelan blogger and accusing another editor of socking. [48] Curious that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Comment Yet another section on AN/I to try and remove editors on the other side of a content dispute. While the actions of those accused are not the best this is purely on an article Doc James is invested in and is even willing to edit war to win edits. Doc James is the reason the page is currently protected for 3 months. See Electronic cigarette section in this dated archive. This is an attempt to remove very active editors from a talk page that has an RFC started by Doc James and many other proposed edit sections the editors are involved in. Its easier to remove others you disagree with to win rather than work with them. As for the comments made, Doc James is involved in those discussions arguing for the sake of arguing and pushing buttons. That doesnt excuse some of the comments but puts them in perspective. I for one think Doc James needs to walk away from the article for awhile. Evidence of why is the second RFC on the same topic that Doc James started before but didnt get consensus for his vision of the article. Its getting to be disruptive and calls for stopping the second RFC are strong. AlbinoFerret 12:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
What so the meat puppets and WP:SPAs can manage the article on this multi billion dollar product so that it matches their associations / industries point of view and not that of the World Health Organization, Center for Disease Control etc? Doc James (talkcontribsemail) 21:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You're blinded by your loathing of THR. I am very far from an industry advocate. I know perfectly well that we don't know much yet about the long-term use of e-cigs. I know that there's very likely some residual risk. I don't want to see non-smoking teens take up vaping. Yes, I'm pro-vaping, but that's because a) I know exactly how effective they are for smoking cessation, and b) I keep up to date with all the science and not just one aging activist in San Fiasco who doesn't have a single medical qualification to his name. There is an emerging scientific consensus than they're two, possibly three, orders of magnitude safer than cigarettes; nobody is claiming they're anything like equivalent in risk. There's no evidence of a gateway effect, despite what's been claimed in borderline fraudulent "reviews" that claim to pull longitudinal data from a cross-sectional study. The exhaled vapour doesn't contain harmful levels of anything. But the Wikipedia article doesn't convey any of that. Instead it's full of stuff about particles, all based on one outlier of a review. One review says the particles are the same size as in cigarette smoke, at 100-200nm. THREE say they're from 250-600nm. Guess what one you want to use? Your preferred review also neglects to mention the fact that particle density in vapour ranges from 6 to 880 times lower than in smoke. There's a lot of stuff about metal particles, but not the fact that the levels of those particles are 10 to 50 times lower than the FDA permitted limit for an asthma inhaler. In short you are filibustering and edit-warring to preserve an article that is not only incredibly POV, but also so badly written that if my ten year old niece handed me it I would be embarrassed for her. People are not joining Wikipedia and editing there because I have recruited them to my international shill cabal. They are editing because they have found the article and recognised that it's crap. You don't have to worry about me any more, so take a step back and look at it again. Maybe read a few papers from someone that isn't Stan Glantz or Margaret Chan. Because if you don't, I guarantee the problems will continue until you finally step on your crank so badly that it cannot be overlooked.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to agree with AlbinoFerret that is not helpful to the content dispute, this even approaches Wiki Hounding. Per WP:NPA Comment on content, not on the contributor.If you think you see a long term problem with FergusM1970 gather more evidence before coming back here (or go to arbcom) Avono (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
In the past week I've reported Doc James twice for edit-warring that resulted in an article having to be locked. I suspect that's not entirely unrelated to this.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Also note this diff here where Doc warned me for edit warring when I'd made a single revert. This took place one minute after he'd made his own third revert[49][50][51], repeatedly restoring his preferred version in place of one resulting from an edit request while the article was locked; the article was locked again three minutes later. This looked like an attempt at intimidation.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would say that I find it pretty remarkable that folks engaged in WP:ADVOCACY to the extent that >95% of their edits are on this one article, who have engaged in personal attacks against him, would accuse Doc James of edit warring. And suggesting that the article was locked because of Doc James is simply a mis-statement of the facts. I requested that the article be protected, and I did so because ADVOCATES began making massive POV edits the moment the previous protection expired. Doc James actually added a comment supporting the protection shortly after I requested it. It is very difficult for me to understand how the facts of this situation came to be so completely mis-stated here. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but that, frankly, is bollocks - just like your claim earlier that the last RfC was open for one day (it was eight weeks). The "advocate" started cleaning up the construction section after the protection was lifted; it was Doc who started making massive edits, and the renewed protection you asked for rather conveniently went on right after he'd used up his last revert. As for your "95% of edits" claim, meh. Whatever.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 16:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
No that's not correct. The RFC ended up in deadlock. Then a second vote, based on the incorrect and disputed premise that there was a consensus for change, was held on how to reorder the content. It was closed within 24 hours, and an edit request made to the supervising Admin, with no one notifying those who, not being dedicated advocates, do not check the article talk page multiple times a day. It was a clear effort to stuff the ballot box. Another reason why we don't benefit from having advocates dominate our editing process. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@Formerly 98 That appears to be a twisting of WP:ADVOCACY, there is no question that FergusM1970 has edited other articles as a paid editor, which he has disclosed. But there is no proof that Electronic cigarette was anything but a personal interest. I also thing that you are completely wrong on the reason E-cig is currently locked for 3 months. Its clear that it was because Doc James reverted 3 different editors to win an edit war. The Electronic cigarette section in this dated archive clearly shows why it was protected. Your request for protection was on the 18th, the page was unprotected on the 20 and Doc started an edit war. The 3 month protection was because of a section in the 20th arcive detailing that edit warring. AlbinoFerret 16:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
After the page was locked Doc started to try and get his edits another way by an RFC. Two of the most vocal commenters against Doc's position in that RFC are now named in this section. Its a content dispute. AlbinoFerret 16:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Community ban discussion of FergusM1970[edit]

Reclosing. FergusM1970 is banned from en-wiki per community consensus in this thread. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Per this and the evidence above,[52] a ban should be discussed. I suspect the rest of the isses at e-cig will take care of themselves if Fergus is removed from the picture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind adding to your header, User:SandyGeorgia. I came across this request on Elance, where "Wade" is looking for "... Someone with knowledge of the E cigs industry to write content for us for SEO purposes. ...". An assignment awarded to Fergus Mason. Adding this as evidence for both the abovementioned case, and for the suggested ban. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Beetstra, add whatever needed to my header; I'm not following anymore. The e-cig situation was bad enough, but people make their own choices about smoking. Many people have died, and many more lives have been ruined, by corruption in Venezuela. I need to vomit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Elance should start charging you fuckers rent.鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by FergusM1970 (talkcontribs) 18:12, December 22, 2014
Ah so Fergus is making edits for the e-cig industry on Wikipedia at 25$/hour. Thanks User:Beetstra that explains a lot. We should probably look at a few of the other WP:SPAs who are editing aswell. Doc James (talkcontribsemail) 21:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Talk about adding two and two and getting Avogadro's number. No they're not, you brain donor. Go read my work history; seems like every other bugger has, so why not you?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ban. I spelled out above the reasons for a ban. Someone who either does not understand Wikipedia policy and guidelines, or does not care about them should not be accepting money to create or edit Wikipedia articles. And his tendentious editing of e-cigs and comments on twitter that he linked to himself makes it difficult to see how it is possible for him to work collaboratively on Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight鈾モ櫏鈾モ櫏
  • Support - though a plain indef block for violating our wmf:Terms of use would be enough (why is that not a standard block reason?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Striking this per above added evidence for violation of the wmf:Terms of use and now being co-proposer of ban. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) While I can't comment on the ban given the evidence above I would say I highly doubt removing Fergus will resolve all the issues at e-cigarette. His edits only go back to the 3rd of December the problems go back way further than that. SPACKlick (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
No his first edits were to Ruyan [53] a ecig manufacturer back in July 2013 followed by electronic cigarettes shortly there after.
His first edit to e-cigs involved removing a review article from a well respected journal [54] and it just went from there. He was actively working on other paid jobs when he started. Doc James (talkcontribsemail) 21:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC
I've mentioned the concept of Id茅e fixe to you before; now you seem to have another one. Your current fixed point is that the problems at the article are caused by me being a paid advocate for "the e-cig industry". (There isn't really any such thing, but I wouldn't expect you to know that. It's actually quite complicated.) Your Id茅e is wrong; I am not, and never have been, paid for editing that article. The problem is that you cannot let go the idea of making it a medical article. You now have a medical article, under MED, called Safety of electronic cigarettes. You've barely touched it. Apart from Quack's initial slathering of word salad, which of course has resulted in an unreadable mess, about the only person who's done significant work on it is me. And weirdly enough nobody complained about my edits except Quack, and even he went away when I pointed out that the text he claimed I had deleted was in the first sentence after the lede. I don't know if this trouble-free editing, without adding or removing any significant information, suggests anything to you. But maybe it should.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is clearly a content dispute and dredging up things from the past and outside WP to try and remove a very active editor from Electronic cigarette. If there is proof of problems on other topics perhaps a topic ban from those articles is possible.AlbinoFerret 17:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The problems go way, way beyond a single content dispute that is happening now on the e-cig page. Sydney Poore/FloNight鈾モ櫏鈾モ櫏 17:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I do agree that this is a content dispute, but in violating the terms of use and our NPOV-pillar they, as a side effect, removed themselves from that dispute. I also don't think that the dispute will end here, nor that it started here, but that is is irrelevant for why a block and/or ban should be applied. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
He just supported his own block, Im out as I have nothing to say about other articles and will not support paid editing, especially without disclosure. That cant be defended and wont be defended by me. AlbinoFerret 18:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support community ban, and suggest a re-investigation of the old SPIs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Not because of the e-cigarette dispute, but because FergusM1970 repeatedly stated above that he wasn't paid to edit the Derwick Associates article, only to finally admit that he was when presented with evidence. Clearly, a contributor who refuses to comply with requirements regarding disclosure of paid editing until obliged to by evidence cannot be trusted to have fully disclosed such paid advocacy now, and cannot be trusted to make such disclosures in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Highly problematic in a number of respects, and showing no sign of contrition. Has damaged the project and the signs are will continue to do so if allowed to. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support an indef block. Don't waste your time on the SPIs though. About the one thing I hate more than petty-minded tuppenny Hitlers who think they're it because they have admin rights is sock puppets. There are more urgent problems needing sorted out on Wikipedia than Phantom Pherguses that aren't even there.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Alexbrn and per the comments above by FergusM1970, who makes the case for his own ban more eloquently than anyone else possibly could. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Most of what I do is real writing and I am pretty good at it. Perhaps you could buy my chupacabra novella for a few young adult relatives this Christmas? It's on Amazon. You can find a link at my Elance profile, seeing as you all enjoy having a good poke around there.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per ATG. Violating ToS in regards to paid editing (and then lying about it to boot) should always be an insta-ban. Any attempt to play the victim in the e-cig realm is just an irrelevant diversion (and bad faith at that, given it was being used to attempt to get someone else sanctioned while simultaneously engaged in own misbehavior). If we cannot trust what he says, how can we have good-faith discussions or accept at face value that given cites support content? DMacks (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support indef block/ban. User does not appear to be making edits in good faith. ElectricBurst(Is there anything you need of me?) 18:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. I'd have blocked me half an hour ago. The suspense is killing me. 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by FergusM1970 (talkcontribs) 18:17, December 22, 2014
  • Support bc of the lying, a misuse of community trust. Avono (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
God, this is painful. Or pitiful, one of the two. Someone just please pull the trigger FFS. It's not like it's controversial, is it? Even I don't disagree!--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
FergusM1970, what's being proposed here is a community ban, not just a block. It's a more serious matter because you will have to appeal to the entire community or ArbCom to be able to edit again. Normally the discussion will stay open for at least 24 hours so people have a chance to weigh in. If you're really eager to be blocked during the discussion I'll oblige, but maybe you'd like a chance to be part of the conversation. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ban - In my opinion, there's no place at all on Wikipedia for paid editing, but even if one takes the position that paid editing is allowed as long as the editor is totally out front about the COI, this editor doesn't qualify for a pass. BMK (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support community ban from wikipedia and also from e-cig topic areas. In terms of the e-cig. I'm willing to accept that the twitter shill thing was probably sarcasm, it dooes seem like it was only added recently. So it's possible there's for once no paid editing (alhough the denials obviously don't mean much in themselves and it appears they have been paid to write in this area before for something). However the problems the editor has shown in this topic area combined with the fact it appears to be something they care strongly about and the poor history suggests they probably should be kept well away from it for a long time. As for the general ban, well the paid editing is bad enough. The initial denial was not only poor form and dumb (I mean the links on the blog still work, so it should be obvious even without the blog it won't be hard to work out), but suggests an extremely poor level of basic research or something equally bad.

    To explain, I found the wordpress blog about FergusM1970" & Derwick Associates a few hours ago by simply searching for the name "FergusM1970". I didn't mention it here because of our outing policy and figured someone else (e.g. DarkFalls) would likely bring it to arbcom. Also, although at the time FergusM1970 had added stuff to their username without mention of Derwick Associates, they hadn't explicitly denied (that I saw) that they edited that article for payment, this was before they claimed they came across it via the random article here. Since the wordpress blog is dated late 2013, I'm guessing it's been easily findable for most of this year just like I did. While searching for yourself may seem a little vain, if you're going to try hiding some of your paid editing, logic would suggest you should perhaps at least search for your name just to make sure there isn't something widely known if you haven't done it in a while. So either this wasn't done, which raises very serious WP:competence issues for a place like wikipedia where research is necessary. Or searching was done but FergusM1970 either thought no one else would find it, or they'd already decided to go out in a blaze of glory. None of these scenarios suggests FergusM1970 should be allowed back easily.

    Nil Einne (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree; in fact I shouldn't be allowed back at all. It would probably give me hypertension or ulcers or something. More desk splinters in my head, at least. Anyway, someone actually sent me a link to the blog last year, but I just shook my head ruefully and forgot about it; you'll appreciate that from a moderately talented writer's point of view it wasn't exactly the high point of my career to date. When Sandy posted the link I had a major WTF moment. Never mind. You're spot on about the "shill" thing. Any time we dare question The Word Of The Almighty Glantz about vaping we get labeled as paid advocates, shills etc. We're just people who don't want to smoke any more, have found a solution and aren't going to let it be taken away, so it's pretty bloody annoying.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 21:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The point is, if you're going to blatantly lie about your actions, it makes sense that you should know your lies are not discoverable within about 10 seconds by searching for your wikipedia name (i.e. the most basic research of all). And wikipedia does require some degree of basic research skills, beyond simple writing skills so whatever you skills in the later, the apparent lack of any in the former does cause grave concern. (Since you're a freelance writer, I would have thought it matters there too. But that's obviously between you and your employers and the nature of wikipedia disputes means this probably won't become something people are likely to find.) For that matter, forgetting that you were already caught out suggests an inability to remember important stuff. Important for the reasons I mentioned earlier (i.e. an area not to continue to lie about), not because the blog may have been a high or low point of your career. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I take your point. I generally am pretty good at research, although some of my skills are a bit specialized, but I certainly dropped a bollock on that one. As for it being important, it really wasn't; I've done a few hundred writing jobs by this point (mostly not on Wikipedia, by the way) and that was one of my earlier ones. Anyway I have a lot to do, and what was the point of making a big effort? I should have listed it, but it wouldn't have made any difference in the end. Oh well, I could always go to Conservapedia; they're positively allergic to fact-checking. And facts. Anyway, there's probably enough of a consensus to ban me now, don't you think?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well I never said anything about a big effort. As mentioned, 10 seconds, i.e. probably less time than it took you to write the silly random article comment or any one of your replies on this page was all it took. I'm not saying the job itself was important. I am saying the issue itself was important because for whatever reason you apparently decided it was something to lie about. And there's a big difference between not listing it or mentioning it, and coming here to claim you found it from the random article link which is clearly untrue. As mentioned earlier, when I first came here and found that page, the only thing of note was you didn't list it, which seemed silly but not such a big deal. Oh and there were the insinuations by DarkFalls, the primary thing which made me search for your wikipedia name, and I would have thought you too. I come back to find you dug yourself in to a very big hole for whatever bizzare reason by saying you came across the page by the random article function. Unless you're now claiming you not only forgot about the blog, you forgot you were paid to edit the article, and then just made up some crap about "random articles" rather than going through your records to check, or at least just not saying anything if you didn't know, which is almost as silly. Presuming you are really editing e-cigs solely for personal and not professional reasons, you should by now appreciate it was incredibly silly. Paid editing is frequently look upon very poorly, and when you have that history, it best to not get involved in anything controversial you care about. It pays even more if you're not willing to be upfront about your paid editing when challenged (or at least run away rather than making up silly stuff). Frankly if I had the same feelings about you towards e-cig articles I would be majorly pissed, fortunately I don't really give a damn (or if anything lean more the other direction). Nil Einne (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I forgot the blog but I did remember editing the article, of course. As I said, not something I'm very proud of; I realized fairly quickly that Derwick were, if maybe not as bad as Batiz said, well on the way.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah but that's the point isn't it? Even if all it was is you were embarassed to admit you'd edited it perhaps because of what you found out about the company, it's a little bit silly to then forget someone had already noted your involvement. And so think it's okay to come up with this random article story which frankly is about as silly as those "my brother did it" that we get, generally from minors. (As said, even having forgotten someone had already noted your involvement, it's also a little silly to think no one would find out when the pages where you were awarded the jobs are public.) These comedy of errors all adds up to suggesting you're "not someone we want on wikipedia" even given the most generous spin. (And I've now spend probably an order of magnitude or two more time replying than I ever did searching & reading about your paid editing, so won't be replying further even if this does further illustrate my point.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
As I say, I really didn't give it that much thought. After all what was the big deal?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
From my point of view obviously. I appreciate it was a major breach of TOS, although I didn't know about disclosure until today.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ban for clear violations of our terms of service regarding paid editing. The editor has proven that they are not here to build a neutral, well-referenced encyclopedia. The massive chip on the shoulder seals the deal. I recommend that the paying clients ask for refunds, since a more honest and constructive attitude to editing may have helped to improve rather than disrupt the articles in question. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ban per above. Should Fergus be allowed to return it should be subject to an indefinite topic ban in eCigs at the very least, if not also all topic areas related to products, businesses, and medicine (given the paid editing concerns). I also suggest referring this to the Foundation for the type of TOS-level ban that we've started to see enforced lately. 鈥/Mendaliv/2垄/螖's/ 22:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh god, I was joking! I actually got permabanned from Conservapedia about an hour after finishing The Greatest Show On Earth. User:Conservative created a whole blog about me. They're not as bureaucratic as here but damn, they get really excitable when you mention Richard Lenski. Nah, RatWiki's more my scene. It's OK to snark there, and if anyone launches personal attacks everyone else just breaks out the popcorn.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
"I know I don't smoke. I don't inhale because it gives you cancer. But, I look so incredibly handsome with a cigarette in my hand ... that I can't not hold one." - "Woodbine" Allen. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I have a bit of a thing for steampunk, so I actually prefer big polished steel or brass devices. The whole "not dying in my 40s" thing is just a bonus.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

With so many people arguing to ban me I almost feel like I should put up a fight. It seems somehow rude not to. How about, as a compromise, you give me an indef topic ban from everything but let me fix spelling, punctuation and grammar? I'm not really fussed either way but you'd get to banhammer me and, seeing as I'll still be using Wikipedia for research every day, I won't boil my blood looking at all the errors. As I say, it's no biggie, but this way if anyone's really annoyed I've asked for something you can say no to. Just a thought. Obviously I won't take any money from advocates of the Oxford Comma; even I will only stoop so low.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment from a disinterested editor here (and not having read completely the volumes above), but instead of willfully accepting an indefinite topic ban, why don't you instead willfully make a concerted effort to absorb the criticisms given and indefinitely change the behavior that seems to have irked people so? Seems that might make everyone happy... quite possibly even you. 鈥 JBarta (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
In principle I'd say yes, but I've thought about it and I'd rather just make a clean break. I've been at Wikipedia for more than seven years and there's no doubt the atmosphere has changed. While a lot of the hierarchy are admirably flexible and helpful, plenty more are the sort of people who, in another life, would have been traffic wardens or public sector customer service staff - always too eager to reach for a rule and apply it as narrowly as possible. My nemesis, Doc James, is a perfect example; he's forever gold-plating rules. There's another one below; certain types of paid editing are strongly discouraged, and others are a WP:N violation, but as long as you follow the rules (I didn't) there's no blanket ban. Gold-plating, either through applying rules he/she isn't familiar with or out of bloody-mindedness. No, it's just a less welcoming place now. That's why so many new editors don't stick around; some tinpot Stalin jumps on their first edit waving a fistful of acronyms and they just say "Bugger this, I'm off to watch cat videos." My heart isn't in it any more. Sorry; I do appreciate the thought.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
In fact I'll expand on that. If a new editor turns up and starts editing on e-cigs Doc immediately decides they're either an SPA or a puppet of me. Except maybe they're just someone who saw the article about a fast-growing activity, realized how shit the writing is and wanted to improve it. They're not going to feel very welcome when they're greeted with that sort of suspicion and hostility.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, I've been here for going on TEN years and I find it to be much the same. Over time, immersion can create the illusion of things getting worse simply because negative experiences pile up in our memory... but the issues were always there... you're just noticing them more. I too have had a run-in with DocJames and found him a less than exemplar co-editor (at least in that encounter) but that could as easily be said about anyone by anyone else... and he may well feel the same about me. Such is the nature of the Wikipedia beast. A bunch of passionate, overly-blessed-with-intelligence editors, usually of differing views, different approaches and many with a combative streak all tossed into a pot and expected to get along. The reality is a dysfunctional bastard of the ideal... but in the end it does work. At any rate, it seems you have made up your mind. If you dive back in at some point, I hope this episode will result in future editing to go a little smoother for you. 鈥 JBarta (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You could have a point there. My experience is that organisations tend to ossify over time, and my assumption is that that's also happening here, but I'm certainly not going to bet my life's savings on it. But yes, I have made up my mind. I'll sort of miss it, and I do think I've made plenty of good-quality edits that have improved the encyclopaedia, but the topics that actually interest me are minefields and there's limited satisfaction in fixing the typos or grammar fuckups I find while I'm researching. It's especially frustrating that this has blown up just when we were starting to make real progress on the e-cig article, by concentrating on the bloody awful writing and leaving the content pretty much alone, but hey. You win some, you lose some. And now I'm off to finish an eBook on Louis Vuitton because, unlike the e-cig article, I get paid for that. Have a good one.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ban Paid editing is prohibited by the TOS per here this isn't a Wikipedia English policy this is a Wikimedia foundation policy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually no, it isn't. Not as a blanket policy anyway.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ban It is possible to argue that being a paid advocate can lead to improved articles, but there is no way to pretend that the encyclopedia is assisted by a paid advocate who bludgeons editors trying to oppose such advocacy, as seen with the provocative language in this section alone. Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah well, I've done exactly one paid advocacy job, a year and a half ago, and I was glad to be shot of it. I don't think it improves the articles at all.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
That's not what your user-page says unless that "one job" was multiple articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
There's a difference between paid writing and paid advocacy, or more precisely one includes the other. I did one paid advocacy job, on Derwick Associates.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This is actually the most enjoyable night I've had on Wikipedia for a long time. I'm even swearing less because I don't have that frustrating feeling of banging my head into a flabby, amorphous mass of bureaucratic dough. So, in a weird kind of way, thanks guys.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support ban and refer to WMF Legal as per my threat above. MER-C 02:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A warning will suffice. Most of FergusM1970's edits have been generally constructive. -A1candidate (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, don't bother. Even I'm not opposing it. I agree that a lot of my edits have been constructive, perhaps even most (and the vast majority were certainly unpaid, including all of them before 2013) but I'm not temperamentally suited to this sort of consensus-building process. I'm happy to leave; it's time. Everyone will be happier, and if anyone misses me they can come visit me at Twitter. Let it go.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter, the fact is that Fergus got paid for it which means someone benefited from having the information added, money talks big in the real world and sometimes WP:AGF can only go so far. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ban - I almost don't want to !vote because it seems like piling on at this point - so perhaps it's time to close this. FergusM1970 is violating the Terms of Use and many policies and guidelines, e.g. WP:NOTADVOCATE, but he is also clearly violating an important part of WP:PAY
"Paid editors, especially those who are paid by the hour, or who submit "billable hours" to justify their salaries, must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. No editor should be subjected to long or repetitive discussions by someone who is being paid to argue with them. Any editor who refuses to accept a consensus against his or her position by arguing ad nauseam will likely be violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Disruptive editing, WP:WikiBullying, WP:Own or WP:Civility."
This is a key reason that it can be impossible to deal with paid editors - they never shut up. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Not that it's particularly important now, but I haven't accepted hourly-paid jobs for a long time, only fixed price ones. I did violate WP:PAY, however, because I didn't disclose that I was being paid.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I am also a self-employed freelancer, but the difference between FergusM1970 and me is that I have never accepted a penny as payment for editing Wikipedia and never will. I edit Wikipedia as a volunteer activity. In my off-Wikipedia work, sometimes I work on a fixed price basis, and sometimes on an hourly basis. I make that decision based entirely on whether or not I can accurately predict in advance, based on past experience, how long a given job will take. One approach to pricing is not morally superior to the other. In both cases, I am fully committed to the best interests of my paying customer, disclosing to them everything that I know as a professional in my field, that they may not be aware of. I have my doubts that this editor has informed his paying clients of the risks they face in doing business with such a sloppy editor. As a published freelance writer for decades, I am almost as unhappy for deceived clients as I am for this editor's disruption of the encyclopedia. I recommend the virtues of silence to this editor, who seems to enjoy spouting off in a most inappropriate way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Shrugs. I'm not making any moral claims. Hourly just doesn't work for me. Anyway my clients seem happy enough.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
At this point I feel a consensus is clear would anyone be willing to close this so we can move on to other things? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Suits me, although I wouldn't mind finishing my conversation with Doc. No biggie. Maybe I could ask him to ban me when we're done?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I reversed the closure as premature. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Given the contentious nature of the subject being discussed (debated/argued/lambasted/beleaguered), how can this result in anything but a gathering of those opposed to paid editing? Any vote to the contrary will simply be used in the future to call into question the neutrality of their edits. I'm not for or against the issue, but debating this issue should not require a scapegoat. --Scalhotrod (Talk) 鈽儲鈽 18:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally I'm fine with getting banned, because Wikipedia eats up far too much time when I could be doing something constructive instead, but you have a very valid point. This is not a referendum on paid editing, because paid editing is not against the rules. I am not being banned for taking money to make edits. I am being banned for taking money to make edits without subsequently disclosing it, as I should have done.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 21:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

OPPOSE this vote - --Scalhotrod (Talk) 鈽儲鈽 18:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


I'm bored. Can we talk about how Doc James claimed to be a clinical assistant professor on his user page despite the University of British Columbia faculty site not listing him as one?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 21:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Impressive. So here we have Fergus editing my user page [55]
Yes UBC is slow at updating their website.
Here is a link [56]
And here are the tweets that he cc me on [57] and sent to UBC about this suposed discrepancy. Doc James (talkcontribsemail) 23:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't CC you anything, Doc, and you cannot hold me responsible for what other people do.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry yes, you just sent them to UBC. It was your friends that cc'ed me Doc James (talkcontribsemail) 23:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, it might spur them into updating the list a bit faster. I've asked people not to tweet you but I can't stop them, and the fact is a lot of vapers are angry with you.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

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


86.2.216.5[edit]

This individual has accused me of copyright violations, but after I have asked him where. He has simply ignored my questions. [58] He basically called me a liar [59] and has had a very rude tone with me in general. [60]

Ater I repeatedly asked him where my alleged copyvio's were he stated my userspace. [61]. I am sure that he knows that userspace isn't for copyright as he has fixed references on my userspace. He puts forth the claim that I am upset that articles I wrote had delete votes. [62] I have authored over 40 articles, and if someone votes to delete it, I don't take it to heart. What I find bothersome as per WP:HOUND is that this user has been going through wikipedia, editing a good number of articles that I am at, my userspace articles, and AFD's. [63] .


This is not his first issue of disruptive editing. [64] and warning to those who report him. [65] I asked that he stop following me on pages, insulting me, and editing my userpages. [66] CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I just looked through those links, what exactly is the behavior in question? It simply appears to be someone taking a contrary point of view and expressing concerns. If I am missing something please point it out. Chillum 07:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I am being falsely accused of copyviolations, called me a liar, etc. Also about 50% of his edits this month have been on articles I created or participated in or on my userfied articles. 30% of his edits from mid october are on my userspace, articles I created or userspace. I am not sure who (s)he is, but his recent behavior has caused me to become annoyed as per wiki hound. I ask that you have him stay away from me. I am only trying to create good articles. His name calling and otherwise rude behavior isn't helping my desire at doing this. CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by "userspace isn't for copyright"? (A copyright violation is a copyright violation, wherever it is). Squinge (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Squinge, I have not copied any text from any website. I summarize information and place a reference on my userspace. CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I responded to your question re the copyvio and posted the relevant link at least twice. Two of the pertinent parts: "I linked the relevant details re the copyright issue when stated above, WP:CWW contributions to wikipedia are subject to a license which requires attribution, copying and pasting a whole article loses that attribution so is in breach of the license. " and "You cut and paste the whole article, the original article in your userspace has more editors than just you. Those users as per the link given licensed the text requiring attribution, that's where the problem arises.". If you followed the link WP:CWW it's about copying within wikipedia, cutting and pasting an article around wikipedia loses attribution. That is the case here (and another you recently have done into user space). That's a copyright issue. It's not the biggest issue in the world and in this case would be easy to fix, but it's an issue.
As for the rest of your claims I'd like you to back them up, I have presented a situation with the evidence, you are inferring from that various things and then attributing those things you've inferred to me. As for hounding you, that's laughable. I've engaged with you on two discussions both in the last few days, other than those (and this now) there is no turning up everywhere and making your life difficult. I noticed one article on DRV a while back and put some effort into fixing the citation into proper citation templates, something which was highlighted by others in the DRV and something others have spoken to you about. You know I did that because I half suspected if you stripped away the junk there might be an article there. If helping out constitutes hounding then I am at a loss.
In this overall case I have pointed out and instance where you have ignored the consensus in a DRV and gone ahead and recreated the article, I've fixed citations on a user space draft or two, I've fixed citations on a mainspace page and tagged it for questionable notability. Rather than accept that the recreation wasn't too wise and appreciate the effort spent tidying the articles you'd rather attempt to ban me from pointing out any future problems like the first one. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
One more thing with regards the mudslinging suggesting I've been warned before please see this. My user talk page was tagged with a warning by an obvious vandal since I'd tagged one of his hoax articles for deletion. Another user obviously not familar with user page policy decide I wasn't permitted to remove such warnings from own talk page. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I ask that you stay off of articles that I am editing in my userspace. The point of me using it is to create an article and move it to userspace. I neither invited you nor did I want your edits. You have followed me onto many articles for I am not sure what reason. you openly mocked me and have put me down on even this AN/I . How are over 50% of your edits this month on articles I have either created or interact on? You have been following me on articles since the middle of October. I created this article Latoya Hanson and you edit on it within two days? That is WP:HOUND . I am not sure who you are or what you want with me. If I have interacted with you on a username or an article before, please tell me so that I won't edit on that article. I am unsure why you are following me around. CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#User_pages the edits are valid edits fixing the citation style. I have not followed you onto many articles, I have edited that one in your userspace having seen it at DRV to fix citations, more recently I fixed a duplicate citation in another article you listed on DRV (I hang around DRV generally) and finally I fixed some citations on Latoya Hanson which I saw when reviewing your edits. That is 3 articles where I have fixed citation style, not many articles. I am not hounding you (You should read WP:HOUND "...and joining discussions on multiple pages..." as noted above I've engaged in two related discussions with your over the last few days and that's it, hardly following you around), as previously stated I could easily have gone to the AFDs which are running at the moment and just blindly voted delete if I wanted to annoy you. Your sole annoyance seems to come from the fact that I was willing to point out that you had recreated an article in direct contravention of the DRV consensus. If it helps I will voluntarily agree not to bother trying to fix the articles in your userspace. I will not be restricted from fixing issues on articles on mainspace regardless of who wrote the or commenting at DRV/AfD. If you want to avoid scrutiny I suggest you start reading and understanding the policies before acting, perhaps a mentor? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You can vote as you please. That isn't what bothered me. Following me around making inflammatory comments toward me is annoying. You stating that I am disingenuous and knowingly violating wiki policy is bothering me. I have not done this.

There are hundreds if not thousands of articles that you can go on. A large percentage of your edits are on my articles since October 14!

  1. Latoya Hanson
  2. User:CrazyAces489/Ron Duncan
  3. User:CrazyAces489/Jorge Gracie
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiyoshi Shiina (2nd nomination)
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Duncan (martial arts) (2nd nomination) 鈥

"Wikihounding WP:HOUND is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." I am telling you now that I am annoyed with you following me around. Please stop! Please!CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I highlighted the significant part for you and I'll do it again. joining discussions, which I haven't done, but you seem to think "you can vote as you please" is fine. You have this policy 100% the wrong way around. Of those you list one is a discussion I joined in (and one doesn't make following around), and one is a discussion where I made a minor tweak to not include fair use images outside article space where our WP:NFCC requires them to be. These are both in the last few days. Again your complaint of this on going hounding is nonsense. I've been fixing citations that is not some dark way to irritate people, it's a way of improving the encyclopedia. I've been doing this without any other interaction with your for a while, since the DRV where one editor pointed out " Needs work on the format of the references.", and another "the references are very poorly formatted.", I'll contrast that with your response to the DRV where people bemoaned the poor formatting, using unreliable sources etc. Your response - ignore the formatting and just pile in a load more trivial and/or unreliable references. I'm really wondering if there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue here. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment since we are here having this discussion and I don't want to now go to one of the AFDs and comment, can someone independent take a look at this and this which appear to be notes to two editors who previously opined keep and seems to be a WP:CANVAS problem. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the two of you only seem to be talking to each other you can do this on one of your talk pages. If you wish a response from an administrator then just wait for one. Chillum 23:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I will wait for an admin. I simply ask that he stops following me around. CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Since no other admin has commented I will give my opinion. I think that CrazyAces has taken offense at what is legitimate criticism. I think that Mr. 86.2.216.5 may be in the right but despite that should be the bigger person and avoid CA as much as is reasonable to do. If neither of you object I would like to close this discussion. If not then I will take that to be an indication that administrative action is desired. Chillum 10:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly I object to CrazyAces489 characterization of following him around, let alone on many pages. He managed to come up with 5 pages we had in common, two of which were drafts listed at DRV which I frequent and have done so for a long time, if he wants to avoid DRV then that's fine, but I'm certainly not going to feel bound to ignore stuff listed there due to the authorship, nor making tweaks to obvious minor problems with the articles like citation style. The other two are not articles, but deletion discussions related to the DRV, so same there. I'll also note his main gripe of me editing his userspace is somewhat peculiar, since as I noted I've been gradually chipping away at the cites for two months without a word or problem. It's only now that I point something out he's all in a flap about it, I'll contrast that to other similar things from DRV like Honour (film) which in part is back in main space due to the effort I put in, the original author of that is flapping around shouting the odds. That all said, as I said many paragraphs ago and this could easily have stopped then, but has just continued to be poked at "If it helps I will voluntarily agree not to bother trying to fix the articles in your userspace." And with that it's Christmas and I'll be away for a few days, so have fun --86.2.216.5 (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
His "help" has come with relatively rude comments to me on "AFD's." I am again asking an admin to speak to him about these comments to me. I wold prefer he NOT follow me around Wikipedia. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

At this point it is not likely this is going to get an admin response. I see nothing wrong with the IPs actions, CA needs to take criticism better. This IP has been working in the AfD areas for several weeks now and if you edit there you are likely to see this IP. Since no admin actionable behavior is happening here I suggest you two work it out of your talk pages, learn to work together or just ignore each other. Chillum 16:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Vejvan膷ick媒 refuses to change tack[edit]

I request some assistance again with respect to Vejvan膷ick媒. On 13th December I had written here requesting suggestions on how to handle user Vejvan膷ick媒 who was repeatedly attacking me and refusing to back off despite my request. Jehochman suggested to Vejvan膷ick媒 to not refer to me again on Wikipedia, except to request arbitration, or to make peace. Vejvan膷ick媒 confirmed on his talk page that he would follow Jehochman's suggestion. Unfortunately, the very next edit that Vejvan膷ick媒 made after that, which was today on the talk page of an article in reply to some IP,[67], Vejvan膷ick媒 again has made a personal attack mentioning my name and various references of mine to again (and again) allege his allusion that the article was created (ostensibly by me) to show the subject in bad light. To the IP, Vejvan膷ick媒 chats up about starting an arbitration request (!!) and that these links alluding to me should be pasted on the talk page of the article for editors not familiar with the situation. I request help for some kind of a closure on this. If Vejvan膷ick媒 wants to file an arbitration request, he's welcome to do that. But he should, in my opinion, at least follow some decorum in the meanwhile. Any guidance to handle this will be welcome... Wifione Message 11:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Retire. That would be the honourable thing to do. Your activity was seen for what it was a long time ago. Andreas JN466 18:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to spend time now reading the very long backstory here. The advice I gave was for that editor to ignore you, or to go provide his claims at Arbitration. If he ignored my advice, my intention was to file arbitration myself to get the issue resolved one way or the other. Since I'm too busy to do that today, I suggest you go file Arbitration and get these issues cleared up once and for all. Jehochman Talk 00:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Wifione, your comment above, "Vejvan膷ick媒 confirmed on his talk page that he would follow Jehochman's suggestion" is misleading. Vejvan膷ick媒 actually said, "Hello Jehochman. I'll follow your suggestion ad (1)"
The "(1)" he agreed to was Jehochman's first suggestion: "(1) if you want to file a request for arbitration to desysop or ban him". He agreed to none of Jehochman's other suggestions in that conversation.
You are an obviously biased editor. Your biased editing of articles about that business and its owner and their competitors is sufficient to have you desysopped and banned from Wikipedia.
You appear to be an employee or contractor of the company: you (most likely, given the circumstances and nature of the edit, or someone else) editing from that company's network made a maintenance edit to your user page.[68] But proving a financial connection beyond doubt will be difficult. Fortunately, that won't be necessary. The blatant tendentiousness of your editing alone disqualifies you from participating here. --Anthonyhcole (talkcontribsemail) 07:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Jayen, Anthony, thanks for commenting. I've read your viewpoints and disagree with your views completely. I do realise the genesis of your opinions lies on another website where you've been judiciously prompted to provide this analysis. Given this connection both of you have outside our project, I don't think any reply of mine might suffice for you, although I would be more than eager to provide them to you in case you might wish. At the same time, I should thank you for taking the time out to comment (honestly, I suspect I would have died in embarrassment if no one from your group had commented). Wifione Message 18:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Jehochman, thanks for your reply. Would take up the matter procedurally from hereon in case Vej continues his personal attacks. Thanks. Wifione Message 18:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

(Wifione closed this discussion with the comment, "Closing discussion and following this up procedurally." Well, I've re-opened it procedurally, in order to respond to this shill.)

I don't do anyone's bidding here. You do. For that, you'll be banned. I saw this mentioned on Wikipediocracy and was stunned that you weren't banned the last time this arose. Resign, or drag your client through a humiliating spectacle. I don't care which you choose. --Anthonyhcole (talkcontribsemail) 00:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi again Andrew. It's not about anyone's bidding, but your off-Wiki coordination leading unto these comments and personal attacks from you, Jayen and the others belonging to your group that are quite obvious from your off-Wiki discussions with others. Like I said above, although it might be useless for me to reiterate it given your antecedents, let me again put forward that your attacks and outing attempts are extremely misdirected. Having said that, I'll again close this discussion with the slim hope that you and your off-Wiki group would see some sense in not running down a very ludicrous path. Again, although it might seem out of character, in return to your comments above let me wish you and your off-Wiki group a merry Christmas. It's not meant to prove anything or to slight you all... just plain old wishes the plain old way. Take care and wishes for the season. Wifione Message 15:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
It would be becoming if you would addresss the substance of the allegations instead of trying to shift the burden through the fallacious argument of guilt by association. The fact that criticism may come from wikipediocracy does not mean that the critique is not valid. The question is if you are an advocate looking after specific corporate interests. Following the links posted here I have seen quite a bit of evidence that would strongly imply that you are. That is the impression you would want to provide counter arguments to, making ad hominem arguments about the messenger doesnt really help your case.User:Maunus 路蕧aunus路snun蓯w路 06:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipediocracy is not a club, Wifione. Anyone who wants to critique Wikipedia/Wikimedia may post there, provided they're not terribly boring and stay roughly on-topic. Even you. My only two comments about you there are in this thread yesterday where, rather than conspiring with other pure evil psychos to unfairly undermine the hard work of a neutral volunteer, all I do is express my sincere astonishment at your continued residency here and continued possession of advanced privileges. --Anthonyhcole (talkcontribsemail) 06:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I've undone Wifione's second hatting of this section. Per WP:INVOLVED, I really don't think it's a good look for an admin to make repeated attempts to close a discussion about their own behaviour because it isn't going the way they'd like it to. It doesn't matter who started the discussion, an involved editor has no place closing it. When you bring an issue to WP:ANI, the behaviour of all parties will be examined. I'm sure that's written down somewhere, and I'm sure an admin such as Wifi should know that. Thanks. Begoontalk 15:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggest topic ban for Wifione from all Chaudhuri related articles, broadly construed. Would solve most of the problems fairly quickly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not enough. We're here to provide free knowledge. He is WP:NOT HERE for that, but to deliberately bias a specific topic in favour of one party, to the extreme detriment of people who buy that party's product. He should simply be permanently banned. --Anthonyhcole (talkcontribsemail) 03:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
It's a good idea, and the minimum we should do really, but it doesn't address the amount of sheer deflection this guy has done, whilst an admin, to continue the POV pushing, the disappearance for months while good faith editors waited for a response at his editor review, or the arrogant disregard towards concerns. Hell, even Jimbo said he hoped the guy would just slink off quietly. That didn't happen. We have to deal with it. It should be easy.
This is an editor with admin priveleges giving Wikipedia an enormously bad name, who has tried every trick to avoid accountability.
I voted for the guy at RFA. He fooled me. I'm embarassed now because this is so transparent. Begoontalk
Begoon, I noticed that you too have landed here after being prompted by Wikipediocracy colleagues. And you too have unhatted this discussion. I won't rearchive this discussion, for your benefit. But would suggest that it'll be better if there be less personal attacks whilst you wish to discuss any issue that I might have deflected. I have complete regard for any issues this project's community members have, but no regard for Wikipediocracy canvassing and attempts to out me. The editor review you mention was opened up by me, and not by anyone else. I don't think I've left any question of any of this community's members unanswered. If I've treated Wikipediocracy members who commented on my Editor Review with less regard for their queries, that purely is because of the legacy they come with. I do hope you're able to see the issue for what it is. I'll keep a watch on this discussion for any comments that may be required of me from this community's members. Thanks. Wifione Message 17:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Drop the WP:BADSITES related bollocks. Everyone who has called for you to go here at ANI is a long-term Wikipedia user in good standing. Hell, Begoon voted for you at your RfA. Newyorkbrad and Worm That Turned are retiring arbitrators who are active on WO - if they came here and banned you, would you whine about them? WO editors are not "sheep", there is no house POV, no one was canvassed. The issue is very straightforward; you're a corrupt shill who is trying to censor all criticism of yourself. If you had one shred of integrity, you'd have quit for good after your editor review. There are no personal attacks here at all, merely statements of fact. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing will happen here as the issue is too complex. Someone needs to start a user subpage for collecting evidence of on-wiki edits that show a problem, and perhaps post here to invite contributions. I have no idea whether there is any basis to all the claims. One reason to be skeptical is that many misguided editors trying to puff up organizations, particularly those in India, and it is quite possible that people who do not like Indian Institute of Planning and Management have posted junk there over the years, junk that Wifione has removed. The WP:LTA/IAC case shows that hysteria does not mean the accused is guilty. Accordingly, some solid work needs to occur to compile evidence. Per WP:POLEMIC, an evidence page would have to be actively worked on with an aim to presenting a case, probably at Arbcom. Many of us would be glad to assist, but those who believe there is a problem need to document what is known beyond vague claims. Johnuniq (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

  • That already exists - Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione. Also, do you seriously think that Wifione would let such a userpage exist? No, it would be deleted and obfuscated wherever they could do it. Why should we have to document things again, just because some people can't be bothered to look at existing pages like this one? Half the evidence is inaccessible to non-admins anyway, because Wifione has already hidden it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The only reason there could be to believe that Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione doesn't contain all the necessary evidence would be that the reader has been successfully blinded and exhausted by wifione's walls of deflection. Just try reading it without those comments. Nevertheless, if necessary, I'll spend a few minutes a day over a short period distilling it to something less daunting. Can't start that for a few days though, so if someone else gets to it first, excellent. I reiterate, though, that it is all already on that page, and it's a shame if obvious TLDR obfuscation tactics succeed in obscuring that. Begoontalk 01:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not complex, Johnuniq. Take a good look at Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione. It is obvious what he's up to - obvious enough to warrant a permanent ban, if we're serious about what we're doing here. To drag this through a further evidence-gathering stage and then to arbcom would, in my opinion, just (1) delay the inevitable and (2) needlessly waste the time and energy of good-faith editors just to extend the semblance of due process to someone who holds us and our shared enterprise in contempt, with no material benefit. (That said, in case it comes down to that, I'll start on an executive summary with diffs in my user space and move it here in a day or so if this isn't resolved by then.) --Anthonyhcole (talkcontribsemail) 03:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
If anyone wants to examine edits, the following may be useful.
Edits by Wifione (talk  contribs) to four articles, with consecutive edits in a single diff.
Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Lukeno94, with you as the latest addition sent from the Wikipediocracy thread who has been prompted to come here to post your message, let me re-clarify the issue about your group. The BADSITES issue is about the editors commenting on the two Wikipediocracy threads who've been collaboratively directing personal attacks and attempting to out me, which includes you, Begoon, Vejvan膷ick媒, Anthonycole and others. Your group members' remarks and presuppositions on those threads and here are plain and simple personal attacks and outing attempts. Claiming that NewYorkBrad or Worm are Wikipediocracy members (and therefore perhaps that gives you the justification required to post such comments) is missing the point completely. NewYorkBrad and Worm (and even other Wikipediocracy members who are primarily Wikipedia members) are not the least like some of your group members whom I've mentioned here. NYB, Worm and some others have the ultimate trust of the community, (including mine) unlike your group, which may not measure up on that factor easily. Your statement that I've tried to censor all criticism, is unfounded and lacks any basis. With respect to your other statements (corrupt shill, lacks integrity), these are again just direct personal attacks. And your statement, that there are no personal attacks here, is paradoxical. Wifione Message 04:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Begoon Luke, your statement "Half the evidence is inaccessible to non-admins anyway, because Wifione has already hidden it" is again completely unfounded, and I suspect, an off the hat comment taken from your Wikipediocracy thread. With respect to my Editor Review, thanks for pointing out that I've not yet deleted it. Given Vejvan膷ick媒's attacks and outing attempts on my Editor Review, you are right, it's a wonder I've kept the page so long. Although I may have deleted the review whenever I wanted, I had kept it this long simply for ensuring trusted community members have access to the same. Perhaps that didn't quite work with you. Why don't you or Andrew Anthony make a copy before I delete it? For your benefit, I'll keep it as-is for a couple of days more. As mentioned, I'm watching this page for any clarifications trusted community members might require of me. Thanks. Wifione Message 04:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Er, I didn't post any of the remarks you attribute to me there, although I must say I do largely agree with them. Do not imply again that I am not a "trusted community member" because I hold an opinion which I have also discussed elsewhere, or that my position is anything but my own. Also be very careful who you attribute remarks to. Who is Andrew? Begoontalk 05:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Wifione, if you're going to try and slander people... at least bother to make sure you're attacking the right person, will you? I said "Half the evidence is inaccessible to non-admins anyway, because Wifione has already hidden it", not Begoon. I do hope other people are noting the veiled threats of obfuscating the editor review here. Also, I'd like to see how I'm not a "trusted community member" - I've been here for nearly four years, have around 19k edits, and have never once been blocked (and the only sanction I've ever had was an IBAN with someone who turned out to be a sock anyway). I would indeed lodge the statement that we probably have about ten times more trust than you do. I think it's fairly obvious that I'm not a sheep, and very few people on WO are. There IS no attempted outing, because very few of us give a flying fuck about who you are - all we care about is that you are dragging Wikipedia down with your corrupt shilling. Oh, and thanks Jehochman for doing the decent thing and filing a request for arbitration. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Following my own suggestions, I have filed a request for arbitration. I think this thread can be closed, and further discussion can proceed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Wifione and, if a case is accepted, the evidence and workshop pages. Jehochman Talk 04:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Begoon, mistakenly wrote your name instead of Luke's. Have corrected that and the other name (Andrew > Anthony). Other than that, I'll continue the issue at Arbcom. Thanks. Wifione Message 14:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Wifione, I was just reading through the above and noticed you mentioned deleting Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione in the future. There is no valid reason to delete that page and you shouldn't be the one to push the button if there is a reason. If you think it should be deleted you should nominate it for deletion at WP:MFD and let the community decide if it should be deleted. -- GB fan 14:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, you are right. My statement was just a push off to Begoon and Luke, nothing more. I had created the Review for specific reasons, and that is to ensure that the editors out here do get a complete synopsis of my review. I intend maintaining that. Wifione Message 15:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I didn't understand that. Just to be sure it's really clear: You don't have the right to, at your whim, delete pages to which others have contributed, as you did here. --Anthonyhcole (talkcontribsemail) 16:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, now that really isn't a good look is it? A "push off" you say, Wifione? Could be one of the most prophetic phrases you've used here... Begoontalk 17:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • So, in other words, it was meaningless bluster intended as a distraction Wifione? Gotcha. You're going to have to try harder than that to save your skin. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of Martin Hogbin[edit]

Martin Hogbin has failed to get consensus that Scottish should not be considered a nation at Talk:James_Clerk_Maxwell. He has failed to change policy to force people not to use Scottish at a nationality at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Nationality_of_people_from_the_United_Kingdom. He was struck down when he proposed that, if people disagreed with him, then all references to nationality should be deleted at Talk:James_Clerk_Maxwell#We_must_remove_all_references_to_nationality. His latest section? Talk:James_Clerk_Maxwell#Maybe_it_is_time_for_Arbcom.

This editor is, quite simply, becoming a disruptive, one issue account, and it's time he stops. I propose he is banned from all discussions of the various British nationalities, broadly construed, for one year, as well as any edits to change them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Read through the discussions, and it is quite obvious that the behavior is not helpful. But does it warrant a one year topic ban? Maybe a shorter period to see if he can contribute to the project in other areas? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Cwobeel: If the ban is appropriately construed, I can't see how it would block any useful editing. It would stop him from changing nationalities in articles, and opening discussions seeking to change them or the policy surrounding them.It wouldn't stop him editing anything else, unless he violated his topic ban and was banned from all editing for a time over the issue. The only possible issue is with new articles he creates, but even then, it wouldn't limit him very much. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understood the scope. But isn't a year a bit too much? - Cwobeel (talk) 鈥 Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I have done nothing whatever to warrant a topic ban except to disagree with one group of editors and agree with another in one article. Any admin who topic bans be because they disagree with me would be seriously abusing their position. I am proposing to take the case to Arbcom anyway. If they decide to topic ban me that is fine but to do so prematurely would be most improper. A topic ban cannot be used to push one POV.Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Martin Hogbin: The reason is was brought here was to get community consensus for a topic ban - not for a single admin to implement one. Not sure it's "premature" at this point - might even be a bit late (read: I agree with a 3-month topic ban), and it's certainly not a case for ArbCom. You agreed to live by WP:CONSENSUS when you started editing - perhaps it's time to drop this battle (for now) and move onto something more useful and less painful? the panda 鈧 23:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
This is an outrageous attempt to suppress one (well sourced) POV in an article. I am not a lone editor with a crazy idea there are several editors who totally agree with me that the article is currently 'factually incorrect' as proved by several very reliable sources. There is a similar sized group who disagree with me. We are currently discussing the subject in a generally civil fashion to try to reach a consensus. I have now proposed a compromise solution that is fully in accordance with WP core policy, that we state no nationality until there is a consensus on what it should be. I have not edit warred that proposal but continue to argue that in the circumstances it is the right thing to do. What is wrong with that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
At present, regarding my compromise proposal, there would appear to be three editors supporting it and three against. Should we topic ban them all? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK, Martin Hogbin hasn't been edit-warring or vandalizing pages. The timing of this report is troubling, as MH is currently considering the Arbcom route, concerning the situation surrounding WP:UKNAT. Let's be patient & let those discussions run their course. PS: Please note, there are editors who support his proposals. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a minority - he's been voted down every time he's brought it up. He's basically engaging in forum shopping, taking it everywhere. Threating Arbcom over a content issue is not laudable behaviour, that's part of the problem - he will not drop the subject when consensus goes against him, he his attempting to use every single process, from changing policy to forum shopping to threatening to take things to Arbcom in order to force consensus to overturn to how he wants it. That's not good. At all. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

For those of us new to this conflict, can you provide some representative diffs as examples of the alleged disruptive behavior? Gamaliel (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd echo Gamaliel's request. From what I could see (looking at this for the first time), there was some edit warring recently but the amount of discussion on the talk page (Talk:James Clerk Maxwell, in particular the nationality section) in relation to whether the infobox should list him as (1) nationality - British & citizenship - none, or (2) nationality - Scottish & citizenship - British, or (3) nationality - Scottish & British & citizenship - none, or (4) nationality - none & citizenship - none, is excessive and utterly disproportionate to the reliance placed on such information in the infobox. Can Martin Hogbin (talk  contribs) and FF-UK (talk  contribs) confirm whether they would be willing to take voluntary binding restrictions on this issue in relation to the article, and if so, the specific scope & duration of such restriction they would be prepared to accept? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that there has been much discussion between myself and FF-UK on the question of whether the infobox nationality should be 'British' or 'Scottish'. This has mainly consisted of the presentation of sources and lines of argument. However, as neither of us has succeeded in persuading the other of anything, I would be happy to agree to cease this discusssion forthwith intil a suitable venue for achieving consensus is agreed.
Regarding my proposal to leave the infobox nationality empty until true consensus is reached, I firmly believe that this is the only option in line with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@Martin Hogbin:, thank you. Can you please also clarify that this would also extend to ceasing making any edits in relation to nationality/citizenship on the article itself? I also @FF-UK: to ask that he confirm if he is willing to accept a voluntary binding restriction on the same terms.
I did notice your proposal for the article when trudging through the overwhelming discussion on the talk page, but this was not agreed by others. As this is assessed as a GA, I don't think anyone here wants it becoming unstable over this disagreement, and policy does not always work immediately and absolutely in practice as everyone would have gathered by now. So as jarring as the latest version might appear to both of you, it was apparently made in an effort to compromise. Would you be prepared to accept that version until a properly constructed article RfC has concluded with a clear consensus? From both perspectives, the overall "harm" if any is fairly low in this version (bearing in mind the reason I specified above for characterising the relevant talk page discussion as disproportionate in size). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Any topic ban would be better aimed at those who, as ever, seem to see this issue as an opportunity to go into bat for their most favoured nation on an individual page (usually, funnily enough, their own and rarely anyone else's) rather than taking the broader view, looking with an open mind at how to present sometimes conflicting information and asking the simple question: "What would help provide consistency and clarity in a specific infobox field for readers across all pages?" And the opening claim in this thread is utterly misleading to the point of being deceptive: this debate is not about whether Scotland is a nation or any attempt to deny that. Yes, MH has zeroed in on this issue, but what precise evidence has been presented of actual disruption for the lynch mob to look at? It's this kind of agenda-driven, point-scoring behaviour, combined with the gang mentality, that makes so much WP content unreliable and/or meaningless and trying to edit here so pointless. N-HH talk/edits 12:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I suppose I should also say this to be clear; in asking both Martin Hogbin and FF-UK as to their willingness to accept voluntary binding restrictions on the issue in relation to this article, this is not an indication that both editors are not making any positive contributions towards the article or the project. It is just that both editors have been the main players editing/discussing this issue exhaustively to the point that anyone with fresh perspective does not want to go near it, and the quantity of discussion between them is very disproportionate. There is little they can add usefully now which has not already been said by them. Hopefully this will assist in attracting outside input. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I am happy not to edit the Nationality field to 'British' until there is a clear consensus on what to do next but what I have proposed is a compromise. One side, including me, want the nationality field to be 'British' and the other want it to be 'Scottish'. My proposed compromise is to have nothing at all in the nationality field. (Nationality - Scottish, Citizenship - British is how the article was when I came; there is no disagreement about citizenship). I would not object to removing both fields until the matter is resolved but to leave it as it is is not a compromise at all.
Surely leaving the two fields blank is the correct thing to do as neither has a source and editors cannot agree what to put. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
There's also a "Citizenship" field set to British. So your "compromise" is to remove "Scottish", but leave "British" in the infobox. "Compromise" does not mean, "give me everything". Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Exactly! this is not a compromise - it's another means to achieve the same outcome; As I have said to Martin on the essay page, when a particular avenue is closed, he simply tries another one - and always with the single intent of removing "Scottish" in lieu of "British". This "compromise" is just another means to secure Martin's intended outcome. FDCWint (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Just an update - I have left the a message on both Martin Hogbin's talk page [69] to clarify and asked FF-UK on his talk page [70] to clarify. If both agree, we should be able to move forward.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Please note that I said just above, ' leaving the two fields blank'. I have no problem in blanking the Citizenship field if it helps. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist, thank you for your constructive intervention. I am happy to agree to accept a voluntary binding restriction on the article itself, as Martin Hogbin has done, however I note that he has not extended that to talk pages and has continued to edit there. I will not be initiating any new talk activity, but there are two issues which should be recognized.
1: it is not just MH but also an IP editor who reflects and supports MH's opinions. This editor started editing on the nationality issue on 30th October (as far as I can tell) and from then till this edit all edits were exclusively on nationality. So far he/she has sequentially used eight different BT WiFi hot spots, each for a few days at a time with no overlap. These IPs are 109.152.250.125; 86.145.98.85; 109.152.249.9; 86.180.32.141; 109.152.248.204; 86.129.126.155; 86.180.33.175 and 86.163.109.109. In total they account for 157 edits. Adding that to Martin Hogbins's 255 edits on nationality since his first edit at James Clerk Maxwell gives a total of 412 (compared to my 114 on nationality).
2: Both Martin Hogbin and the IP have a habit of mis-stating the points made by others, misquoting sources, mis-using sources, quoting invalid sources (eg a bootleg mirror of Wikipedia for Schools and an outdated (by 100 years) version of Encyclopedia Britannica which not only describes JCM as British, but gets his birth date wrong by 5 months!), denying sources, even deleting valid references in the article! (eg this deletion from the IP, a deletion which was subsequently repeated by Dave_souza!). Both Martin Hogbin and the IP have generally displayed a disregard for the truth. I will not allow any further dishonesty to pass without remark. Otherwise I will refrain. FF-UK (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Updated IP edit history. FF-UK (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Support per WP:BATTLE. Martin Hogbin has a long history of going to war in places where he finds a grey area, such as the fact that Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom was never elevated beyond an essay, even though it exists to help the community understand, as others have noted, the "flexibility" involved. Martin is anything but "flexible", and stubbornly takes one extreme and threatens to fight anyone who attempts to move to the center. I'm not just talking about this topic, this has gone on everywhere Martin Hogbin shows up. So putting aside the offensive nature of his argument (as it insults Scottish people everywhere by denying them their identity), the problem is Martin's penchant for black and white thinking in every discussion, and putting a virtual sword to the throat of anyone who disagrees with him. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Please do not confuse the issue with identity, I am referring only to the nationality field of the infobox, which I suggest we leave blank until we have a true consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Martin your position is well known. On your talk page you said, "The essay that you point me to is nothing but the opinion of a few editors, with all dissenting opinion ignored. There is no nationality of 'Scottish' and certainly no authoritative sources saying that Maxwell's nationality was Scottish." The community disagrees with you on those points. We will never have a "true consensus" (does there exist a Martin Hogbin argument that isn't fallacious?) and the existence of the essay is evidence for this lack of consensus, and this has been pointed out to you many times. Your behavior is disruptive, and insisting that we all drop what we are doing and discuss this all over again to reach the same outcome as before is tantamount to lunacy. Adam is correct in trying to put a stop to this. Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Incapability to follow consensus and few other issues including the forum shopping. Noteswork (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose He is simply trying to make the articles accurate Flagators (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Martin is simply trying to keep articles accurate and prevent them from being used by pressure groups to promote their political causes. 86.180.33.175 (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Martin certainly likes to edit controversial pages. He does this with care and thoroughness. Researches the sources, looks for consensus, follows wikipedia policy. We need more editors like him on wikipedia. Yes he looks for support when engaged in some controversy. Who doesn't? Richard Gill (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC) (Incidentally the problem in question is simply that the word "Nationality" has two quite distinct meanings, and both sides need to be more flexible, and admit the existence of an alternative meaning of the word. I see an equal rigidity of thought on both sides. The question needs to be discussed at a higher level eg through a RfC) Richard Gill (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • It was. He proposed a policy change. It was voted down. There's looking for support, and forum shopping. Threatening arbcom because a vote goes against you goes beyond both of those. He's not threatening arbcom over behavioural issues, he's threatening it because people disagree with him. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I lost a vote on what I admit was a poorly worded and ill attended RfC on whether nationality should always refer to the legal jursdiction under which the subject falls. I think my poor wording was not understood by some respondents.
On the Maxwell article I have since proposed an obviously neutral compromise that, until there is a clear consensus, we should put nothing in the 'nationality' field of the infobox. That is what is given as the reason for my proposed topic ban at the top of this section.
I am not 'threatening' Arbcom I am going to put the case to them, because I think it is of vital importance to the integrity of WP. They will decide whether to take it or not.Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Martin is not the only editor arguing his side, there are others and therefore he cannot be considered an SPA, or a lone wikipedian fighting a loosing war. Oppose! KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've been watching the relevant discussions for some time and have deliberately stayed away because it's a minefield and a time-drain. But I find it troubling that we're now looking at topic bans. I don't entirely agree with MH's point of view, but I have sympathy with it. However difficult it may be to debate with him, I see editors on the other side who are equally intransigent. I see no behavioural grounds for a topic ban. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It is very easy to lose sight of the facts as they become lost in the huge amount of text generated by MH, myself, and others. Firstly, everyone should be aware that neither MH nor myself have added any new material to the article. The disagreement is solely about MH's insistence that material should be removed, or changed (delete Scottish, add British). My point is that the sources we have clearly identify him as Scottish, the infobox (added by Canadian editor Je at uwo in 2006) originally stated that he was Scottish, and has remained so for most of the time since. My editing of this page is limited to reverting errors, I observe the guidance provided at Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. I do this because I have a very strong interest in the subject, James Clerk Maxwell. I am actually a Trustee on the executive of the James Clerk Maxwell Foundation which owns and preserves his birthplace in Edinburgh as a museum. (However, my editing should not be taken as an official position of the Foundation.) Secondly, both MH and others who wish to change the infobox have, on many occasions, tried to suggest that the reasons for Maxwell's nationality being shown as Scottish lie with some sort of nationalist conspiracy. Analysis of Je at uwo's contributions to WP show an editor with a deep interest in science, and no obvious interest in Scotland, so it certainly seems unlikely that he had any political motivation to push a Scottish Nationalist viewpoint. I have declared myself to be proudly English, but living in Scotland. I am very pro-union and was an active campaign worker for the "Better Together" campaign opposing independence during the recent referendum. I have no interest whatsoever in promoting the nationalist cause. However, MH clearly has an inability to understand any motivation other than nationalism could lead one to support the maintenance of accurate Scottish history and respect for its culture. It is this cultural blindness that appears to lie at the heart of his campaign. FF-UK (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, again AFAIK, Martin Hogbin hasn't been edit-warring over or vandalizing any UK bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Noone ever said he was. The problem is that he's forumshopping, and will not accept consensus that doesn't go the way he wants. Particularly with a minefield topic such as nationalities in the UK (historically, somewhat oppressed), it's really stirring up hornets' nests to be threatening Arbcom - not over a behavioural issue, but in order to attempt force Scottish nationality to be listed as British - which is, of course, not a valid use of Arbcom, and to be suggesting it shows a complete lack of perspective on the issue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Arbcom should be given the opportunity to accept or reject Hogbin's request. BTW, Martin Hogbin is not threatening Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Martin is most certainly threatening to go to Arbcom - I realise from your talk page message that you haven't seen that idiomatic construct before, so let's let this pass. Let's review. He started a thread on the talkpage, was outvoted. He went to Village Pump to change policy, was outvoted. He proposed a "compromise" that was no such thing - a previous compromise was "Citizenship: British; Nationality: Scottish"; he wants to remove the "Scottish" part, and only the "Scottish" part and is acting as if this is a compromise. He is now - without justification, threatening Arbcom on the heads of anyone who disagrees with him. (I trust I can use that idiom now?) Arbcom do not take content issues, but Martin has made it very clear in the threads linked that he will not accept any consensus that doesn't expunge Scottishness from the infobox; that's the problem: He will not accept consensus, and will not stop. He's forumshopping. He's presenting the same proposal in slightly different ways every few days, and he's attacking everyone that disagrees with him. In short, he's being massively disruptive. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Adam, please read what I wrote above. I am perfectly willing to blank both fields. Citizenship and nationality if it helps.
I am fully entitled to take a case to Arbcom. They will decide whether they wish to take it on and what the outcome will be. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You are also fully entitled to take the case to the police. But you would be wasting their time, as sorting out content issues on Wikipedia is not what they're for, and threatening to do so shows a gross lack of judgement on your part. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't share your concerns, Adam. We'll have to agree to disagree, about whether MH should be t-banned or not. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC) :)
  • Support - Identity within the UK is a volatile subject; and one which is subject to clear divisions of opinion - for some (such as myself), the UK is a united kingdom of equal constituent nations, and in that view, people are primarily English, Welsh, Scottish.. and also part of the larger entity, and therefore British. For others, British is the sole identity, and the constituent parts either do not exist at all, or are subservient to this enough to be not only not worthy of comment, but "incorrect". Naturally, this is the view supported by the UK government, which represents the British state and establishment, and Martin has therefore found UK government documents to support his position. I believe that adopting a "British only" position on nationality does not recognise the ways in which people living in the UK actually interpret their identity, but instead seeks to impose a single political POV, as legally mandated by a government as "correct" with other views to be removed. This does not feel like a reasonable position for Wikipedia to take. FDCWint (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
FDCWint, you explain why your point of view differs from Martin Hogbin's, not why he should be banned. You are welcome to your own point of view, but not welcome to attempt to ban editors of Wikipedia with a different point of view. Richard Gill (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
You are quite correct, and I did not extrapolate to my point cleanly - my fear was that Martin's desire to continue trying to pursue this topic by any means open to him would result in the eventual adoption of his position whether consensus was there or not, which I felt was bad for WP. I realise that the discussion has moved on, and this is largely irrelevant now, but wished to clarify my position; I agree completely with your statement, and would absolutely not wish to see an editor banned from a topic simply for holding an opposing POV to me. FDCWint (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose' There isn't really a strong case here for a topic ban. I could drop some long elegant response here but that really covers it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as follows. Some high-profile editors polarize and divide the community. Attempting to deal with them at WP:ANI has shown that attempting to deal with them at community noticeboards is not productive; it merely further polarizes and divides the community. Such editors should either be ignored or left to the ArbCom. Other lower-profile editors polarize and divide that segment of the community that pays attention to them. User:Martin Hogbin is such an editor. It appears that he polarizes and divides British editors or at least some British editors. WP:ANI should not try to deal with him unless he is editing not only against the MOS but against consensus established for an article by the RFC process, or unless he is violating WP:3RR. As it is, leave him alone, or publish an RFC on an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm. Perhaps but it is the community's responsibility to attempt to deal with our own issues when we can. This has been the way for some time. I agree with the thought for the most part but there does come a point when your can no longer ignore a problem. We cannot leave editor issues to Arb Com all the time. If this attempt to discourage bad behavior fails and after time it has been demonstrated that the editor is so contentious that the community is so polarized that a consensus cannot be formed....then we would have little choice but to use Arb Com. I just don't like shutting down an ANI discussion because the opinion is that it just won't work. At least let it try to demonstrate that you are correct (which you probably are).--Mark Miller (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose 鈥 infoboxes are a blunt instrument, attempting to fit what can be complex situations into over-simplified boxes. The dispute is over such a case: the prime meaning of Nationality is the legal relationship between a person and a country. In English, the same word is used in the sense of an ethnic group. Maxwell was a British subject in the legal definition of the time. While we don't know his own opinion, other sources identify him with Scottish national identity. Given the complexities, the current infoboxes are misleading and it's reasonable for them be left blank until the community agrees on improvements to the infoboxes. The proposed topic ban would stop such progress towards clarity, and give support to those unable or unwilling to provide verification of contentious article content. . dave souza, talk 11:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Viriditas and this diff, which I encourage others to examine. This matter is way too important to Martin. His involvement in this area has been neither clueful nor helpful. Fight your battles elsewhere, this is an encyclopedia. --John (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Concur the removal of talk page comments was inappropriate, but need more evidence to support a ban. NE Ent 19:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Check the diff again. He did not remove any "talk page comments", he deleted a long standing, community consensus driven section from the essay, which is in reality, a supplementary guideline. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too much talk, not enough diffs presented here. NE Ent 19:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed and agreed voluntary binding restriction[edit]

I'd proposed a voluntary binding editing restriction for the sole purposes of deescalating the dispute, allowing fresh input, and so that the article talk page is not overwhelmed further about this infobox dispute. Both Martin Hogbin (talk  contribs) and FF-UK (talk  contribs) accepted a voluntary binding restriction whereby they shall:

  • Not edit in relation to "nationality" or "citizenship" in the article James Clerk Maxwell (in particular, the infobox contained in the article); and
  • Not discuss "nationality" or "citizenship" further in connection with the same article anywhere on Talk:James Clerk Maxwell.

The restriction should be:

  • broadly construed - so that it applies to concepts such as "national identity" in connection with the article;
  • enforcible - which is why we call it binding; and
  • for an indefinite duration. A more suitable venue or method of discussion (such as article RfC to be commenced on another page) is to be agreed towards coming to a clear consensus on the issue, and at the conclusion of the discussion, the restriction will be lifted again (but we don't know how long that will be). Even though parties (and others) may be frustrated from the number of times this has gone on, this will be a final effort to resolve this issue and should provide sufficient clarity for those not involved to come to a view on conduct issues which may arise thereafter.

In order for this restriction to be binding, the community will need to formally endorse the restriction so there will be no hesitation by uninvolved administrators in enforcing this if there are breaches. Once we have that, it can be logged, both users notified, and this ANI can be closed for now. Can we please have input from the community, especially uninvolved users? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calibre(unit) / Articles by Shevonsilva[edit]

DRN suggested we come here to resolve this dispute, please see the case filed there for information on the issue Here. Would just like the discussion to be closed before a breadth of new articles is created by the same user. We may need to pursue WP:Bundle, depending on the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calibre(unit), and creating all these new articles will only complicate the matter, requests to the editor to discontinue creation of these types of articles have gone ignored. Involved editors include Shevonsilva, Johnuniq, and PamD. War wizard90 (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • To get an idea of the issue, see here (permalink). The close at DRN suggested WP:BUNDLE, that is, nominate all the pages for deletion in a single request. I would like a lower-tension discussion of the issues first where the inclusionist/deletionist model need not be considered. It is disappointing that another twenty articles have been created in the last 24 hours, and a discussion here might strongly suggest that further articles should not be created until the fate of the existing articles is decided. The difficulty is that the source is not sufficiently reliable to be relied on for obscure information which is not verifiable in other sources. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment (after e/c): Shevonsilva (talk  contribs) is creating a large number of stubs for units of measurement, sourced to one single book in which some other editors have little faith. These include many obscure and obsolete measures, some not included in the Oxford English Dictionary. The structure of each article is that the unit is "defined" in terms of other units, unlinked, some of which are themselves of complicated and variable definition, and then a "Conversions" section which gives conversions to other imperial and metric units to a smetimes implausible number of decimal places. As a recent example, see Sarpler (before later edits by other editors). The definition is "26/9 Wey", converted to "330.21524536 kg", while Wey (unit) shows a complex situation. The same editor has added content to existing articles in an unhelpful way - see addition to "Hogshead" (presumably "Madeira" was intended?).
S/he does not comply with normal talk page convention of signing at end of comment, despite requests - is this a WP:CIR issue if they cannot understand the convention and its usefulness? (See confusing comments added at an AfD).
This mass of dic-def stubs is not improving the encyclopedia, and the editor is unwilling to pause and discuss them. PamD 23:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would also note that WP is not supposed to be an adventitious collection of trivia. Looking at these stubs, it doesn't strike me that they meet the notability criteria for inclusion. WP does not need to include reams of information sourced to a single text; at a minimum, even granting that these units are notable for our purposes, we'd want to cite several independent sources. Even if the one source is not dubious, it's not best practice to cite information from it that appears nowhere else. Moreover, one book's assertions about tens of (ambiguous) archaic units and their (supposed) values does not make material for tens of encyclopedia articles.
However, the book itself seems to be a reputable academic publication, so perhaps the information would be more at home in another article, such as this one. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The author is talented ("Manager of Recycling"), but does not appear to have credentials that would make the book sufficiently reliable to introduce novel facts about units. Shevonsilva has hinted that there is more in the book, but so far it appears that each article is based solely on an entry in a table that might say, for example, that 1 wrap is 240 feet鈥攖here is no indication of where or when the unit was used, and no underlying source. I guess we will just have to make a group AfD, but this ANI discussion needs to persuade Shevonsilva to stop creating stubs until a consensus is established. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Point taken 鈥 I was just assuming that Springer wouldn't publish total crackpottery (I don't think it would), but of course that doesn't imply that the book is correct. Taking a closer look at it, there are a few odd assertions, such as the cubic imperial units being the "chief" measures of volume in the UK, together with a table that has cubic rods and register tons, the latter of which I'd never even heard of, and there are plenty of grammatical and typographical errors. Seems Springer needs to do a better job of copy-editing and fact-checking their publications. Archon 2488 (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have just encountered this editor's contributions. At least some are simply junk: quires is an ungrammatical duplicate of quire. Shevon Silva's native language does not appear to be English, but I wonder about this Cardarelli, who first edited some book with MJ Shields, then had a later version of the same book translated by MJ Shields. Entries like Dash (unit) 鈥(Total text: "Dash was a US unit of capacity used in food recipes.") do not fill me with confidence that the author has a clue what he is talking about. A dash of rum improves lots of things, but this does not make it a unit in any coherent sense. And as for Springer (assuming this is the right one!) "In 2014, it was revealed that Springer had published 16 fake papers in its journals that had been computer-generated using SCIgen. Springer subsequently removed all the papers from these journals. IEEE had also done the same thing by removing more than 100 fake papers from its conference proceedings." Amazon offers this "encyclopedia" for 153 pounds. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Propose block of Shevonsilva (talk  contribs) until the user agrees to stop making edits based on the problematic source before a consensus is formed. In the last few hours, the user has created eleven more junk articles (Bale (unit) + Breakfast cup + Bundle (unit) + Coffee measure + Coffee spoon (unit) + Dash (unit) + Quires + Salt spoon (unit) + Teacupful + Water glassful + Wine glassful). Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    I have struck my block proposal as it is not needed now that Black Kite has warned Shevonsilva to stop creating articles until a consensus forms concerning the pages created so far. I intend to examine the pages in a day or two and will nominate those I think are unhelpful for deletion in a single WP:AFD. That is apparently the best way to get a discussion on what should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have investigated several of these cases that have come to AFD and find that they all seem grounded in some genuine usage of the unit in question. For example, the dash is criticised above but that unit already appears in our existing coverage of cooking weights and measures - see pinch (cooking), for example. The work in question has a reputable publisher and, while that doesn't make it perfect, it seems more authoritative than the nay-sayers who don't seem to research the topics thoroughly themselves or consider alternatives to deletion per WP:BEFORE and WP:BITE. This just seems to be a matter of ordinary content creation and our editing policy is quite explicit - that we should encourage half-baked contributions so that something might be made of them. Andrew D. (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you opposing the block? The indentation of your comment does not make this totally clear. In any case, the issue is not really that someone has made one or two poorly worded articles on notable topics which might reasonably be improved with effort from others; it's that someone who is perhaps simply not competent is creating a large number of poor-quality stubs of questionable notability, based on one reference. Far from being a nay-sayer, I was initially perhaps too kind to the book 鈥 on closer inspection it seems to have serious problems, as Johnuniq and Imaginatiorium have pointed out. It's also possible that the editor in question is simply not here with the goal of improving WP, because for some reason they seem hell-bent on making as many articles as possible based on the content of one book, to the point of seeming like a SPA.
But as I said above, even if all these facts check out, it doesn't follow that it's appropriate for each little factoid to have its own stub article. There's no reason why such information couldn't be amalgamated into a single article, which would likely be more useful and accessible to readers. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I oppose a block of this editor as this would be quite contrary to our principles of WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:BOLD and WP:IMPERFECT. The topics in question might well benefit from further development and editing but this is normal for new work. The devil is in the details in such cases. For example, Archon 2488 says above that he has never heard of register tons and seems to condemn the Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures because of this. This seems quite mistaken because register tons are quite well-documented here and elsewhere and he may read more about the concept at pages such as gross register tonnage and ton#Units of volume. This example further demonstrates that source in question is reasonably respectable and is more authoritative than its critics. Andrew D. (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Clarification: what I was criticising was the assertion that units like "register tons" (and cubic rods, etc) were normal units of capacity in the UK. I've lived in the UK my whole life and I've never heard of a "register ton". I'm sure the unit exists (or existed), but it's obscure, at least nowadays. I would never claim to be an expert on any system of units except perhaps SI, and I am not claiming to be more authoritative than the author of this book.
The book has a number of odd statements like that, as well as being written in less-than-perfect English. But regardless, my original point still stands: I don't see why lots of arcane obsolete units each need their own article, when each of these articles consists of a dictionary-like entry combined with a dubious conversion into metric units. It's poor-quality material which doesn't obviously add anything to the encyclopedia. Far better to find out which of those units can be reliably traced to reliable, primary historical sources, and put their definitions in an article on old measurement units, rather than scattering them all over the place in a plethora of stubs that nobody is going to read. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have lived most of my life in the UK too and instantly recognise the register ton as a unit in shipping. It's quite familar and not at all obscure in my opinion but I was also surprised that editors had difficulty recognising the usage of calibre too. The cubic rod is more antiquated but it is easy to find 19th century sources which show that it was commonly used in quantity surveying contexts, e.g. The Arithmetician's Guide; House of Lords Session Paper. As editors seem to have trouble with these measures then this seems all the more reason that Wikipedia should cover them. Blocking the editor who has gone to the trouble of helping to fill in these gaps seems quite wrong. Andrew D. (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment If we are going to import Cardarelli's labours into Wikipedia en masse (should we really be comfortable with the wholesale appropriation of such an exceptional work?), we should at least get his name right. Every reference I've checked is of the same form: "Cardarelli, Fran莽ois Cradarelli (2003). Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures. London: Springer. p. nn. ISBN 978-1-4471-1122-1." (my emphasis). @Shevonsilva: please could you correct those references? NebY (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@NebY: The word, Cardarelli, is now correctly applied in the articles. Shevonsilva (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@Shevonsilva: no, "Cradarelli" still appears in 61 articles[88] and in every case that I have checked, it originated with you.
In checking, I find that you have included conversion factors with absurd numbers of digits, such as Point (unit):
"1 point = 0.006944444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 inch feet
"1 point = 0.0001763888888888888888888888888888888888888888889 m"
and the repetitive presentation of a unit used for weighing wool eventually rendering it in micrograms:
"1 sarpler 鈮 2 sacks
"1 sarpler 鈮 26/9 Wey
"1 sarpler 鈮 330.21524536 kg"
Such absurdities are not acceptable in this encyclopedia. NebY (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is half dicdef and half just non-notable units of measure. I AfD'd one of the articles, and came across this. Today, I came across Cord-foot. I think there should be a discussion on whether or not they are notable, and act accordingly, and in the meantime, mini-stubs should stop being created. 鈥 kikichugirl speak up! 02:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply from Shevon Silva[edit]

@Johnuniq: @PamD: @War wizard90: I have repeatedly explained to refer the full source to Johnuniq. He did refer only a sample chapter of the book and based on that he asked me for references where all the references and bibligrophy list was available in the end of the book, and I have provided him on-line references too to provide the reliability of the article. He ignored any of my suggestions and continue to challenge the source without proper grounds as I could provide many other sources too.

  • Without trying (being unable to do so only by accessing sample chapters) to access reference list and bibliography list provided in the end of the book, Johnuniq is incorrectly stating the fact that secondary sources are not available. (I have already provided some on-line sources too traditionally)
  • Again little faith issue is a personnel idea of User PamD. He has to access secondary sources provided by the book. He believed every unit must be included in the Oxford English Dictionary which is not the case for many units as Oxford English Dictionary is a dictionary for English words and it does not cover all the English words and foreign words.In the article Sarpler, it is clearly mentioned sarpler was a UK weight for wool, and in the article way, it is clearly mentioned the unit was also used as weight for wool and it was exactly equals to 252 pounds which can be exactly converted to "330.21524536 kg".With regarding article Hogshead, I have corrected the error in the word Madeira. This addition is helpful as it is defined another additional usage of hogshead.
I will comply with the talk page conventions in future.
I have already discussed these dic-def issues in my talk page and in some relevant talk pages in relevant articles. I explained I have started the articles and additionally I have given unit conversions and some additional informations too. In future, other authors can improve the newly created pages by including further sources. This will be a contribution for Wikipedia.

Johnuniq must buy the book and go through the whole book including the reference list and the bibliography list.

Pam must understand Oxford English Dictionary is not the only source available for words.

War wizard90 must understand to suggest a way to increase the articles rather than deleting new articles without understanding the future contribution that can be provided.Shevon Silva 01:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Four days ago I asked here what the book says about two example units, such as how and when the units were used, and what references for the units were given. There was no response, but elsewhere you provided two links (nuclearglossary.com for "wrap" and ceramicsandminerals.com for "Rod (Br volume)"). However, they are just websites about something else, which also list every claim about units that their authors could find鈥攖hey are not sufficiently reliable to verify novel information. When modern sources aggregate facts, there is a danger that they simply echo each other. What is needed is a reference to a scholarly source with footnotes, or at least a reference to pre-1920s writing that mentions the units (how would anyone now know how many feet there are in a wrap unless a contemporary account is available?). What is needed is a commitment to stop creating new articles until the issue has been thoroughly discussed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Now I provided a response. And, you mentioned those units were not mentioned elsewhere. I provided some on-line references to prove the fact that these units were mentioned other places too. For reliable references, please visit bibliography list in the book. I never mentioned these units were used in pre-1920s. I mentioned these units were/have been used. For further references, please pursue the bibliography list of the book. Shevonsilva (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I cannot understand your reply. My comment (just above, starting "Four days ago") contains the two "on-line references" so I do not know why you mentioned them, and I explained why the websites are not reliable sources. From your replies I infer that you have not seen anything about rod or wrap apart from the conversion factors鈥攖here is no indication of when or where those meanings applied, nor the context. There are no known references verifying the information apart from a one-line entry in a table providing a conversion factor. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Johnuniq:: I was trying to provide the fact that these units are mentioned in other places as you told me that these units are not mentioned in anywhere else. You are doubting a reliable source. For your knowledge, I will provide some other articles where "Fran莽ois Cardarelli. Encyclopedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures" is used as a reference.
Before criticizing any book, the book must be thoroughly investigated and all the references in the bibliography list must be thoroughly pursued. Shevonsilva (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Unit wrap is found in page 348 in another reliable source is "Zupko, Ronald Edward (1985). A Dictionary of Weights and Measures for the British Isles 168. American Philosophical Society". Wikipeadia articles must be thoroughly investigated before commenting on them. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
It cannot be exactly converted to any value in kilograms, because to do so would be anachronistic. The avoirdupois pound today is precisely defined by the kilogram because of an agreement which dates from the 1950s (and going back slightly further, the imperial and US customary units had been variously defined in terms of metric units since the 19th century). But you cannot retroactively apply this to a unit which existed before the metric system did; at most, you can give an approximate equivalent. The measurement technologies that existed centuries ago could not have defined a standard to that level of precision, so it is misleading and meaningless to convert it to 11 significant figures.
It's not anyone's responsibility to buy the book in order to check your sources.
I don't think PamD was arguing that the OED is the ultimate authority on units, but rather that it would be an example of what notability might mean. Generally, for something to be the subject of an article rather than information included in another article, it must be notable in its own right, which includes being well-documented in several independent reputable sources.
It's not the main goal of WP to increase the number of articles for the sake of doing so; the objective is to provide a large quantity of high-quality relevant information, and making a new stub for every obscure fact under the sun will not accomplish that. You cannot create lots of stubs and expect that other people will eventually turn them into something useful. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Archon 2488:

I never mentioned the conversion was applied before 1950s. These units were still used until very recently according the source provided (i.e. after 1950s). In that case, it is permitted to translate to an exact value as these units were used until recently and they were defined exactly based on pounds or yards.
Before arguing about the validity of a book, user must thoroughly check the sources provided in the book.
With regarding notability, again please refer the bibliography list provided by the book.
one goal of WP is to provide extensive information. I am initiating that.

Shevonsilva (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I draw particular attention to the UK and US counting units article created by Shevonsilva - it includes such definitions as "1 Hat trick = 3/2 Pair" and "1 Thousand = 125/18 Gross". I find it hard to credit that any remotely credible source would express numeric values in such a way, and would like Shevonsilva to clarify whether these bizarre constructions are actually in the source, or are her own definitions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the sample chapter on page 34 of the PDF (numbered 53 in the PDF). The only information given is in a table titled "UK and US dimensionless counting units". In one column is "Hat trick (nest)" with the weight 1, and in another column is "Pair (brace, yoke)" with "鈮 3/2" on the same row as the former unit's "1". What a mess. Similar for thousand/gross, in the same table. In case you're interested, the table helpfully tells us that a thousand 鈮 1000/3 hat tricks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Bizarre. The table in the source seems designed to present information in the most confusing manner possible, and Shevonsilva has cherry-picked it for additional obscurity. A simple statement that 'Pair = 2' and 'hat trick = 3' would have been sufficient - except that the term 'hat trick' is only ever used in relation to sporting scores as far as I'm aware (the Online Etymology Dictionary seems to concur: [89]). The table omits such context entirely, making it worse than a collection of dictionary definitions. To put it bluntly, it is junk, published by Springer or not. And certainly not an appropriate source to cherry-pick for the dog's breakfast that is presented at UK and US counting units. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and nor is it an exercise in numeric obscurantism - accordingly, we have no need to use the Encyclopaedia as a source, and we certainly don't need to cherry-pick it to confuse our readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • AndyTheGrump is the one engaging in cherry-picking here. The sample chapter shows that the Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures is a huge compendium and that the great bulk of this content is accurate and uncontroversial. The work has a standard form of presentation for conversion factors showing the ratio of the different units of different sizes. So, for example, there are various nautical measures of length such as the nautical mile, the cable length and the fathom. This generally seems quite reasonable but it's possible to nitpick particular combinations, because, for example, there's not a round number of fathoms in a nautical mile. That's all we're seeing in the case of the dimensionless units - the application of a standard form of presentation to cases for which it is not especially well suited.
  • I think there is a serious issue here: you are almost alone, but you persist with the claim that this is a reliable source. I am looking at the sample Chapter (Section?) 3 here [90]. I assert that Table 3-262 (on page 136 of the PDF) is almost total gibberish, and I have plenty of sources to back this up. Do you dispute this? Imaginatorium (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Such tabular information does need some narrative to make good sense of it. For example, I have investigated the case of deal which is mentioned above and find that there's plenty more to say about it - see Tree Lore, for example. The current draft page we have is just a crude start which needs a lot more work but it is our editing policy to work in this way - starting with a crude, rough-hewn first draft and then shaping, trimming and polishing it into a better form. This is the standard work of content creation and the platoon of would-be inspectors should not rush to criticize immediately. We have a big backlog of reviews wanted for hundreds of articles in places such as Wikipedia:Good article nominations or Template talk:Did you know. They are the best place to challenge our content, not WP:ANI.
Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
A simple question. Was it me that decided that it was appropriate to define a 'hat-trick' as '3/2 pair', or was it Shevonsilva? If that wasn't cherry-picking for obscurity, it was incompetence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree that we can't rely on the book. The bibliography looks impressive (I found the first page of it here) but no part at all of the text or the conversions in the sample chapter 3 is tied to any particular references. Anyone who's taken an interest in ancient units of measurement or simply tried to translate an old text will be disturbed by the simplicity of the tables in that chapter and a cursory check shows Cardarelli either neglects or is just unaware of the variations in units over time and place (for example, in the values for weights of wool in the UK). The book might sometimes provide a starting point for further research but it is clearly not reliable. NebY (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Update[edit]

Since 24 December 2014 when Black Kite and Lesser Cartographies asked him to stop creating stubs, he's created half a dozen more. I gave him a final warning 06:16, 26 December 2014. He then created another similar stub 14 min later. I blocked him for two days. He just put in an unblock request. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that Shevon is female. [91] AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
{{gender|Shevonsilva}} = he NE Ent 10:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have updated my summary of all the articles in my sandbox (permalink). That page shows the content of the 82 articles. When I feel up to it, I intend working out which I think should be deleted, and nominate them all in one batch. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Holy moly, that's a lot. Thanks for gathering that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
This list shows clearly what the problem is. Why for, instance, does WP need a separate article for a fraction of a unit? There are other miscellaneous errors in the (dubious) conversions, e.g. it is stated that the sarpler is equivalent to "160 stone", which is then converted to the specious "330.21524536 kg". Leaving aside the issue of specious precision, that is not even the correct conversion factor; converting 160 stones (i.e. a long ton) to kilograms gives a value of about 1016 kg. I am not sure whether this was an error in the book or in Shevonsilva's transcription of it. The article on the point has ridiculous recurring decimals. Apparently a magnum is equivalent to "2 reputed quarts" 鈥 it seems that a "reputed" quart is a sixth of an imperial gallon, but we are not given any explanation of this, or a link to another article. Indeed, there are few links to any other articles in any of these stubs, and I don't believe they are linked to by other articles, which further decreases their usefulness.
This ties in with another problem mentioned above: the lack of contextual information, or even awareness of context, to the extent of providing totally specious conversions such as from hat tricks to grosses or thousands. In practice, nobody uses "hat trick" as a unit of anything; it refers to something very specific, i.e. a single player scoring three goals (or points, or taking three wickets, etc.) in the course of a single match. Treating it like a dimensionless unit of counting and converting it is utterly meaningless. To say it again, you can't get much encyclopedic information from a table of conversion factors presented without context. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Johnuniq above seems to be on the right track. I think it should be noted that I also recently batch-nominated a couple of very similar of these articles for deletion... this is getting a bit out of hand; time for community to officially decide whether or not we should include them. 鈥 kikichugirl speak up! 00:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest account repeatedly inserting promotional material[edit]

Note: I am not involved in this dispute, but have observed it in passing.

A new editor has recently appeared CarlThompson (talk  contribs  count  logs  page moves  block log) whose sole editing contribution is to repeatedly add material promoting his company's product at PCSO-524.

[92] Original insertion.

[93] Removed as advertising.

[94] Restored by CarlThompson. Note the edit summary clearly betrays the conflict of interest as he admits that the 'facts' are approved by his company's scientific panel.

[95] Removed again as 'snake oil ad'.

[96] CarlThompson asks on remover's talk page why he keeps removing his promotional material.

[97] CarlThompson is directed to the Wikipedia policy on Conflict of interest.

[98] CarlThompson ignores the policy and restores the promotional material.

[99] CarlThompson is directed once again to the policy on Conflict of interest, this time on his own talk page.

[100] CarlThompson once again restores the material ignoring Conflict of interest policy.

[101] A new editor removes the material though does not specify why in the edit summary.

[102] Restored by CarlThompson again.

[103] Removed by a third contributor as promotional.

[104] This third editor leaves yet another note on CarlThompson's talk page.

This account is very clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but exists solely to add promotional material for his company's product in contravention of Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy (single purpose account). It is also clear that if he works for the company who makes the product and the material being added is 'approved' by that company than he is most likely being paid to add the disputed material. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I note that the account has not been active since I (the "third editor" mentioned above) reverted him and left a detailed warning on his talk page. I suggest waiting to see how CarlThompson responds before taking administrative action. He has a choice to comply with my suggestions (to use talk pages, stop edit warring, and publicly disclose his COI), or not. No action is required if he makes the right choices. ~Amatuli膰 (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not make my intentions clear (probably due to Christmas guests turning up). I was not expecting any sanctions against this account. What I was going to suggest was an appropriately worded authoritative warning on this account's talk page from an administrator which would underline the policy on the point. This is because this user has ignored two warnings on the conflict of interest, and one warning on paid editing. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

For information only: A further warning has been left at yet another discussion started by CarlThompson here. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

"HowNutsAreTheDutch". Confirmed socks.[edit]

Recommendation made that Kleuske open a case at WP:SPI JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

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

See blokmessage on nl.wp for details. It seems the puppeteer (singular) is active here resulting in Hans Ormel and HowNutsAreTheDutch (see comments on tp). The account also adds references to the work of Ormel and his coworkers crosswiki.[105], [106], [107], [108](coauthor),[109], [110] This seems to be a clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE to me. Can someone take appropriate action?

Kleuske (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC) P.S. These may not be the only socks active. Kleuske (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kleuske: If you open a case at WP:SPI, a checkuser can confirm if these are socks, and can also find other related accounts if these are related. ~Amatuli膰 (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Kleuske (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

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


Topic ban on Jews and Judaism needed for AliAkar[edit]

AliAkar has tried more than once to create a draft for white supremacist conspiracy theorist David Duke's book "Jewish Supremacism." The first attempt to move it to article space was was deleted by User:Mike Rosoft under WP:G11. That draft presented the work as "meticulously research" sic. When we pointed out to AliAkar that Duke should be trusted about as far as things can be thrown at him, AliAkar accused both Mike and me of having "self interest with this book" and "a personal problem with this book and the idea of the author." When I finally pointed out that Duke is, according to our article on him, known as a "white nationalist, conspiracy theorist," and "advocate of antisemitic conspiracy theories," AliAkar replied that he was simply trying to introduce the book, not Duke's ideas.

Mike deleted the draft (because there is no way it was ever going to become an article in that state), and AliAkar recreated it pretty much the same, calling the book "influential," downplaying the fact that Duke is a notorious conspiracy theorist and white supremacist (also downplaying the hoax nature of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for this draft), and claiming "Jewish Supremacism must be authentic." It also cites David Duke 25 times, and contains

AliAkar has created drafts for other articles in the past that, despite requiring a lot of cleanup, are still here. However, it's clear that AliAkar has a blinding antisemitic bias and should not be allowed to edit articles relating to Jews or Judaism. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now We need to tread carefully here. We do not sanction editors for their politics, religion, sex or sexual preferences etc even if/when their opinions are odious. Topic bans are the tactical nukes of WP sanctions and should only be employed when there is evidence of persistent, unrepentant disruptive editing in a given subject area, and after counseling and or the application of lesser correctives (i.e. temporary blocks) have been attempted without success. I am seeing very little of that here. Talk page discussion appears to have been limited to the issue of the book. If any other problematic edits were raised on the talk page, I missed it (always a possibility). I see no formal warnings. And I see no indication of any blocks. Yes,there are some rare and commonsense exceptions where you break out the heavy artillery right off. But this doesn't look like an unambiguous case of NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
AliAkar has made it clear that they intend to continue to introduce material promoting David Duke's "Jewish Supremacism" as factual, instead of the WP:FRINGE material it is. Blocks or site bans would be necessary for NOTHERE, but this is more of a WP:CIR issue: there is no reason whatsoever to believe that AliAkar is capable of engaging in subjects relating to Jews and Judaism neutrally (quite the opposite, in fact), but he can contribute positively in other areas.
At the very least, can we get a few more voices to explain to him (so he doesn't just think it's me and Mike) that the content of the page is unacceptably biased toward the book's claims? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that his article is not well written, and it is clearly biased with the intent to promote David Duke's nonsense. His books are not in any sense "influential", except perhaps among neo-Nazis. To read this article one would not get the impression that Duke is not an impartial authority on Judaism or Jewish culture but rather an extremist fringe voice and a crackpot (which, indeed, he is). Presenting fringe views as if they were mainstream (or, perhaps, even notable) is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. For example, we do not write about Fred Phelps as if he were an authority on LGBT rights. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree, to which end I have posted a level 2 warning on their talk page. When dealing with a problem editor, we don't start with bans. We try to work with them and then issue warnings if the problem persists. The next step would probably be a block of some kind. If future editing suggests we are dealing with an anti-Semite on a mission and who just can't be reasoned with then a topic ban becomes a legitimate option. Right now this sounds like an attempt to topic ban someone because we (quite understandably) find their views offensive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Based on what I have seen from a quick glance, I think this editor's future contributions should be the subject of some scrutiny. I would suggest we keep an eye on what they are doing for a while so we can address any potential problems quickly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support for topic ban and even indefinite block per WP:COMPETENCE, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLE, and WP:SOAPBOX. I find Ad Orientem's oppose up above to be so far off the mark, that I can only assume he responded without actually looking at the problem . AliAkar is not here to build an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose at the moment as well. I don't see any particular evidence on uncivil conduct or anything of that sort. I don't even understand the warning, did User:AliAkar even edit Jewish Supremacism or David Duke? Now the editor's versions of the article aren't remotely neutral and won't likely be posted as is but that's an issue for deletion of those drafts if you want. Move them to Draft space and have it reviewed before being created. It's not like it's impossible to create a neutral article on that topic. Mahdi Zein-eddin is pretty standard for a new user in my view. It's problematic and needs to be reviewed but nothing that's a red flag to me. I see that his uploads at Commons were all deleted but that again isn't something particularly unusual for a new user. Is there something I'm missing? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It also cites David Duke 25 times, and contains Contains what, Ian.thomson? Looks like you hit "delete" one too many times :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't ban editors simply for holding political or religious views that we disagree with. The article in question looks like a good-faith effort at a well-sourced article describing Duke's book. While the article has some problems (mostly with the grammar, but also with its POV), this is nothing which can't be addressed via collaborative editing involving editors with different viewpoints. In the event that the user actually edit-wars to preserve their biases, or resumes copyright violations, then I'd be happy to consider a block or a topic-ban. 鈥Psychonaut (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Nobody has proposed banning the editor for holding certain views. What was proposed was banning the editor for crossing the threshold you yourself established for bad behavior in your oppose. The OP made it clear that the user has restored the problematic material after having the community already discuss it with them. The user has therefore crossed the threshold for a topic ban that you support. Lastly, this is not a "good-faith effort" as you claim, but a giant soapbox. I take it you don't work with content very much. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Please provide diffs for the edit warring, then, as well as diffs showing that the user had been previously warned about edit warring. 鈥Psychonaut (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Query. Obviously this draft cannot be allowed to enter article space as is; the position the user takes on its fringe claims does not belong on Wikipedia. Are there other Judaism-related topics in which he has shown himself to be disruptive, or would it be enough to ban him from the topic of this book and/or Jewish conspiracy theories, broadly construed? 鈥Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I want to introduce this book in WP and don't want to introduce David Duke's idea about Jew. I try to edit my article about this book and correct my grammar mistake in the article. Thank you for your attention AliAkar (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @AliAkar: as Ian thomson already said, you tried this before and you were given feedback which you have ignored. Will you be changing the article to accommodate and meet the criticism you've already been given? Until you do, I really don't think you should be working in this topic area. When someone has a strong bias like you do, it's best if you find something else to work on. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, since it is premature to impose a very wide ban on the basis of very narrow edits. The article AliAkar created was absurd and irretrievable without a complete rewrite鈥攄eleting it was the correct course of action鈥攂ut that is not by itself a basis for a general "Jews and Judaism" ban. I propose a more limited ban on articles related to David Duke or "Jewish supremism", since it is clear that AliAkar is incapable of writing a rule-conformant article on those subjects. The ban can be widened later if necessary. Zerotalk 08:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Off site recruitment by temporarily blocked tendentious editor[edit]

DonaldKronos (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log) Donald Kronos's Google plus page

DonaldKronos was blocked for edit warring at Evolution (report here), and has begun recruiting on his Google plus page. Kronos initially responded to reversion by calling it vandalism (continuing even after being asked to stop), and has since gone on accuse others of "CENSORSHIP", "HIDING THE TRUTH" (with a rant about religion that probably goes against AGF), and "HIDING WHAT EVOLUTION IS" (even though his edit made things less focused). He thinks that undoing his work is "an attack against humanity". With posts like this, it's clear that he has little-to-no capacity to assume good faith.

He claims he was blocked "FOR TRYING TO WORK WITH PEOPLE" and that he was never given the chance to explain his edits, which is a patent lie. He was told repeatedly to use the talk page, and warned about edit warring. He has regularly asked for explanations that have been repeatedly explained at both Talk:Evolution and on his talk page.

I think we're looking at a case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW. He clearly sees Wikipedia as a platform for his writing, not for collaboration. He believes that he's "trying to defend humanity" (source) with his tantrums.

And if anyone wants to try to make this a content dispute, his edits were reverted by multiple editors for being off-topic and not being a summary of the rest of the article. Heck, even his own fans are arguing against his edits.

I welcome the possibility of improvement from any inexperienced editor, but it's not our hopes that determine whether that happens. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned about WP:OUTING but what is required right now? We can't stop him from his off-wiki conduct. He's current blocked here. If you believe User:TheProfessor is a WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT puppet, report it at WP:SPI if you'd like but that editor has been here since 2011 so otherwise you need to assume good faith . I'll review his user talk page and see if removing talk page access is required. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe TheProfessor is a sock or meatpuppet (which is why I never mentioned him), but DonaldKronos's Google plus post does call for help on Wikipedia, his block is only going to last about another day and a half, and the off-site recruiting is part of a larger problem with DonaldKronos. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the other editor did at the talk page so I wanted to clarify that. It wasn't directed at you, my apologies for any confusion. I asked User:EdJohnston to review it rather than me just increase it at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Ricky81682 and Ian.thomson, I'd like to address this. Where would be appropriate? TheProfessor (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether he gets it or not, at the very least, I think the discussion on his talk page has calmed down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Having read most of what DonaldKronos has written on his talk page, this is a clear case of WP:CIR. Any expectation the behavior will change and he'll become a useful contributor is just wishful thinking. My view is cut him loose and who cares what he writes on his Google+ page. Next. 鈥 JBarta (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean block him completely now? His block is only for three days. I'm pretty certain a WP:NOTHERE block will follow instantly after that if his behavior hasn't changed by then but I'm still in line with waiting it out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I mean just indefinitely block him now. 鈥 JBarta (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary. I think we should at least give him a second chance. Also, a mentor would probably help a great deal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree to give a second chance. And block him instantly if he continues to be tendentious, disruptive, and uncivil. TheProfessor (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Missouri footnote on Template:Samesex marriage in USA map[edit]

Prcc27 "will 鈥 take ... concerns to the DRN and ... keep working towards a consensus鈥 JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

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

"Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis, Missouri" has been the wording for the Missouri footnote for almost a month now. That wording was changed and then I reverted that bold edit noting "We don't need to include rogue counties! Unlike Kansas, Missourian counties aren't 'within their right' to issue." Dralwik reverted me and said "I like this vaguer wording more." Since there was no consensus for the "vaguer" wording, I reverted the footnote back to its original wording per WP:STATUSQUO. Dralwik reverted the statusquo and said "Let's see if you violate 3RR". I definitely don't want to violate the 3RR rule, but I feel like per WP:STATUSQUO the original wording should be re-added until there is consensus for the other wording. WP:STATUSQUO says "If there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus, not to have one's own way" and I feel like they went against this by reverting me because they "like" the other wording. They claim that there is consensus for the footnote due to the Color change proposal for Missouri. However, please note that their rough draft proposal for the wording was "Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis, Missouri" which is what the footnote has said for almost a month; but then they reverted against that wording twice! I'd like to see the template go back to the statusquo until there is a consensus for the other wording. Prcc27 (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Just discuss it at the talk page. Why should the statusquo overrule the consensus forming at the talk page? And besides you also reverted User:Shereth's version so again, go to the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ricky81682: That's the point, there is no consensus for changing the wording so the template should reflect the statusquo. WP:STATUSQUO says "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." Consensus may be "forming" but it isn't established. While the edit is being disputed the map should go back to the status quo. Once again, their rough draft proposal for the footnote had the status quo wording "Same-sex marriage legal in St. Louis, Missouri" but it wasn't until after everyone indicated they supported the coloring proposal for Missouri that Dralwik expressed they supported Shereth's wording and reverted me when I reverted the bold edit and then again when I reverted back to the status quo. Prcc27 (talk) 06:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Shereth's edit was a bold edit since the status quo version was up there for about a month and they changed it. So per WP:BRD the reverted bold edit should have stayed reverted while we're discussing and while we're working on consensus! Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Question: is this in the right noticeboard or does it belong in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
DRN is probably more appropriate. Remember that BRD and STATUSQUO are essays not policies. They have never been elevated as such and so that's why there isn't likely to be much of an concern about what the current version should be. At this stage, move towards finding a consensus which hopefully is a middle ground that all parties can agree upon. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh okay thanks, I will probably take my concerns to the DRN and I will keep working towards a consensus on the footnote wording. Prcc27 (talk) 11:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

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


Legal Threat[edit]

Blocked per WP:NLT. Sam Walton (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

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

There's a blatant legal threat at [114] by User:LEGIA2014. Squinge (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


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


Very obvious legal threat. But is there any merit to the complaint? 鈫Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots鈫 21:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the number of reasons given for a complaint is inversely proportional to its validity, even more so when several of them are contradictory. Dating back to November on Commons: "photoshopped forgery" (of the IAC logo worn by several people in the image). Then here two days ago: "This cannot be Arvind *KEJRIWAL*" (in said image). Well, actually it clearly is Arvind Kejriwal, so... "This forged image has been photo-shopped to defame CM candidate Arvind Kejriwal by showing him consorting with Maoist terrorists", and then when all else fails and despite previously claiming twice that it was a photoshopped forgery "this image is copied from a photo set published in India by IAC on 28 May 2012 and its copyright vests in IAC". Online evidence suggests even this latter claim is dubious in several respects. In any case, this is a matter for Commons which hosts the file and its description (and has already blocked multiple IAC socks)鈥攏ot English Wikipedia. Bugs, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm for background. Voceditenore (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Very good. It's possible they have a valid concern, but if it's about the alleged trademark status of their organization's name, etc., it would seem their quarrel should be addressed in the Indian court system, not in Wikipedia. 鈫Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots鈫 16:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Gowtham avg[edit]

Chutti TV semiprotected by Drmies JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Could someone block the IPs listed at Chutti TV (SPI's here) as well as protect the article, (I know this doesn't belong here but since it's Xmas & half the place's deserted action will hopefully happen alot quicker here), Thanks, 鈥Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 14:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I semi-protected; there's little point in blocking IPs now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

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


Was my request closed by an admin or deleted by an editor?[edit]

Closed per Airborne84's request. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

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

I am not sure exactly what happened to the request I posted a few days ago. This diff shows it was removed, but it is not clear to me who deleted it. Did an admin close it? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It was actually removed with this diff, when a bot automatically archived it to here. Hopefully someone else can explain the bot's archiving rules because I'm not totally sure how it decides what to archive, but it seems to be some period of inactivity. Sam Walton (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Apparently the thread was archived because editors/admins didn't see much of value in the report. I agree, for this case. Now, the user has been blocked for edit warring before but that was a while ago. In this case a report at WP:ANEW would have been the better place, though a patrolling admin there might have noted that you reverted their initial edit twice, and that you might be the edit warrior there. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Drmies, that could be. Please advise if I didn't handle it correctly so I don't repeat in the future. The user had deleted a quote had had been part of the article for a long time鈥攕ince at least May (I didn't look further back). I reverted the deletion, pointing to WP:BRD and inviting discussion on the talk page. The user instead deleted again, insisting the quote did not have consensus. I reverted, stated that he/she was edit warring, and asked them to take it to the talk page to build a consensus for change. Was the second revert on my part not appropriate? To be sure, if the user re-deleted the material again, I would not have reverted again; I would have then taken it to an admin. However, if a second revert to a version of an article that has had consensus for quite some time is not generally acceptable, please let me know. Perhaps taking it to an admin immediately after someone violates WP:BRD is more appropriate? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Airborne84, there's nothing simple about this, and the whole thing can be very frustrating. First of all, though, BRD isn't a policy so you can't really hang a case on it. Personally, I think BRD all too often gives the upper hand to the status quo editor; I think it is well-intended but also off-putting, and at any rate not adhering to it is not really disruption. Second, "taking it to an admin"--well, in this case an admin can't do much since no policies have been broken (yet--at least not 3R, for instance). Third your second revert isn't "wrong", necessarily (or against policy, or blockable, etc.), but if you're going to report someone for edit warring such a revert looks really bad.

    In a perfect world, after their reinstatement of their own edit you call up the troops on the talk page, find consensus, etc.--but that's not always easy. However, that is the best way to go about it, even if it doesn't always work, and even if it will go a lot slower than you think. Consensus on the talk page is typically iron-clad and the moment you have it, your opponent can be charged with disruptive editing ("editing against clear consensus") if they persist, and that's blockable.

    BTW, I looked at some of the discussion about that quote, and I'm not quite following. Someone said "FRINGE"--well, you're talking about Russell, so "idiosyncrasy" is appropriate, "fringe" is not. Personally I think the entire section needs to be looked at again since his view is very interesting, but the section needs to be trimmed, it needs to be much more a summary of the main article, and I don't know that editors in that discussion treated it as such. But that's by the by. Good luck, merry Christmas, and stay airborne, Drmies (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

At the very, very top of this page --in the edit buffer, not what you see rendered -- it says:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 700K
|counter = 866
|algo = old(36h)
|key = 95f2c40e2e81e8b5dbf1fc65d4152915
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
}} 

which would make one think something called "MiszaBot" archives the page. No, this is Wikipedia, User:lowercase sigmabot III archives the page -- it replaced MiszaBot when it died, and no one wanted to go update all the configurations. So, nominally any thread that over 36 hours old will get archived the next time the bot runs, but sometimes certain constructs in a post might hold it up. When that happens, eventually some one gets tired of the old thread hanging forever and either archives it totally manually, or using a utility like User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver. NE Ent 20:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies and @Equazcion, many thanks for your advice and input. I appreciate it!
I have no objection to this being closed now. Or for a bot to autoarchive it.... Airborne84 (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

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


I'm being harassed cross-wiki[edit]

Dusti will email emergency(at)wikimedia.org JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure the appropriate place to go, but I'm being harassed by an IP cross-wiki. 14.136.219.161 seems to be stalking me on every site they can find, and it's starting to get quite annoying. They've hit here a couple of times, but I'm counting ten different messages alluding to "Get the fuck out of here" and even "I'm going to kill you". Any thoughts? Dusti*Let's talk!* 17:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You could write to emergency(at)wikimedia.org if you feel this is a serious issue and one could ban the IP across our project. The IP has been blocked here. If you perceive the threat as just a random statement from a vandal IP, it would be better to ignore it. Wifione Message 17:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Considering it's been ongoing for several days, I think it's past the random act of vandalism. I'll email them. Thanks @Wifione: - Merry Christmas! Dusti*Let's talk!* 17:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

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


User:Viewfinder indefinite topic ban from Jacob Barnett[edit]

I am here to request an indefinite topic ban of Viewfinder (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log) from editing Jacob Barnett, Talk:Jacob Barnett, and discussions directly connected with the subject (for example, future AfDs). Viewfinder has been persistently defending media claims that Barnett expanded and/or disproved Einstein's theory of relativity. For example, the TIME article "12-year old expands Einstein's theory of relativity" says "Could Einstein鈥檚 Theory of Relativity be a few mathematical equations away from being disproved? Jacob Barnett of Hamilton County, Ind., who is just weeks shy of his 13th birthday, thinks so. And, he鈥檚 got the solutions to prove it." They then go on to present Tremaine as having "confirmed he鈥檚 on the right track to coming up with something completely new." Almost all of the sources we reference say at least that Barnett "expanded Einstein's theory", which present that "expanded theory" as though it were a real thing. The Daily Mail, for instance, states that physicists "confirmed the authenticity of Jake's theory". Multiple sources have said that he is "about to disprove Einstein", that he is "disproving the Big Bang", etc. Here are just a few examples of this in the media:

  • Indystar "The numbers that keep him from snoozing are the same that led him to develop his own theory of physics -- an original work that proposed a "new expanded theory of relativity" and takes what Einstein developed even further."[1]
  • Time "12-year old expands Einstein's theory of relativity" and "Could Einstein鈥檚 Theory of Relativity be a few mathematical equations away from being disproved? Jacob Barnett of Hamilton County, Ind., who is just weeks shy of his 13th birthday, thinks so. And, he鈥檚 got the solutions to prove it."[2]
  • CTV News "he built a series of mathematical models that expanded Einstein's field of relativity, which was described by a Princeton University professor as ground-breaking."[3]
  • The Blaze "he鈥檚 working on an expanded version of [Einstein]鈥檚 theory of relativity. So far, the signs are good. Professors are astounded. So what else does a boy genius with vast brilliance do in his free time? Disprove the big bang, of course."[4]
  • Yahoo News "12-year-old boy has new theory of relativity" and "he's about to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity."[5]
  • Huffington Post: "Barnett believes he can prove Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity wrong, TIME reports. Astrophysics professor Scott Tremaine of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton confirms he's onto something. Another project in the works: disproving the Big Bang Theory."[6]
  • MacLean's: "Diagnosed with severe autism as a child, Barnett is now 15 and one of the world鈥檚 most promising physicists"[7]
References

Now, all of this is obvious nonsense, as has been pointed out to User:Viewfinder by myself User:David Eppstein, User:Agricola44. However, perversely User:Viewfinder defends such statements in the media, and even denies that there is any obvious falsehood in statements of this kind. In several places at Talk:Jacob Barnett, as well as in a discussion at WP:FRINGE/N, where I address such material substantively and directly. Here are some of the points raised by User:Viewfinder:

The most recent episode concerns the addition of a link to an obvious piece of promotional flap from the article. This link clearly failed Wikipedia's external link policy: a promotional link for "The Spark", maintained by the subject's mother, falsely presented as the subject's official website. Viewfinder then reverted the removal of this link, vigorously maintaining on the talk page that it had encyclopedic value, even though its actual purpose is obvious to anyone visiting the site. Viewfinder wrote the following at the AfD, suggesting probable WP:SOAPBOX reasons for this: "I happen to agree with Charlotte Moore who writes in the Spectator that '(Kristine) is an admirable woman, Jacob is a remarkable boy and their story deserves to be told'" and added: "I feel this way because I see SB refer to mother's cynical attempt to flog her new book in the media and BBB use the uncivil expression FFS, then refer to 'extremely poor' science journalism as 'normal', which I see as nasty attacks on an individual and a profession respectively. Loads of people attempt to use journalists to sell their work, and very few succeed. Despite the scientific flaws, that the mother has succeeded must surely count for something. Perhaps these journalists admire her determination to publicize her case of autistic child prodigy and frankly I agree with them. Go, Kristine. Go."

I have submitted that there are definite WP:COMPETENCE issues involved in Viewfinder's behavior. I have observed that he or she seems to be absolutely unable to read what is actually written in sources, guidelines, etc., and doggedly continues to defend the outlandish claims made in the media, despite many editors' warnings. I have raised the issue of what sources actually say twice at Talk:Jacob Barnett, and once at WP:FRINGE/N, but Viewfinder has refused to engage on any specifics. So it seems that there is a dichotomy here, either between WP:IDHT and WP:COMPETENCE: either this editor is acting in good faith but functionally illiterate, or he or she is wilfully acting disruptively. (In any event, I have been warned that it violates WP:NPA to point out one of these things, and WP:AGF to point out the other. So apparently there is no way to call out an editor for being a net negative to the project, wasting the time of otherwise productive editors. Is AGF really a life sentence?)

In either case, it seems to me that the community's patience has been thoroughly exhausted. As User:Agricola44 points out "We're all going batty." I motion that we should all be allowed to get on with more productive things, by issuing a topic ban of User:Viewfinder for topics related to Jacob Barnett. S艂awomir Bia艂y (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the third application to get me topic banned for my contributions to the talk page at Jacob Barnett. The last attempt was dismissed as being "not an ANI issue" and this attempt appears to be no different. I have only made one recent edit to the article itself, and when the nominator reverted that edit, I did not pursue the article any further. Yes, I have been having my say on the talk page, defending the international media against what the nominator calls "obvious falsehoods", but it that really grounds for a ban? Is there really evidence, as the nominator claims, that I must be either incompetent (he has called me an "incompetent idiot") or acting in bad faith? Viewfinder (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, given that the discussion that you linked to is not ANI, and the comment that you misquoted actually says as much, that "This [forum] is not ANI", I think this very comment nicely illustrates the kind of persistent incompetence that we all have to deal with. Or perhaps you are deliberately misrepresenting things. But in the end, it doesn't really matter why you do this sort of nonsense. S艂awomir Bia艂y (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Also, I wish to draw attention to Viewfinder's accusations that those who disagree with him are part of a "cabal": here, here, here, and most recently here, in violation of a bright line against any such further insinuations that I set here. S艂awomir Bia艂y (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I did not use the word "cabal" in the most recent example, even it appears on the nominator's user page. I referred to a tightly-knit deletion team, that has come together to go to considerable lengths to get the article deleted. I opposed these attempts, and so far they have been unsuccessful, but it is not hard to see that the nominator wants to deny me any say in likely future attempts. If I am so incompetent, why must he go to so much length to get me topic banned? Viewfinder (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Just looking through some of the discussions between S艂awomir Bia艂y and Viewfinder, I notice that of the two, S艂awomir Bia艂y seems to be behaving rather badly. Repeated insults is no way to persuade anyone and may actually result in sanctions against you. I also notice that Viewfinder seems to be overly willing to respond to all the insults and the arguing. Not sure why he thinks that will accomplish anything other than warming the air. If S艂awomir Bia艂y were to restrain himself and argue only specific article content and Viewfinder only responded to arguments regarding specific article content, they might find their differences a little more manageable. 鈥 JBarta (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, this bullshit has being going on forever. Viewfinder has been systematically WP:IDHT, and enough truly is enough. Do productive editors really need to put up with civil trolls who can stick their fingers in their ears, going "Lalalalala", despite endless entreaties from multiple parties? Surely not. Productive editors can only take so much of this. So, I'm looking for something a little more useful than "let's all just get along mmkay." That's been tried. S艂awomir Bia艂y (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd also note that Viewfinder has made precisely one edit to the article in the last four months and rarely edits the article in general (at least looking back a year or so)... though of late the arguing is rather continuous. A lot of this seems like arguing just for the sake of arguing. The cure for that is quite simply... stop arguing. 鈥 JBarta (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, lots of trolling indeed has occurred on that discussion page. He even brazenly continues the trolling here: see his two posts immediately above. Shall I hat or revert future trolling, then? S艂awomir Bia艂y (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I was actually thinking that you are continuously arguing with someone who doesn't actually edit the article (or at least edits very little). If you restrained yourself to just discussing edits he actually makes, you two would have much less to argue about. 鈥 JBarta (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but the latest episode regards a revert that Viewfinder made to the article, concerning a link that obviously did not belong there. Viewfinder seems intent on questioning any change to the article, no matter how obvious, on what seems to be purely idealogical grounds (see, for instance, Talk:Jacob Barnett#Ordering of first paragraph). Moreover, it still seems that there is real work to be done there, but positively no meaningful discussion can proceed whilst Viewfinder continually derails things on the talk page. See, for instance, his most recent "proposal" to implicitly validate the relativity denialists, added at the end of a section where it did not belong (which followed a long discussion over a month ago already rejecting a similar such proposal). He does this out of an idealogical commitment to the subject, and that creates an extremely unpleasant editing environment for the good-faith editors there. S艂awomir Bia艂y (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I am mystified when I visit User:S艂awomir Bia艂y, seeing a notice stating the editor is "semi-retired", and then check their edit history. That says they haven't edited since August 6, 2013, but here they are, happily editing away. Can anyone explain why their edits aren't being logged in their contribution list? I am in general agreement with S艂awomir Bia艂y on the content issues, but their repeated hostility and personal attacks against Viewfinder are beyond the pale. I urge S艂awomir Bia艂y to cease the insults immediately. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
If I got this right, it appears that Slawekb is signing their posts as S艂awomir Bia艂y (and user Slawekb redirects to S艂awomir Bia艂y ). --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, User:Slawekb is a declared alternate account of User:S艂awomir Bia艂y. NE Ent 02:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
So, the insulting editor who declares they are "semi-retired" has made 500 edits since October, and their signature makes it exceedingly difficult for average editors to view their history. Seems odd to me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a very clear link in a large and obvious text box near the top my user page. I find the characterization that I have made it "exceedingly difficult for average editors to view [my] history" rather astonishing. S艂awomir Bia艂y (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
S艂awomir Bia艂y, this should really be discussed at the article's talk page, but we'll look at it here as an example of consensus building instead of arguing (hopefully). That "latest episode" was an attempt to re-add (after you removed) "jacobbarnett.com" to the infobox on Jacob Barnett. A perfectly reasonable inclusion per Infobox person. That his mother is trying to sell a book about him on his web site is no big deal... lots of people promote their books on their web site and I know of no wiki-guidelines prohibiting that. The fact his mother is involved is perfectly reasonable as Jacob Barnett is still a kid. That said, could you support the inclusion if it were in External links instead? 鈥 JBarta (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I also don't wish to get into content discussions here, but the link clearly did not belong in the infobox (see {{infobox person}} and WP:ELOFFICIAL). Viewfinder continued to defend the presence of the link in the article, when the first paragraph on talk should have made it quite clear that the link was unacceptable. Halfway through the discussion, Viewfinder asks "Are you really claiming that the disputed link gives no additional, substantive information about Jacob?" Well, yes. That's obvious to anyone visiting that website. So why ask the question in the first place? S艂awomir Bia艂y (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Part of consensus building is compromise. When two editors see things differently, and WP guidelines aren't egregiously offended either way, sometimes a little give and take goes a long way. With that in mind, could you now support the inclusion if it were in External links instead? 鈥 JBarta (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome to propose the matter on the discussion page of the article. I'm taking a time out from the whole affair, although I suspect there will not be much consensus for that either, given the responses regarding the original placement of the link. S艂awomir Bia艂y (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking for a bit of compromise on this small point from you here now. Will you give it? 鈥 JBarta (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think that the arguments made on the discussion page by User:Agricola44, User:Tkuvho, and User:David Eppstein are soundly rooted in the WP:ELNO guideline and WP:NOT policy, and fairly conclusively demonstrate that the link does not belong even in the External links section. So, no: I don't think that, as a rule, guidelines, policy, and pretty clear consensus should be disregarded in the interests of appeasement. Having said that, I have removed myself from the fray there, and I will not object if things were hypothetically to go the other way. S艂awomir Bia艂y (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
SB, you freely quote WP policy, NOT and ELNO, but what about all the insults? Will you stop these? 166.173.184.59 (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I am on a self-imposed interaction ban with Viewfinder. I do not see the future need to make any other further observations regarding Viewfinder's competence to edit Wikipedia, since there now seem to be enough outside uninvolved editors watching Talk:Jacob Barnett to guard against further disruption there. I expect that Viewfinder will also refrain from directly confronting me, O mysterious "anonymous" interlocutor. S艂awomir Bia艂y (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would like to thank JBarta and Cullen328 for their measured replies here. Now that there are some outside observers at the Jacob Barnett, I think I will self-impose an interaction ban with Viewfinder. I do not think any productive discussion can be got from him, and the stress level of dealing with him is not good for me (or anyone else). S艂awomir Bia艂y (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Is SB going to stop insulting other editors? 166.173.62.223 (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. First, let me say I've never been big on this sort of administrative intrusion into an editor's activity, but it seems we all have our limits, and second, it would be good to keep in mind that we're not here to debate SB's conduct or editing habits. Those aspects can be discussed elsewhere. That said, the issue in my mind is not actually whether Viewfinder has made very many recent edits on the article. This episode actually flared because of a single edit regarding the mother's website that promotes her book and her speaking tours. Rather, the problem is the continual pushing on the talk page for cleansing the article of objectionable content (which, incidentally and unfortunately, is the only content that is supported by WP:RS). Why exactly is this a problem if Viewfinder is not actually editing the article? Two reasons: (1) Definite consensus has already been established regarding the nonsensical nature of the claims, the sources, the mother's website, and so forth and so on. (2) The talk page requires the ongoing attention of many of us in order that the pushed proposals do not become accepted via acclamation. This has become a real nuisance and it is not likely, in my opinion, that any real common ground can be found at this point because the gap is too wide. In particular, on one hand is a group of editors, many of whom (e.g. myself, SB, David Eppstein) have some familiarity with research physics, that insists on a conventional bio consisting of those facts that are supported by independent sources. On the other is Viewfinder, who insists on a romanticized article that paints a heartwarming picture of an autistic boy who rose above his doctor's expectations to take the world of research physics by storm. Unfortunately, the latter version is patently false according to the conventions of the research profession, i.e. that Jacob has never published a paper on besting Einstein, disproving the Big Bang, or any other subject, nor has he been tipped for a Nobel prize, etc, etc. The very nature of the sources, which are comprised entirely of idiotic claims of non-existent research accomplishments by Jacob, his handlers, and media commentators, make this article an inherently bad reflection on Jacob, but likewise the only reflection we can actually report here. As I said, I don't know if this is the administrative answer or not. But I do know that we could all certainly spend our time better elsewhere. Agricola44 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC).
This is not fair and contains factual errors. I have consistently supported the inclusion of links to articles published by the scientific community that state that Barnett did not disprove or significantly expand relativity or done anything else to merit a Nobel Prize. Agricola, who is part of the tightly knit group that appears to me to want to own the article, is calling for me to be topic banned for using the talk page to defend widespread international media coverage that he calls "idiotic". (That is his POV; no RS has been provided that uses that kind of language.) In any case, earlier today I stated on the talk page that I had set out my take on this matter and would not repeat it. Apart from defending myself rather than ignoring the personal attacks, sorry about that, I cannot see what I have done wrong. Has not the real cause of the problem been the persistent personal attacks by SB, which created a nasty atmosphere that undermined consensus building? SB has implied above that he will discontinue these. At the last AfD and DRV debates, I forcefully opposed the arguments for deletion put forward by SB and Agricola, arguments which were rejected by admin. It appears to me to be very likely that they want me topic banned before their next attempt to nominate the article for deletion. Viewfinder (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not the article talk page, so I apologize for responding to this, but it is a good example of what the "consensus position" is having to deal with. First, it is clear (or should be) that claims of multiple, enormous accomplishments in research physics (besting Einstein, disproving relativity, etc, as detailed above, in the AfD, in the talk page) are ipso facto nonsense, especially in light of the fact that there is no vetted research work published, much less submitted on these topics. The claims, and there are many of them, are what I called "idiotic". Conversely, if one carefully reads what Viewfinder just wrote, you see that s/he does not accept this. Viewfinder wants a source that discredits these. Nevermind the lack of basic familiarity of science, this position represents a lack of awareness of where the burden of proof lies. It lies with those making the claims, i.e. Jacob, his handlers, and the complicit media. There is no proof because there are no papers! Viewfinder persists in this bating and there seems to be no way of getting him/her to do a little homework to see how senseless his/her position is. Rather, View wants to romanticize the article because s/he has an admitted affinity to the subject, which is clearly clouding any objective consideration. This is making life difficult for many of us (the accused cabal) that are not willing to see this article made into a non-encyclopedic feel-good and completely false story. I will address anything further back at the talk page. Agricola44 (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC).
It seems that we are not about to agree about the media coverage, and as you say, this is not the place to debate it. But is that a good enough reason to get me topic banned? Viewfinder (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for both Viewfinder and S艂awomir Bia艂y being indefinite topic-banned from the Jacob Barnett article. And, given that editors can be blocked for behavior that is less disruptive than the insults made by S艂awomir Bia艂y, I favor S艂awomir Bia艂y being blocked for several days from editing Wikipedia. 107.19.108.233 (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Anonymous IP: while we are here, perhaps this would be a good time for you to clarify your relationship to I'm your Grandma. (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log), DoctorTerrella (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log), LadyLeodia (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log), and the other two anonymous IPs earlier in this thread. You seem to be stalking me from your sockpuppet accounts. (Any checkusers around?) S艂awomir Bia艂y (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are me. Serial accounts, no overlap. Why? Several reasons, short fuses of admins, but mostly I find you intimidating. I have tried to contribute constructively. You have insulted me. So I moved on to a new identity. 166.173.184.59 (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This explanation doesn't add up. User:I'm your Grandma apparently "retired" as the result of being blocked for disruption at Global warming, an article I have never even edited. This was well after I had any contact with him or her at Talk:Fourier transform, where I responded rather curtly to some incoherent criticisms concerning that article. The same editor then apparently stalked me to WT:WPM concerning the featured article Euclidean algorithm and subsequently wrecked that article, requiring an RfC and the valiant efforts of a number of distinguished mathematical editors, myself included, to sort the mess out. Now User:LadyLeodia has suddenly appeared as a "new" editor at Fourier transform, followed me to ANI, and has introduced still more socks (obvious provocateurs) onto the scene. It's hard to see how that is a legitimate use of alternative accounts. S艂awomir Bia艂y (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLUD on Talk:Battle of Chawinda[edit]

Yesterday Nawabmalhi edit warred until the page was protected. During the edit war, he continued to remove the maintenance templates and misrepresent sources.

In order to keep bludgeoning the process, he started to accuse me of personal attacks and copy pasted the same discussions two times in two different sections.[115][116]

One user hatted his conversation, and was told to whether change or remove the same copy pasted text. He has reverted that move at least three times.[117] [118][119] OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 01:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • His bad understanding of English language(WP:CIR) as well as his avid nationalism probably prompts him to misrepresent the references and his decision to avoid the discussion and repeat same argument includes the misrepresentation of policies. He is incapable of understanding the matter. I would recommend a topic ban. Another option is a temporary block until RFC is finished. He fails to understand what others have written and pretends that he hasn't read anything. VandVictory (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Nawabmalhi has already been notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. In case there is any issue of nationalist editing, this should be kept in mind. It is a fact that we do tend to see disputes about the results of wars and battles, even on stuff like the War of 1812, because it may not be a simple matter of fact. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Yes, a few weeks ago he was reminded of DS. I agree with above comments that there is issue with nationalistic editing and competence with English. On Battle of Chawinda, he is trying to prove that the battle resulted in Pakistan victory, by labeling words such as "blood bath" as "victory".[120] On Talk:Siachen conflict, he had discarded a reliable source published by Stanford University as an "Indian source which may also be subject to bias".[121] OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 02:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Please donnnot Muckrake I did not make any edit on the Siachen Conflict nor did I revert an edit when you said the source was reliable I reexamined it and ended the discussion. I stand by what I said either way an Indian source(meaning from India) should not be used to indicate a victory or defeat in an India related conflict and that is why I donnot use Pakistani sources to back Pakistani Victory stance, only western in Chawinda article-- Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You have used WP:PRIMARY(statement of Pakistani commander) sources on Battle of Chawinda and misrepresented others. If the source is reliable you don't have to pinpoint the nationality of one author as a reason to reject. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 07:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
His discussions are uncalled for. His reply to my comment was indeed an attempt to joke or irritate. He was telling me about the same book that others had already checked and it seemed like he was supporting my comment, but if you see his few other comments you will find his misuse of this snippet for claiming problematic statements. That's how his discussions are becoming irritating for others. If he is blocked until the rfc closure, he will still come back to badger and continue same style of nationalistic POV on other articles just like he is doing now. Temporary topic ban on military subjects would be better as his ultimate aim is to derail discussions, not to gain consensus. 喟ㄠ翱喟溹熬喟ㄠ翱喟曕翱 (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry if you got offended, but if you carefully read what I said that is not what I meant at all. Many people did not have the access to Fricker on Google Books due to copyright, through various searches on Google books I had a good portion of the page viewable. So when you said the conflict was largely affected by the cease fire I gave you a source which showed that the ceasefire was a result of the conflict and provided my new link so you could access Fricker and see for yourself. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Nawabmalhi[edit]

To be completely honest this to me seems like muckraking seems to be a trend developing in OcultZones tactics and can be seen at the AE Archives quite clearly. Here is my point of view:

  • The only reason I copied and pasted into the other section because OccultZone was repeating the same argument from the section above on the the Talkpage and just created another section to do it. I specifically wrote that I was doing this as a formality and this was already discussed in detail above and did not want to indicate that I was ignoring him or that I felt that his maintenance template sugestions, in my view, were correct. It is just that I always thought it Wiki ettiquete to reply even though the points raised are repetitive assuming Good Faith but he seems to like to assume Bad Faith to anything or any user he is disagrees with.
  • I did not edit war it was just that OccultZone did not discuss on the talk page and reach a consensus before adding the maintenance tags and I said lets discuss on the Talkpage first before we add these maintenance tags and if you must add them keep the source I added and keep the link to Fricker that I added and then re add the maintenance tags thankfully an Admin protected the page this is verifiable by the edit summaries on the page history.
  • I did not even edit the talkpage for over 16 hours and nor did I plan too until VandVictory decided to hat what I wrote as Misrepresenting the Source which I thought was blatant vandalism and something an Administrator could only do since he was tampering and misrepresenting what I said, which I removed it and told VandVictory to stop tampering with what I wrote. OccultZone took advantage of that to bring me here and here I am.
  • Also before coming to the ANI today I did not even know what 'hatting' was, and I was not notified remove or change the copy paste section by anyone as OccultZone says. Furthermore if you read what I wrote it was not unproductive and was relevant, plus it was only 60% the same. Moreover VandVictory Hatted what I wrote and marked it as Misrepresenting the Sources as the tempelate title/display and did it to both sections instead of one which would be different. All I knew at that point was that he was tampering with what I wrote and misrepresenting something I thought only Admins could do.
  • Majority of the people who responded to DID the battle lead to Major Pakistani victory? agree with me that the sources indicate Pakistani Victory or Indian Defeat, I am not in the minority. I have provided my explanation for why the sources clearly indicate that Chawinda is a Pakistani Victory instead of responding by giving their point of View OccultZone and VandVictory instead talk about my Grammar, call me incompetent, say that I am a Nationalist(which others will testify I am not), blatantly say I am misrepresenting the source without substantiating any evidence etc.
  • I have NO interest what so ever in delaying or bludgeoning but I due feel that a stalemate is completely contradictory and Pakistani Victory is much more fair and correct understanding of the sources so when OccultZone presents his arguement or attempts to pokeholes at my arguements I rightfully and responsibly as an active member of the discussion respond to him and give my point of view as it is discussion. If my actions are considered bludgeoning (which I think is absurd) then by the same criteria OccultZones edits are also examples of bludgeoning but with more force. Honestly it seems that they want to take the credibility of my arguments by having me topic banned.
  • Before I got involved with the Chawinda debate (which I tried to resist to the best by ignoring numerous pings etc.) I was able to do my normal editing on pages and was thanked by numerous users. Infact, the week before I got involved in this mess, I was thanked for my edit by Users Sitush and Faizan on edits related to Jat people and IndoPak wars respectively. Now my edits on actual pages is going down and affecting my real life by chipping away at my real life by eating away MCAT study time.
  • OccultZone might be in the heat of the moment, assuming Good Faith, but VandVictory, from what I have seen, seen carries around a Battleground mentality and has tried to instigate an edit war with me and others (from Dec 17) on the Battle of Chawinda page.
  • Interestingly enough VandVictory has not even edited the page before Dec 17 while another 喟ㄠ翱喟溹熬喟ㄠ翱喟曕翱 has never edited the page at all and the talk page before Dec 19 which was during the RFC. Also both of these editors donnot even seem to have any substantial knowledge of the Battle or IndoPak war of 1965(based on the user contributions), they also seem to have edited similar pages so I think they might be Sockpuppets. (sorry in advance if I am wrong). I think there should be an investigation in case.
  • My view:

I sincerely request you to end this Chawinda Discussion and pick whichever side you think is right as an administrator and close this case, it does not matter if they manage to get me topic banned or not, both sides are entrenched one saying Victory the other saying stalemate I think it is best, most fair, and efficient, if an administrator ends this. Whichever way a administrator goes everyone will listen, let go ,and move on.--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You have copied and pasted the same WP:SYNTH over and over, when each of my reply was differently written. You actually want "evidence" for your source misrepresentation? Here it is,[122] no where these sources[123][124] state that there was any "Major Pakistani victory" or even victory for that matter. Obviously you are not going to consider it at all, and continue to misrepresent sources, cast aspersions and edit war. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 07:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Your replies are formatted a little differently but they are pretty much that exact samething. If you want the last word have it, I have learned my lesson I am not gonna repeat myself for you! I am more interested on Admin opinion after talk Page look. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
They must be same because they reject your WP:SYNTH and misrepresentation? Yet you are copying and pasting the same thing. You are still doing it and even here[125] now. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 07:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
For admin so he knows where I stand, better than him having to search through the Talk Page and it is not meant for you, this is not the Talk Page discussion.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Nawabmalhi you are actually wrong because I have edited before RFC, see this from 2 December [126] VandVictory (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I was specifically talking about the article which you did not edit till Dec 17, but I did not know that you were on the talk page before that because you had not edited article and RFC had not begun.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think Nawabmalhi is emotionally attached to the subject, may not be now but later is surely going to disrupt a sensitive topic again leading into edit warring, eventhough an RFC was going on in talk page I feel the edits made were unwarranted, would support either topic ban or article edit ban Shrikanthv (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not emotionally that attached: I have never even lived in Pakistan, although I am part of the Pakistani Diaspora. I belong to the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam a heavily persecuted sect in Pakistan. I am more pan-South Asian and value my Religious affiliation, Ethnic origins, and Canadian Citizenship are far more than my Pakistani Citizenship. I just think that a stalemate does not make sense what so ever and is not supported by the sources.
If I am given a article or Topic ban(as a precautionary measure before I do anything wrong) ,OccultZone should get a Topic or Article Ban aswell since we are responding to each other, because otherwise it would wrongly discredit the support side plus I have already made my arguments and I only responded after 16 hours after VandVictory messed with what I wrote and I think it is best if an Administrator ends the RFC as both side are heavily entrenched this is creating pointless hostilities now. Administrator intervention and RFC closure would help people move on. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello. OccultZone is guilty of same WP:BLUD look at talkpage. He also wants to close RFC early look at his talkpage. This is not WP:SNOW debate how can it be closed after 5 days. Please allow RFC for 30 days time. Maybe OccultZone can be topic ban other user requested to wait for neutral user comment. Nawabmalli reply are using reference just like OccultZone but OccultZone should stop replying more and more. He did too much BLUD with TopGun then get him topic ban. He had final warning on Arbitration enforcement page. He is doing it again now. Nawabmalli is reported first time he maybe told to stop replying to OccultZone verbally. VandVictory has done more than 17 revert in editwar! ---TheSawTooth (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you show where I had any warning from AE? I had none. I don't control AE that I got him topic banned, case was carefully judged by the admins, he was topic banned for misrepresenting sources, edit warring, same thing that you and Nawabmalhi are doing. Since none of the debates are based on votes(though majority supports exclusion), we are more supportive towards the correct representation of WP:RS, none of the sources support the statement in question, now that you have mentioned WP:SNOW, then exactly, it applies here. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 09:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
TST, have you forgot that you were indefinitely blocked for pretending to be an admin on this page? I can't understand what you have written, care to speak in English? VandVictory (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It was misunderstanding. I was talking about real admin Nyttend. It is removed. Your revision was on purpose 17 time. -TheSawTooth (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Still can't understand what you have written. VandVictory (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Read AE result discussion of admins. References by Nawabmalli are correct. Do not give summary of RFC yourself you are involve in dispute. RFC will show who is right it is purpose of RFC do not try to close it early like you say on your talkpage many users are disagreed. Let neutral users comment more for regular 30 days time. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
"Discussion" is not equivalent to "warning", you have made another unfounded claim and now arguing over it. None of the sources provided by Nawabmalhi are correct and by labeling them to be "correct" you are also misrepresenting the sources. Do any of them mention "victory" or regard Pakistan as the winner of Battle of Chawinda? None do. None of your arguments are policy based and they are only repetition of what you have already said before. Same with Nawabmalhi. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 10:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
So when Zaloga says Indian 1st division was defeated by Pakistani 25th calvalry which also resulted in a UN ceasefire it is a stalemate?When Fricker calls it a blood bath which made the Indians go to UN he meant it was inconclusive?...... I am misrepresenting the sources? --Nawabmalhi (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
25 Cavalry is just a cavalry regiment that fought another regiment, but that is not about the whole battle or both nations. "Blood bath" does not mean victory or defeat either, neither he says that it made "Indians go to UN". Obviously you are misrepresenting sources. I didn't referred results as stalemate, and some other editors did [127][128] as globalsecurity[129] states that. "Inconclusive"[130] is supported by a reliable source. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 10:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a perfect example of your bias, the Pakistani 25th Cavalry led the Pakistani BlitzKrieg like attack against the Indian 1st Division took them by suprise which led to Indias defeat at Chawinda.....Defeat is the word Zaloga specifically used
  • Here is the Fricker Quote again: "After the Battle of Chawinda, which proved to be a blood bath for Chaudhuris Indian Army. India pleaded its case for an unconditional ceasefire..." and you could view it in more detail through my link if you donnot own the book
  • When other sources are saying it is a defeat, blood bath, Indian debacle, and an Indian Asal Uttar you should realize that your sources mean it is specifically inconclusive in the sense there was no significant change in territory--Nawabmalhi (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Major problem is with your WP:SYNTHESIS, that you insert your own flawed definitions and claim "Major Pakistani victory". You are still bludgeoning the process and spamming on this thread with your source misrepresentation. None of the sources claim any victory or defeat, I know that you will never hear, that's why topic ban seems to be the only solution. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Ye they do! Did you even read what I said? To be honest I think you might be misrepresenting the sources, not me. Either way read what I said above as I am not repeating myself. This is not the discussion thread I only respond when you misrepresent my view and raise allegations and frankly if I am Bludgeoning (again absurd)than you are too with TheSawTooth.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Let consensus decide my friend. 25th and anti tank infantry was fighting India in this battle. Reference is saying defeated. Neutral users can read this reference and understand it. Why you respond every time to explain reference? I move that every one stop commenting on RFC let neutral users debate now. -TheSawTooth (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Performance of smaller forces doesn't count as results until the reference itself state that there were no other forces in the war. Consensus is different than what you are thinking, it doesn't means that 2 users with horrible English are allowed to misjudge sources and make unnecessary arguments without even understanding that what others have written. I don't know what you actually meant from 'Neutral users'. If you think yourself as a 'non-neutral user', I would agree. VandVictory (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Please read the Steven Zaloga reference from the article, it specifically says the Pakistani 25th Cavalry defeated Indian 1st division, not just that a smaller force faced off a larger force. Also please read WP:CIV and note most people who have responded to the RFC support some sort of Pakistani Victory. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You need to give up misjudging these references and learn English. A cavalry is not a country. 8 people opposed and 7 people supported the misjudgement of references, is that what you call 'most people' supporting your nonsense? Or you don't know how to count either. VandVictory (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The cavalry was Pakistani and the 1st division was India you are mixing the two and this is why Zaloga compares it to Asal Uttar
Actually only 7 people wrote opposed and one of them opposed a major Pakistani victory and wanted a local or tactical Victory. So 8 in suppport of some sort of Pakistani Victory and 6 opposed. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You are mixing up the things because you don't know how to speak in English and then you have also got a nationalistic POV that is making you look even worse. A cavalry is not a country. One of the user wrote 're-word' and his comment was against your nonsense. Don't count the IP that has made no edits outside. So we are back to where we were, 7 support and 8 oppose for your opinion. VandVictory (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not my opinion it is a fact, it seems you used control F I have counted the results twice and you should review it on the talkpage instead of making a fool out of yourself, only 14 people commented and TheBanner wrote opposed but said it was a tactical or local Victory; which means I am right: 8 in support of some sort of Pakistani Victory and 6 opposed.. And your comment about the cavalry shows that you donnot know much about this battle and I have already tried to help you understand above. --Thank You for continuing your False Personal Attacks Nawabmalhi (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It is just what you think. The Banner said that it is just his opinion and it requires better references, he also said that the battle actually stopped after the ceasefire. You can see that because of your misunderstanding of English you are incapable to understand the meaning. VandVictory (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban on Nawabmalhi and TheSawTooth[edit]

They cannot understand English,(WP:CIR) they have rapidly removed the issue tags[131][132][133][134][135] from the article without ever replacing with a reliable reference or solving the issue. Repetitive and repulsive argument as seen above can be seen in these diffs where Nawabmalhi makes counter allegations.[136] TheSawTooth has made an emotional response with some false accusations and incorrect acknowledgement of arbitration enforcement proceedings, he seeks for a topic ban on other user,[137] while forgetting that he was blocked 2 days ago for pretending to be an admin on the same page.[138] Their continued misjudgement of these references[139] [140][141] for promoting a 'Major' victory of Pakistan, is nationalistic and disruptive. An indefinite topic ban from the military pages about India and Pakistan would be the best choice. VandVictory (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I already explained this before you never discussed adding the maintenance tags and I already discussed this above in detail. Here is my edit summuray:
Reverted to revision 639089574 by Nawabmalhi: Please dont edit war, most people donnot agree that these need verification, I added link to Fricker and name pg.# for Zaloga it is best to wait till discussion is over to brand the sources. I also said on the talkpage if you must add them, re-add them seperatly but thankfully an administrator interfered, I only reverted it twice and had no plan on doing it again and I appealed an end.
You are combining edits of two different users to say I edit warred, or are you trying to prove that you edit warred since you reverted the edits?--Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I did not post wall of text on chawinda. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose You have already topic banned TopGun. It is not fair to ban every one who disagrees. It is WP:BATTLEGROUND thinking. VandVictory revised the page 17 times deleting tags he should not talk of others editwar. I have not broken any rule. I do not wish to discuss or edit this page more due to these users they are acting so aggressive. Admin should read my argument and close discussion after 30days time. It does not need topic ban. Same users who give statement on TopGun case [142] have come here to ban us. Involved users can not ban other users. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • My note I was misunderstood when I was blocked. I did not misrepresent to be admin every one knows I am not admin. I was talking of admin action of Nyttend. I have not edited chawinda after I got unblock because I know this topic is under disruption. I should not be ban without breaking any rule. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose:
    • I have not made any edits to Chawinda for two days now seems like an attempt o discredit support side
    • I have already shown that I have not editwarred in any form and have given a detailed explanation above. Nor have I attempted bludgeoning the process but infact VandVictory and OccultZone have by stating nonsensical statements such as 'A calvary does not represent a country' not understanding that it was the small Pakistani 25th Cavalry that stopped the Indian 1st division(Bassically all the Indian Units) etc.
    • The proposer, VandVictory, is the only one on the page who has been blatantly edit warring from Dec 17 along with an IP address see page history he seems to be either a sock Puppet or POV pusher contacted by OccultZone as he has no association with the Battle of Chawinda and Indo-Pak 1965 war.
    • The only time I minutely came close to edit warring was when VandVictory kept adding a Collapse with the title: Misrepresenting the source which was blatantly misrepresenting with what I was saying and was tampering with what I wrote. And I thought, that editor at best could only do such thing and did not even know was before I came to the ANI.
    • Although these editor accuse me of repetitive arguements, they do it themselves, I had already answered all their allegations above and for a while they kept silent but now they have after a little while they raise same allegations again. All they're doing muckraking and doing personal attacks(OccultZone has stopped) but VandVictory is on a role
    • I am not even making any edits on the talkpage recently, and realistically neither will these 3, I think, they want a topic ban for me and now for TheSawTooth as well as, so they can discount the support side and freely Bludgeon article and successfully and wrongfully force the RFC to a Stalemate viewpoint.
    • This is a clear case of muckraking(see above) and canvassing (OccultZone was even advise not to go to the ANI) by them atlease 3 random Users ,who for some reason happen to be Indian and POV pushers with no prior conection to article, show up to the article Talk page. I just cannot see this as coincidental, through any form of logic.
    • If anything is still unclear please refer to the Nawabmalhi section where I answered these False allegations with more detail and is more comprehensive in general--Thank YouNawabmalhi (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Evident that they are unable to restrain themselves. After reading the statement of NawabMalhi and Thesawtooth, I would say that they are blaming others to hide their disruptive behavior. They are desperate to oppose own topic ban, while making the situation worse for the rest of the editors. Problematic language skills that are combined with POV-pushing and edit warring is still going to discourage editors from contributing on as many pages where they are contributing. Noteswork (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


User:Pagesclo[edit]

I had the temerity to revert[143] an edit by Pagesclo (talk  contribs) which introduced ungrammatical English into the article on Aztec empire. The user then tracked all my recent contributions reverting them wholesale (including removing several sources requested by another user that I had spent most of the morning tracking down[144]). It doesnt appear that I can talk them to reason. There is a good chance that the user is a simple troll who was luring someone to revert them. Here they are making similarly nonsensical edits at other pages: [145][146] User:Maunus 路蕧aunus路snun蓯w路 03:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Foolish complaints. Pagesclo (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what to call this here. It seems kind of WP:pointy. [147] <Here Pageclo is reverted for "doesnt work in English". [148] <Here Pagesclo reverts Maunus for "doesnt work in English". There are no apparent reason for Pagesclo's Revert. [149] <This diff makes me question their competence in English. I'd like to review to see if there are more issues like this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, that was a straightforward WP:POINT revert. I've had a look through Pagesclo's edits and have had to revert a page move to a name that appears not to exist, and some spelling and grammar. I've dropped a warning onto their talk page. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The words exist; always that this is "something Mexican", putting "maximum extension", that looks ugly. Pagesclo (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I've given them a warning about Schenectady that mentions blocking, and a note about edit warring. I've also come up with different wording at Aztec Empire, both wordings sounded weird. Not sure if that will be the end of it or not; we'll see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Since last updated, User:Pagesclo has gone back and wiped content again[150] and continued the same silly little edit war[151] on the same pages despite warnings. There have been no 3RR violations (at 3 at each of the two articles currently) but I thought this should be mentioned if the discussion is about ongoing disruption.(Non-administrator observation) Tstorm(talk) 05:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User: Kikichugirl[edit]

(NAC) AfD noms were in good faith. No admin action needed. OP is a new user still finding their way around. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

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

@Kikichugirl:She nominated a number of article created by me to be deleted, without being thoroughly investigating the source I provided and the secondary references.

These articles can be further enhanced in future by additing additional details.

Coffee spoon (unit)

Coffee measure

Wine glassful

Water glassful

Dash (unit)

Breakfast cup

Teacupful

She is discouraging the expansion of Wikipedia Shevonsilva (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  • There is an entire section dedicated to you and these articles, above. We're not going to make this about someone who nominated a couple of them for deletion. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Much to my surprise, I was not notified about this ANI report. Shevonsilva, please stop. You are approaching the level of personal attacks against me here. I'm inclined to WP:Assume good faith, but it doesn't seem like you're doing it for me. Your untrue accusations that I did not "thoroughly investigate the source I provided" Is untrue - I actually looked for more sources on these articles before heading to AfD, as you can see in my AfD nom. I understand that you may be upset that your hard work is being deleted, but please know that I am not trying to hurt you, insult you, or attack you - in fact, I am not criticizing you as a person, just these articles that happen to be the ones you created. I hope you can understand this, and resolve this peaceably. 鈥 kikichugirl speak up! 05:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
He doesn't seem to be saying you're attacking him; he just doesn't understand that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that just because it's valuable information doesn't mean it should be included. Please read those links, Shevonsilva--they're important and stuff. ekips39 05:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Dont worry, the only thing he will accomplish here is to attract more delete votes to the articles.User:Maunus 路蕧aunus路snun蓯w路 05:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I've done a little bit of cleanup on a couple of his articles, merging their content (where there was some), and then redirecting. I am certain the editor has good intentions, although, as these edits indicate, there is a WP:CIR issue - more copyediting is required. JoeSperrazza (talk)

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


How to deal with a persistent long-term vandal[edit]

A British IP user, sometimes known as the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Martial arts vandal or Burton-on-Trent vandal, is known for extensive edit warring against changes to push articles into MOS compliance, genre warring, content blanking, and generally disruptive behavior on martial arts-related articles, especially Hong Kong action films. He's been active for perhaps six years now, and I've tracked his IP numbers back a few years in the linked LTA report. Among other requests for administrative action, a range bock and community ban were floated. Both were declined, and the LTA report was written instead. Over the next few months, I tracked and reported him to AIV, and he was blocked fairly quickly.

In the last report, however, Ronhjones declined to block him. In a discussion on his talk page, we discussed alternatives, such as permanent semi-protection of affected pages. This works, but it doesn't do anything to stop the vandal's disruption from spreading to new articles. As a compulsive edit warrior, it's kind of pointless to revert the vandal unless he's been blocked, as he will sometimes edit war for hours to keep his changes. While I and the involved vandal fighters obviously welcome any semi-protection or alternative proposals for dealing with him, I think the vandal still needs to be blocked to limit his disruption. However, if we're not going to block him, then I think we need to find consensus for an alternative proposal, hopefully before he can disrupt too many more articles.

Rather than re-submit to AIV, I've taken the issue here, so that a discussion can happen. Besides the Whac-A-Mole at AIV, two other possible solutions were offered a while ago: contacting his ISP directly (abuse@sky.com) and an edit filter. Recently, discussion of both took place recently on my talk page after the vandal blanked conversations about his disruptive edits. Would an edit filter be a good idea? I've tried to incorporate enough data in the LTA report that an edit filter would be possible. I'm not familiar with the edit filter itself, but I do have some recollection of regular expressions from back in college.

Oh, the current IP is: 90.197.99.5 (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  edit filter log  WHOIS  RDNS  RBLs  http  block user  block log). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Contacting his ISP is pointless. An edit-filter would be the way to go. You've got IP ranges, the articles are generally in two categories ... that should be enough. You'll need to include as much detail as possible at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Knowing the ISP is Sky - there's definitely no point - Sky will not be interested at all. It's probably a Sky customer, who gets broadband as a package with their Sky TV network - they are not going to stop him paying his 拢30-拢45 a month fee. For the same reason a rangeblock is impracticable - it will hit many thousands of people. An edit filter is an interesting idea, I'm not sure if his edits are similar enough to trip a filter, but it would be worth a trial. There's very little else that can identify him once he starts from a new IP address - the UK system cannot geolocate the user by the IP address, all the IP address as UK wide. There's ten pages he seems to like, semi-protected for now - maybe we need a combination of semi and filter... Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced edits on the Nagorno-Karabakh article[edit]

User Zimmarod is both constantly removing my sourced additions on the Nagorno-Karabakh article despite that they're completely sourced with reliable sources. He/she is using arguments such as "rv anon; dubious sources" to disregard entire large edits, or, now even more interestingly putting in his edit description "Rv per WP:BATTLEGROUND, in reference to "This is insane" remark"., because I told that removing entire sourced additions easily like that, is insane. He/she is obviously reverting and acting here with an agenda per WP:JDL, as it's quite a politically active topic. He also switches between his presumably two accounts (Zimmarod and Hablabar) who edit on the exact same articles, write the exact same edit summaries [[152]], [[153]], and have the exact same usage of language.[[154]][[155]]

You can't just disregard sourced edits like that I think. Especially if you happen to use two accounts to hide behind this. I brought it here to have this problem solved asap instead of turning it into an edit war. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The interaction analyzer is pretty clear something is going on. The interaction timing goes back over a year for editors who intersect like this and it extends to Georgian scripts and more importantly the talk page which shows both editors interacting and not using edit summaries at all.[156]. Though Roses&guns also appears connected. The only question is meatpuppetry or socking? All editors with 500 or less being involved and supporting each other in a very unusual way over such a strange addition in the previous case.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Today I received a report that my name was mentioned. I would run a full sock search for 94.210.203.230 among the recently banned authors or those with a record of sanctions who were active on that page. Something indeed is going on and we need to figure out who is 94.210.203.230 and why she/he displays POV demeanor. All kinds of "info" is often "sourced" from unreliable and dubious sources and that "info" should be removed. You should go and explain why you think your "info" is worth keeping. Hablabar (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Parkwells and User:maunus[edit]

User:Parkwells has been adding information without citations to multiple articles along with changing links to disambiguation pages, which if you look at his/her talk page he/she keeps getting warnings from a bot over the multiple disambiguation links he/she (good lord can I just call the user it?) has added to multiple pages over and over and over again. The changes to articles include- information the user believes should be common knowledge (Europeans having huge intermarriage children with Native Americans who went on to run Native communities is a common view it has added to multiple pages), which isn't backed by any sources about the specific communities it is adding this information to claiming it is specific to those communities which I cant find that it is. Other problems is poor wording and grammar, including capitalization of Town in every instance, when we don't generally do so, even in "town of ______", let alone like it is doing where in a sentence of "in 1980 the Town decided to build a park" which IMHO capitalizing town is more than an honest mistake it is unencyclopedic and something not to be encouraged. There are MULTIPLE articles, the one I'm having the most problem cleaning up is Schenectady, New York, where User:Maunus is blocking my ability to remove wholesale the huge one edit Parkwells did, and I would like to go back and put in piecemeal individual good ideas Parkwells has. However Manaus believes he should edit war to keep Parkwells info in and I should cite individually every little thing and take my time disputing on the talk page every problem. If one adds a massive edit of unsourced material, per our policy I don't have to do jack but remove it, I don't have to cite it. I'm frustrated and would ask for admin opinions on the procedure when one sees an editor add the same POV unsourced material to multiple articles and claim it is specific for all the geographic area because it is common knowledge (per their response on their talk page).Camelbinky (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Please show which policy it is that shows that someone challenging material is encouraged to remove it without subsequently engaging in consensus building on the talkpage and minimally explaining the reason they are challenging the material and pointing out which claims they would like to see sources for. User:Maunus 路蕧aunus路snun蓯w路 21:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The top of WP:V: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. NE Ent 23:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
It says "may", not "must". And the section on "responsibility for providing citations" says "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable" So clearly it is not best practice or even condoned by policy to remove swathes of edits and then refuse to explain what one considers to be problematic about them.User:Maunus 路蕧aunus路snun蓯w路 01:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
No, "may" means "may" and WP:BURDEN means burden. So it's not "clearly" best practice. If it's unsourced and there's any doubt in an editor's mind, that's all that's required for them to remove it. NE Ent 03:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesnt appear we are in the same conversation here.User:Maunus 路蕧aunus路snun蓯w路 03:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
unless I'm missing something, Maunus added sources for the disputed material in the Schenectady, New York article - at which point Camelbinky removed it all again. [157] The claim that this dispute concerns 'unsourced material' thus seems to be on shaky grounds. AS for 'POV', there is nothing on Talk:Schenectady, New York that I can see which amounts to an explanation as to what specific 'POV' is being objected to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
(e-c)Sorry, the POV apparently is a write history in a manner that portrays Native Americans better and Europeans as aggressive takers of the land. While I applaud historians who write TRUTH in history to show the barbarianism of white conquerors this is not a job for Wikipedians who wish the world know that whitey is wrong. I myself don't give a shit about how white people are portrayed, I'm Jewish/Middle Eastern and I know very well the barbarianism of Western Europe to minorities. Wikipedia is about sourced material. Plain and simple this is about several massive edits to multiple articles that created problems others have to clean up (look at the user's talk page the multiple bot notifications of references templates being broken and links becoming disambiguation links). This adds up to simply "unqualified" when it comes to massive edits at once. Simply I'd like a warning for the editor to start doing piece meal edits that can be looked at individually and assessed (and possibly reverted) individually if there is a problem. Look at the person's full talk page please and you might get an inkling of what set me off.Camelbinky (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Your pov is also a Pov. The question is which pov is supported by sources. Nowhere did you state that your objections was to the portrayal of how the colonization was handled by the Dutch. That is a matter of looking at the sources. I looked at the sources yesterday, and found nothing there that contradicted Parkwells edits. Have you looked at the sources? Have you read Burke's Mohawk frontier? Nothing suggests you even know the sources here so what basis you are arguing on is a mystery to me. Could it be that you simply believe that your own POV is supported by the sources without actually having looked at them. That seems to me to be the case.User:Maunus 路蕧aunus路snun蓯w路 21:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
What POV? I don't give a shit about whitey (including Dutch colonists) are portrayed. I want an editor who adds material, especially in a big single edit to back up THEIR OWN EDIT with sources. Not to leave it to others to put in sources, clean up their changes to perfectly good links that become disambiguations because of that editor's quirks, and their sloppy edits create broken references. Look at the long list of bot notifications on their talk page. This isn't some thing new that the editor just didn't know they were doing. They have a habit of shoot first, some one else will patch up the victim. Yes, I threw out the baby with the bathwater but my intention was to always go back and introduce piecemeal the info that was good without affecting the information already there.Camelbinky (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Camelbinky has a very odd perspective on the issue. Parkwells added information about certain topics related to minority history in two localities in New York, without providing sources, and introduced some orthographic oddities. Calembinky reverted it wholesale, calling it dubious and POV (due to the minority focus probably) and made various borderline personal attacks on Parkwells. I reinstated the edit as I could see no obvious problems with the content, nothing counter factual, no extreme POV statements etc. Camelbinky flew off the handle and continued to be confrontational while simultaneously refusing to specify which of the unsourced statements they were challenging, making it difficult to fix. We editwarred a bit back and forth - admittedly I did this just as he did, he citing his version of BRD (which apparently doesnt include the D) and I arguing that his complaints were unactionable as long as he refused to justify his reversion with anything more than invective and personal attacks. I then spent my morning yesterday finding the sources for Parkwells original content which I introduced, adding citations, copyedits and some minor corrections. Then in the afternoon another used made a POINT reversal of all my edits to the article after I had reverted them on an unrelated article. blackkite reverted back to my sourced version this morning. Which Calebinky then reverted - clearly without having looked at it since they still described it as "Unsourced". All the way Camelbinky has been abrasive and very un-collegial and uncollaborative, and even though I have now clearly told him three times that I have added sources and citations to Parkwells additions they continue to claim that I am defending the inclusion of unsourced material.User:Maunus 路蕧aunus路snun蓯w路 20:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Maunus I do apologize for flying off the handle. I also applaud you for finding sources. And I believe it is great for a collegial environment for people to work together... But.. If I hadn't reverted and you stepped in, would you not agree that the additions and "orthographic oddities" you described still be there? Would the articles not be for the worse WITH the additions than they were before the additions? Is an editor who means well but does massive additions that bots have continually been informing the editor about, not deserve to be told- hey, maybe you need to step back and do smaller edits, find sources first, and look at your work and fix your own problems? Why should you have to come forward and protect this user and fix THEIR mistakes? Yes, I should have done some thing different to help the user than be an ass. I apologize to User:Parkwells sincerely. But I hope some one can back me and say "this user needs some help in editing". Meaning well isn't always an excuse.Camelbinky (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I do accept that apology, and offer my own if I have similarly come across as abrasive or uncollegial. And yes, probably the capitalization of Town and broken redirects would still be in the article if you hadnt removed it. But it would have eventually been fixed. And the article would have had additional information that it didnt have before teaching our reader more about the history of Schenectady. The reason we all have to fix the mistakes of others here is first that we are undertaking a collaborative endeavor here and secondly that we all make mistakes that needs to be fixed by others every now and then.User:Maunus 路蕧aunus路snun蓯w路 21:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I accept your apology as well. I actually don't think those errors would have been fixed (by someone other than me) any time soon. Coxsackie, New York is one example I randomly pulled up with the same Town capitalization anomaly, and that probably wont get fixed... ever? And that's just a random rural upstate town I picked (first try), I'm sure I could find more. That's one example. The reference and disambiguation link problem is some thing I do believe is serious and some thing that needs to be addressed with this editor however. A bot notifying the editor constantly and yet ignored shows a lack of willingness to work with Wikipedia policy, and may be a symptom of simply wanting to get their POV out there and only wanting to do that. All editors deserve some coaching and help on getting to be better editors, including you and I who have both been here quite a long time and worked together in different discussions and yet still have disagreement (unfortunately and I take responsibility for that). I'd rather see this editor talked to and informed of their responsibility to not create more work for others than to set the example that the editor can continue in this manner and it is ok because some one will defend them and fix their mess for them, they will get the idea that their message of truth is more important to get out than the technical aspects of Wikipedia markup.Camelbinky (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Parkwells is a competent and longstanding editor with considerable expertise in American minority history as I tried to tell you at one point. But they are a content writer, not a stickler for formatting or MOS issues. I am like that myself and I would probably neither have noticed or fixed the capitalization issues (which Parkwells introduced with what is actually a reasonable argument that I just dont think works in practice (namely using the capitalization to point out the difference between the colloquial use of "town" and its use in official classification)). I also make lots of work for wikignomes and bot when I work, fixing bare refs and redirects and typoes en masse. Some editors never add content or sources, only make thousands of edits correcting other editors formatting mistakes. For me this is part of the division of labor here, not something that is grounds for dismissing other editors work. User:Maunus 路蕧aunus路snun蓯w路 21:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

[unindent] The question is not "which pov is supported by sources". Our core policy is "Neutral point of view", not "Majority point of view". Camelbinky, you need to provide evidence for your assertions. You've provided only two pages, one of which (Schenectady) doesn't appear to have bits portraying Europeans as aggressive takers of the land, and the other of which (Coxsackie) hasn't been edited by Parkwells, as far as I can see. Please note that WP:WIAPA says that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is considered a form of personal attack. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken Nyttend. There is no such thing as "neutral point of view", there is no "view from nowhere". And that is why we rely on sources to determine what is the closest thing to neutral in a given context. Our NPOV policy describes how to achieve balance of multiple POVs in porder to approach neutrality, not that there is a neutral POV that should be taken to the exclusion of "non-neutral" POVs. Your reading of the policy is simplistic and unpracticable.User:Maunus 路蕧aunus路snun蓯w路 22:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Attempts to enforce a specific point of view must not be tolerated. Let me quote from the earliest available version of WP:NPOV. The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points. Present both (or all, if applicable) perspectives; if you write for the majority, you are still producing something that is not neutral. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
If by "enforce" you mean introduce to the exclusion of other pov's then we are in essential agreement, but that would be irrelevant for this case since that is clearly not what the edits in question are doing. What Parks does, and what they do very well, is to include recent historical accounts written by historians that focus on the experiences of minority groups who have traditionally not been part of mainstream US history (prior to the 1990s more or less). That kind of POV history is what mainstream professional historians have done for a couple of decades now - trying to correct for a long tradition of "majority POV" historiography. Parkwells does not advance any fringe views, or rewrite history to give exclusively minoritarian accounts about "evil whitey" as Camelbinky suggested. They merely insert their existence in to historical articles (in this case their edits added the Mohawk, the Dutch and the African-Americans to an article on Schenectady history which did not adequately represent these aspects). And their edits were easily sourced to recent works on the topic. Now your idea that we need to represent "both or all" POVs is a clear misreading of the policy because it fails to take into account the question of Weight. Fringe POVs cannot and should not have equal weight to mainstream viewpoints, and sometimes they should have none at all. But in this case it is irrelevant because the POV inserted by PArkwells was a clear mainstream POV within contemporary historiography, a POV that simply asserts that "minorities existed in the past and they should have a place in history as well".User:Maunus 路蕧aunus路snun蓯w路 22:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Isn't the very simple solution here for Camelbinky to tag the edits he finds problematic CN and correct the orthographic errors while letting Maunus provide the citations as Camelbinky has said he is doing? If the tags are not addressed the edits can be removed after a grace period. (Note there seem to be no diffs here, just the bald assertion that Parkwells is incompetent in general, and hence all his edits deserve reverting. That's not fair play at all.) When I read things like "don't give a shit about whitey" I begin to suspect there's something else beside the supposed issue at hand really going on. 渭畏未蔚委蟼 (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes that would have been the simple solution. But even without CN tags I already managed to find sources for the information added by Parkwells, and we Camelbinky and I both apologized and accepted the other's apology, making the entire discussion basically moot at this point.User:Maunus 路蕧aunus路snun蓯w路 22:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Answering the question in the original post; no you may not call another editor "it," personally I recommend they NE Ent 23:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Re:"They" - But only outside of articles. Grammarians do not yet recognize the use of "they" for a singular person -- although they will be forced to sooner or later, as the change seems quite inevitable -- so it shouldn't be used as part of the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Not even if you suspect the editor is an AI? 鈥 Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible threat to kill?[edit]

Hello everyone

I came across this diff in my watchlist a few minutes ago. I've rev del'd the diff as it basically seemed to be a possible threat to kill someone.

My understanding of policy is that we can't be the judge as to whether or not this is a serious threat so I'm also going to raise this to the emergency team to be on the safe side. However, this is a long term abuse case, details can be found at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Malusia22, this says that all future abuse needs to be raised at AIV/ANI. Raising it here to see if any further action is needed--5 albert square (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I had something similar come up recently here. User Mdann52 helped me with it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) 鈽儲鈽 23:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. @Mdann52:, like I say the LTA case states that if there is abuse from this editor then something needs to be raised here or AIV. I'm raising it here firstly because of the seriousness of the threat and secondly because I'm wondering if there's any type of further sanctions or action from Wikipedia that then needs to be taken. Can you advise please? --5 albert square (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban for Cwobeel for BLP violations[edit]

Non-admin close per ChrisGualtieri's retraction and request. This clearly isn't going anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Cwobeel is an editor with a self-recognized bias who has been aggressively pushing for the insertion of accusations, insults and spinning very negative information to attack a living person, Robert P. McCulloch on his biography and Shooting of Michael Brown. The most recent and unsourced editorializing of this editor resulted in the addition of this to the lead of the article in this edit.

He is of racist persuation and wanted to have the police officer not prosecuted at all, so he deliberately presented a false witness to the Grand Jury (witness #40) whom he knew in advance was not there and was lying. This carries a mandatory disbarment as per the Missouri bar. McCullough is proud of his lies and openly incriminated himself by admitting this.

The user has repeatedly inserted walls of negative material and reinserted blatantly false criminal accusations about a living person on their biography, twice. He also has no objections to re-inserting false material because it is "sourced". Some issues range from inserting Tabloid-style BLP violations to sensationalist and false (in this case contradictory) claims. There are dozens of bad insertions to go through, some which take significant explaining. [158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166]

Another serious example is the reinsertion of criminal allegations removed under BLP concerns - specifically the "Kinkogate" reinsertion (first part of the diff linked) and a second reinsertion are indicative of the problem. The "Kinkogate" issue is blatantly false because "grand jury had no role in any investigation" making it impossible for McCulloch to have abused the grand jury and commit the alleged crime.

I ask that this editor be topic banned from articles related to the Shooting of Michael Brown because this user argues to defend the inclusion of such unsupported and heinous accusations. Clearly, explaining this does not work and RFCs over basic issues is a waste of time. At this point, the disruption and BLP violations are numerous and unceasing with the user actively engaged in getting as much negativity as possible into the article. Even the user's inserted sources show and emphasize this highly partisan and defamatory angle. After weeks of explanation I decided to come to ANI given the serious nature of the edits. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The edit highlighted above was a mistake. It was not my edit, but was re-added on a revert and later deleted. As for the other allegations, ChrisGualtieri has received considerable feedback about his attempts to remove material that is sourced to legal analysts in reliable sources, from me and from others as it was the case here [167]] and more recently here: [168]. The material that this editor is pushing for removal asserting that they are BLP violations, include [169]:
  • The legal analysts of CNN and The New Yorker
  • the director of Harvard Law School's Criminal Justice Institute
  • a law professor at Fordham University
  • the president-elect of the National District Attorneys Association
  • a University of Missouri law professor
  • the chief legal affairs anchor for ABC News
  • the director of graduate programs in criminology at Merrimack College and a 27-year veteran and former lieutenant of the Boston Police Department
  • a former policeman and lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice
  • an experienced defense attorney
  • a professor at the St. Thomas University School of Law in Miami
Sources include The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, SCOTUSblog, The New York Times, USA Today. The New Yorker and others.
The Kinkogate issue is sourced to the St. Louis Post Dispatch and The New York Times, but ChrisGualtieri thinks they got it wrong, so he believes that his opinion is enough for suppressing that source on the basis of a BLP violation. I am very active as a BLP/N patroller and very aware of our content policies in BLP.
ChrisGualtieri has accused me of defamation and BLP violations, when all I have done is to provide commentary from legal experts that have been published in reliable sources.
There are two RFCs now ongoing at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown on these very issues that have yet to be closed, but ChrisGualtieri is ignoring WP:DR and choosing to act unilateral and without waiting to for the DR process to unfold.
I have been a very active editor in this article, and received accolades from other editors from my work there, and I am very proud of my work on the article. Despite very long discussions with this editor, he has taken the position that legal analysts "got it wrong" and that he can make that determination on his own, and that attempts to report their significant viewpoints are BLP violations and defamation. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Maybe I'm wrong, but don't the following diffs indicate active canvassing by Cwobeel? [170], [171], [172]. From viewing past and current talk page interactions between Cwobeel and ChrisGualtieri at the articles the latter mentions above, the three editors Cwobeel contacted about this AN/I report have been consistently in agreement with Cwobeel and consistently in disagreement with ChrisGualtieri. Just saying. -- WV 01:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Not canvassing, just informing other active editors in the article that have been involved in the discussions with ChrisGualtieri and myself as well as in the RFCs on this subject, including Mandruss, Gaijin42, RAN1, Jbarta 鈥, Dyrnych, and Titanium Dragon - Cwobeel (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • More diffs to possible canvassing activity: Three more editors to add to what seems to be canvassing on the part of Cwobeel: [173], [174], [175]. -- WV 01:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I have already ping them here, as they are all involved in this dispute. That is no canvassing, but good manners. - Cwobeel (talk)
Actually this is undeniably canvassing, the question is whether it's appropriate or not. For reference, Bob K31416, Joseph A. Spadaro, Isaidnoway and Darouet should have been notified as well since they've been involved the past 3 days. --RAN1 (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and seems to be backed up with sources--High quality ones as well. It's not a BLP violation to assert stuff according to reliable sources. What I see here however is the possibility of a boomerang for attempting to witchhunt a user for diffs taken out of context, and asserting BLP violations where there are not. OP, I would opt for a close before other people decide this as well. Tutelary (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary these sources are not reliable for the statements they make and many have consensus to not be used in the fashion that Cwobeel inserted them for. The RFC on Tom Nolan showed that the attack piece was unacceptable and represented a BLP issue. It is not okay to slap quotes on an attack piece and include it "because it is sourced". Cwobeel is now claiming he did not make that edit. Editors are responsible for their edits and the reinsertion of proven false information, defamatory statements and such that were removed per WP:BLP is the issue. Editors are to judge sources and determine if they are reliable and appropriate, but allegations of racism, and criminal acts are not to be taken and pushed into a biography in such a fashion. There is absolutely no reason for a wall of quotes to surpass all the entire article's length and be entirely negative. It creates an attack page that no less than 6 different editors have made comments on in regards to it being a BLP and NPOV matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Just negate my statement. I can't deal with this stuff. Tutelary (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
@ChrisGualtieri: You seem to be attributing that RFC to Cwobeel, and are claiming that it was useless. Cwobeel and I argued for Nolan's inclusion, you disagreed. That was followed by a couple of reverts between you and Cwobeel, and I decided to revert Cwobeel and start the RFC, averting an actual edit war. I started the RFC on Tom Nolan because my discussion with you was going nowhere, and we needed to find consensus. You're not providing an accurate picture of what happened, and are using a poorly-retold fringe instance to justify your argument. --RAN1 (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Reinserting material removed by good-faith BLP claims during a discussion prior to the RFC is a novel way to accuse of framing it. As stated before - many of the inclusions required substantial discussion. Was it not me who added and wanted the full version of Toobin's argument? See. Opinions are opinions and should remain unless they advance misstatements of fact as fact, then they should be removed for misstatements of fact. To say that there was a problem with the sources and not their use is nothing more than a red herring. A person well-versed in BLP and NPOV would not have created or reinserted such unbalanced negativity or thrown WP:BALASPS out the window. Now I will defer to the community since I think there is no need for further muddling by myself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Let the RFCs work the way, be patient, and look for ways to compromise with me and others. That is the process we ought to be following, rather than use AN/I for masking a content dispute with spurious accusations of defamation. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrisGaultieri by his own admission in a previous dispute just hours ago: [176] I stand corrected and I apologize for being an ass. This after a long discussion in which he threatened me with You can be indefinitely blocked or topic banned for continuing to insert or defend hoaxes. Do not continue to deliberately mislead readers or editors because this type of material has no place on Wikipedia. ... only to finally accept that he was completely wrong on his assessment of the sources and wrong on his characterization of my contributions. So, here you have it, ChrisGaultieri is exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND including this report. I accepted his apology, and then he files this report following on his previous threat? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

And if you recall the section contained an error in which the source said the Ferguson incident report was released August 21 and source in discussion was saying the Ferguson incident report did not exist. The first source (I used Time) was in error so I was wrong, but the Ferguson report exists, I just screwed up and was an ass because I asserted the wrong damn thing. The problem remains, but I made a fuck-up by pointing to the wrong source and scolding you for it. As mentioned, it is still false and yes that source is still wrong. Here is the Ferguson Police's Incident Report ACLU received it on Thursday August 21, but it was announced August 22. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Someone close this - I retract it. I am being an ass... and overreacted to what Cwobeel inserted as a BLP violation after just warning him repeatedly for it. It was actually a re-insertion and a familiar one, but not originally by Cwobeel. I still do not know why or how that information got back into the article in Cwobeel's edit, but I cannot claim moral high ground when I am being an ass about it. Just like I cannot claim moral high ground when I come all blustery about WP:HOAX and fuck up by linking the wrong source instead of the correct one already in the article. I was right about the material, but wrong in the presentation and attitude. And that does not make me feel good. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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


AdamDeanHall[edit]

Per Andy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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

He gave a personal Personal attack on IP's talk page ([177]). 85.218.158.85 (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope. "Don't EVER talk to me like that again! EVER!!" Is an instruction, not a personal attack. And given the fact that it was a response to an IP who referred to his edit as "crap" and "retarded", [178] quite possibly justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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


Vandalism in my page[edit]

I have a problem with the user Taichi, has recently been vandalizing my page German Guatemalan placing another false data of cobaners of German ancestry, the exact data its 150,000. I am not of Guatemala, but I have my residence in Guatemala, and it was easier to refer to the German club Guatemala, and was informed that German Guatemalans varies from 300,000 to 500,000 but coban are 150,000 but Taichi arbitrarily placed 50,000, and the worst is that my page was protected from staying with false number without change, I was create this page when I was use the account Halias 23, but i lost my password, and now I use my IP, thanks 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.149.125.162 (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

re: "my page", please see WP:OWNChed :  ?  03:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
If the IP is Halias 23/ELreydeEspana, he/she is block evading. [179] And see this earlier ANI thread: [180] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Restoring the edits of User:Arthur Rubin/IP list[edit]

I'm concerned about what has been going on, for years and years, involving User:Arthur Rubin/IP list. In short, apparently a very long time ago an IP user in Grand Rapids, Michigan vandalized some article, was blocked, and came back on a new IP address with the same behavior. Ever since, User:Arthur Rubin, User:Vsmith, and perhaps other administrators have been listing the new suspected IPs of whom they presume to be the same editor, reverting them, and blocking their IP addresses because they are from the same geographic locale, or have been editing very roughly similar articles, or exhibiting vaguely similar behaviors such as creating to-do lists. After reviewing User talk:Arthur Rubin/IP list, it seems like the original IP and events are not even available from Arthur when he is asked for them. I suspect that the evidence connecting the editor(s) being reverted today to the original offender would be tenuous at best, if it was even forthcoming.

The worst part is that most if not all of the edits being so meticulously reverted are clearly good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Not only that, but they have been markedly improving both in quality of content and sourcing through the years. Yet they are still utterly discarded with the same uncaring template messages as are reserved for the worst vandals. The admins participating in this endlessly repeating pattern are meticulously following the letter of the WP:BANREVERT policy. I can not imagine any more heartless way to prevent what have clearly amounted to thousands of good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia, or any less caring way to force the community to turn our backs on a persistent volunteer who has reformed and wishes nothing more than to contribute, but is still unwilling to communicate, having learned that the community is severely deficient in empathy.

Do I have the right to restore any number of the reverted edits which I am willing to personally approve and take responsibility for? Would anyone object if I did so? EllenCT (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never seen evidence of "good faith", and there is nothing vague about the similarities. (Per WP:BEANS, I decline to list them in public.) But, at least as far as I'm concerned, you may restore any edit you wish to take credit for, keeping in mind WP:OVERLINK, the actual [[[WP:REDLINK]] (not at all similar to the one he uses), WP:EGG, WP:SEAOFBLUE, and other guidelines or "best practices". Back in 2012, I used to check all the edits, and found that (1) it took me longer to check the edits than it took the vandal to make them, and (2) most were inappropriate. I often do a cursory check to see if I've reintroduced a questionable statement, but when the batch has over 100, there isn't really time and I risk crashing my computer. 鈥 Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Weeks-long vandalism to multiple articles[edit]

The following account and IP addresses are one person; all IP addresses are based in New Jersey and involve similar editing patterns and goals (sorted chronologically by editing):

Over the last few weeks, this person has been repeatedly inserting false and unsourced information into a multitude of articles. Their IP addresses change day-to-day and they appear to edit from two locations, so blocks have proven unaffective. Placement of misinformation tends to be on The Game Awards (now protected), American Ninja Warrior, Hess Corporation, and other game show, band, and TV-related articles. Blatant misinformation include small things like incorrectly changing band dates and the number of shows in a TV series.

Any attempts to warn and contact have been unsuccessful (with the exception being at Talk:The_Game_Awards, including a personal attack). User doesn't seem to let up despite warnings, blocks, reversions, and multiple attempts to contact from multiple editors.

Any possible action at this point? Not sure how plausible a range block would be; protecting targeted articles has been done with The Game Awards, but I'm not too fond of protected other articles yet. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)