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 directly with your concern.

Sections older than 36 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.


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


Electronic cigarette[edit]

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

User:MusikAnimal, there is only one consistent editor where the majority of editors disagree with a number of his edits. I don't think it was necessary to protect the article because of one editor. For example, User:AlbinoFerret claims he is rewriting the text for readability but he got reverted. He claimed the text FV but the text is sourced. He claims the text is OR but he got reverted. He has a history of making bad edits that are disputed by other editors. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm leaving it up to other administrators. I had two regular editors to this article attest that full-protection was needed. There are numerous administrators patrolling CAT:EP. Any uncontroversial edit requests you have will likely be implemented without question. Beyond that consensus will be needed – which is the exact reason behind protecting the article. — MusikAnimal talk 20:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


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

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

Excuse me? Cherry-picked quotes? And a complaint about canvassing relating to a case where you were remanded for inappropriate notification[4]? This seems more like a play to remove editors that you disagree with, than a true complaint, sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
First of all, let me mention that he requested mere participation not support (except in the last one where he added his own opinion). Doc James, you've been warned for 3RR along with Ferret, I believe this is just not enough for a TBAN. Doc, you're in it too. I believe you all should quit this battleground mentality. A self-imposed TBAN will go a long way. Just my two cents. --Ankit Maity «T § C» 18:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) I'm not sure that what is described here is canvassing. AlbinoFerret neutrally notified seven different editors, each of whom had previously edited the page or engaged in Talk discussions and had expressed different views, of an RFC occurring on the page: the two above plus [5][6][7][8][9] This appears to be allowed according to WP:CANVASSING. I don't understand the purpose of this report, especially given that Doc James has already engaged in edit-warring with AlbinoFerret on this article. Ca2james (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
In the very beginning AlbinoFerret only notified the two editors who have the same POV as he does.[10][11] After editors commented AlbinoFerret was canvassing then AlbinoFerret notified the other editors. Another editor stated "Now that I read the discussion, it looks like inappropriate canvassing."[12] The editor was referring to this this edit. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
There was a 10 hour difference between when the first two editors were notified and the other five were notified. Does that qualify as canvassing? I wouldn't think so but perhaps I'm wrong. If the post on the village pump is considered canvassing (is it? I don't know), then bringing it up now, a week later, seems a little late. Ca2james (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussions were long that day and I needed some sleep, there is no time limit on when editors need to be notified by, I got up and notified others. But even if I only notified the two editors you point out, they are active on the article and had both edited the article. Informing them of the RFC, and all I did was ask them to look at the RFC, is allowed. AlbinoFerret (talk)

I will address all these false accusations.

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

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

I still think the two tags are unnecessary. You disagree? You restored the tag of shame to the lede without explaining what is wrong with the lede. Please explain what is wrong with the lede or remove the tag from the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
That tag was placed by Kim, you removed it with an open RFC on it, that is still open. I replaced it because it is the subject of an open RFC. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
You haven't shown what is the issue with the lede and yet you want to keep it in the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
It would be wiser to keep content related stuff to the article talk page. --Kim D. Petersen 21:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Thanks for showing your true motivation, a conflict over content, and silencing those that disagree with you. The boomerang should hit hard AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I am sure it will. My motivation is to accurately reflect the best available sources. Personal attacks are unfortunately becoming more common [14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you proved personal attacks are becoming common by coming here. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry Doc, but do you really think that fighting over content issues is appropriate for AN/I? Noone - None - Zip - Nada persons want to "exclude the position of the World Health Organization". The issue over a particular conference report from the WHO is significantly more complex than should be dragged out here, and certaintly not by misrepresenting peoples views. --Kim D. Petersen 23:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
While we have this comment The WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless, which sounds like a desire to exclude the WHOs position IMO. If some come to the discussion with this perspective it makes it difficult to edit health related content. And than we have the personal insults. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Yep, that sarcastic comment, at a person who made a negative comment on another editors edits using the same word. Who has been pointed out a few times for disruptive editing of the article #1 #2. Where can we find the entry on this page from you for QuackGuru who shares your point of view? Nobody has tried to remove the WHO from the article. There is a report they commissioned, that is used 36 times, its use needs to be scaled back, but its used more and more.AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Let's note one thing. Doc, you've accused him of being an SPA, which I believe he is not. But the fact that he's made 786 (take away or give a few, I used Ctrl+F on his contribs) edits to E-cigarette related stuff is disturbing. And unless, he's been factually incorrect, has failed to maintain a NPOV or has some kind of a COI, there's really no problem if this is a SPA. Doc, you're certainly involved and the fact that you've not taken any actions is an excellent thing (in fact, if you felt you've been wronged and you came to ANI for that, it was a perfectly fine decision). Note to all: Please refrain from making personal attacks. It can be grounds for harassment. It's also time to quit all of your battleground mentality. --Ankit Maity «T § C» 13:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I just want to comment on the number of edits. I rarely make single edits and leave. A majority of the time typo's, extra spaces, justification problems, and syntax errors pop up because the wysiwyg editor doesnt work quite right on my distribution so I edit source most of the time. I will add a word because it doesnt read right, or after reading the paragraph move the addition to group it. It usually takes about 5 or more edits on something before I'm done, even on talk pages. If you divide that number by 4 or 5 its not that bad. While its still over 100 it isnt that bad on an article that is constantly changing. AlbinoFerret 17:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban (changed from neutral > weak support > support after seeing this continue). Seeing that this thread is still open and how AF appears so solely and intently focused on this topic, it would be beneficial to AF and other users to give AF a break from the topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Neutral on topic ban (for now). Weak support for topic ban, definite warning needed and maybe X hours block for hounding to force them to take a break for a bit and come back with a clear head. A topic ban would alleviate some issues at the page, but the behavior issues mostly seem to stem from a misunderstanding of NPOV that is causing disruption at the page. WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN could be helpful for this user, but I'm not sure that will solve the problem either.
I've been watching the talk page from afar, and I will admit that there are issues that need to be resolved there, but I really can't put my finger on one single thing that's the main issue we can tie everything together with. Doc James, just my take on the points you listed:
  1. I do think AlbinoFerret's comments on the WHO being treated as god-like appear problematic. This could be a misunderstanding of WP:MEDRS with the degree of weight (usually quite a bit) we give statements from respected scientific organizations and WP:IDHT behavior to a degree. Not really actionable by itself though.
  2. For personal attacks, even sarcastic statements should not be used in spiny topics because they will rarely be taken as sarcastic. If there are many attacks though, then there would be something to consider for action there. AlbinoFerret definitely appears to have a spiny attitude in some cases after skimming over the talk page. I'm not sure the case has been made for personal attacks with just one diff though (feel free to provide more diffs if I missed a lot going through that mess).
  3. I can see how you are looking at canvassing considering that those requests you mentioned (while worded neutral) did result in opinionated editors entering the fray. That does pose the question on whether canvassing was going on, but is there anything to substantiate that AlbinoFerret knew what their stance would be already and was recruiting? An extremely dicey question to tackle, but that would seem to be the only way to demonstrate canvassing here.
Overall, SPA's are tricky to actually pin down as such. The core concept of an SPA is advocacy in some form, so maybe the better question is to ask whether AlbinoFerret's edits are grounded in advocacy for a particular point of view? Looking over how much they have been involved in the topic and the general vibe I get looking at their talk posts, this is a legitimate question to look into at this point, but advocacy actually being an issue here hasn't really been demonstrated yet (i.e., more concrete diffs). This would really have to answered before considering any kind of ban. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I recently edited the acupuncture article so what did AlbinoFerret write? He wrote "I think I want to add another article to my list of ones I want to edit, perhaps acupuncture would be nice."[15] AlbinoFerret also wrote "If you look at the text that comes after it goes on to point out bias in other studies. so if you intend to change it, the bias statement will come in."[16] Lots of sourced text was removed from the article[17][18] but there was no reason to delete the text even if it was recently added. He undid the removal of text later when an editor commented on his talk page. Now he deleted sourced text again. Please review the problematic RFC. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Unknown.2C_Concerns.2C_Unclear.2C_Uncertain.2C_and_Possibilities_RFC. The RFC is unhelpful and the Talk:Electronic cigarette#RFC goes against policy.[19] QuackGuru (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I hear you on deleting swathes of text while claiming no consensus though when saying order or section names haven't been decided. That is inappropriate, not to mention the Unknown (etc.) talk section is a plain silly premise and WP:JDL. You guys should be summarizing what the reliable secondary sources say whether the source says something does happen, doesn't, or is unknown. It looks like AlbinoFerret does need help understanding NPOV/due weight when it comes to their concerns about "negative bias", such as this diff [20], but that's not a matter for this noticeboard, but over at WP:NPOVN unless that behavior related to all this content discussion has become either a WP:COMPETENCE issue or advocacy. The acupuncture comment is threatening to WP:HOUND you in this context, no doubt there. Basically, I do agree now that there is a problem with this user.
So, the threatening to hound should get a warning at a minimum or maybe an order of hours block to get the point across that civility is needed to cool their jets. That's just obviously bad. Everything else? Still really ambiguous for me what exactly would justify admin action since there are so many different things that are in a gray zone for whether help in other noticeboards is needed or admin action for disruptive editing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Kingofaces43, I think this is mainly a case of he does not like what the MEDRS compliant sources say.[21] I think he will continue to delete reliably sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
That is an unfounded accusation, one that you have repeated in quite a few places. Your source says nothing of the kind. It is contrary WP:AGF. AlbinoFerret 19:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
You claimed "Your source says nothing of the kind." But the source does verify claims you disagree with. Here is what the current text says: "A 2014 review found no long-term evidence on the safety or efficacy of e-cigarettes, including whether they reduce harm for tobacco related disease or will improve the health of the population as a whole. Therefore, promotion of electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction product is premature.[7]" You are continuing to argue against using this source for text you dispute. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Drummond_in_the_Harm_reduction_section. QuackGuru (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. The "canvassing" does not seem to be an issue, other users were notified in time, and I'm sure AlbinoFerret is now aware of the protocol.
  2. The comment about the WHO is not a big deal, and we should be able to accommodate different opinions without allowing it to chill discussion. OF course that does not mean that AF gets to veto WHO sources that meet RS/MEDRS.
  3. The personal attack against Quack Guru is unwarranted, and should be struck by AF. AF should be warned about making personal attacks.
  4. The suggestion that AF will follow QG to acupuncture is unhelpful at best. AF should be advised not to make these types of comments in future.
  5. AF's comment "This is just retaliation for bringing a charge of being involved in an edit war on ..." suggests that AF was deliberately edit warring. AF (and if necessary others) should be reminded that edit warring is not a good solution to disputes. However this ha already been done: AF was warned about edit warring here on the 7th. They seem to understand, though there is resistance to other advice offered.
  6. There is no reason for a few hour cooling down block, this section is already several days old.
  • I suggest a suitably worded warning/advice about personal attacks (2 above) and threatening to hound (3 above) by an uninvolved admin/editor would serve to resolve this section.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough18:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC).

User:Bbb23 warned AlbinoFerret against further WP:EDITWARRING. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive260#User:Doc_James_reported_by_User:AlbinoFerret_.28Result:_Both_warned.29. He was warned again. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is probably the root of the issue here. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from electronic cigarettes, broadly construed. AlbinoFerret is a straight-up WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:Single-purpose account who is engaging in disruptive WP:GAME-playing editing regarding the topic. AF joined the e-cig conversation on Sept. 30, with only a relative handful of edits before that and long gaps in Wikipedia participation. A review of AF's contributions shows 272 of his 284 article edits since Sept. 30 to the topic itself, and ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of his 681 Talk page edits(!) just since Sept. 30 related to the topic. This does't take into account his User Talk page involvement, WP:DRN discussion, or WP:3RRNB and WP:ANI activity related to his behavior regarding his editing of this topic.

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

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

  • Oppose topic ban - the travesty at Electronic cigarette has shaken my faith in the integrity of the Wikipedia medical editing establishment more than any other event. There are multiple very high quality MEDRS literature reviews which have been cited in the article for months, but the medical editor clique -- the same editors opposed to AlbinoFerret here -- are staunchly against including their plain language statements that e-cigarettes are helpful to smokers who switch to them, much less harmful if harmful at all compared to cigarettes, and that physicians should support smokers switching to them. Instead of expressing concerns rooted in policy or guidelines, this cadre is simply making up new rules from whole cloth, pretending that a WHO conference proceeding has been independently reviewed when it is not, and insisting that the uncertainty of inconclusive reviews be exclusively and prominently summarized in the article introduction when they know full well there are no alternative hypotheses contradicting the fact that millions of smokers lives could be saved over the next decade if e-cigarettes are only effective for a quarter of the smoking population (as one of the longstanding MEDRS reviews says) because they mitigate the damage from smoke inhalation. If I was not so demoralized by this sad state of affairs, I would have already escalated it through WP:RSN to higher level dispute resolution to call this formerly respectable cadre to account. Oh! How my heroes have fallen! Sic transit gloria mundi! I urge administrators to admonish the fallen cadre for their blatant disrespect and violation of the NPOV pillar policy. EllenCT (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Rather a vast conspiracy you are positing here Ellen. Why do you suppose that a group, many of whom are physicians, and which has created for itself the most demanding set of sourcing rules of any project in Wikipedia, the Medicine Project would suddenly and en mass decide to conspire to cover up evidence supporting a health-promoting device? I'd urge you to think about alternate hypotheses for explaining the current deadlock.Formerly 98 (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Not a conspiracy, just a bunch of bullies who have become so overwhelmed with WP:OWNership of an entire subject matter that they are willing to ignore policy and make up new rules to save face. I've repeatedly asked for alternative hypotheses on the article talk page, and none have been forthcoming. So what do you say they are? EllenCT (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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

I am complaining about editor behavior, and there is no way to explain that complaint without reference to the underlying content. That is just the way things are. AlbinoFerret should be commended for upholding the NPOV pillar policy in the face of so much willingness to disregard and violate it, and shame on your characterization of that admirable behavior as disruption. EllenCT (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Topic Ban, preferably in combination with a temporary freeze on editing by all editors By way of disclosure I have been somewhat involved in this conflict and on the other side from AF. I've personally felt concerned by what I perceive as a lack of understanding or perhaps a even a lack of regard for MEDRS by AF and some of his allies, who really seem to me less concerned with reliable sources and reflecting the extremely heavy emphasis placed on health issues in virtually all reliable sources on this topic than on making sure it presents a certain point of view. How one can take a topic in which so much of what is in the literature is about health and make suggestions such as splitting out the health issue discussion into a separate article is beyond my imagination as behavior of someone who is trying to build an encylopedia rather than advocate. But as I have admitted, I am to some extent a combatant here and so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.

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

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

    • Support editing freeze - the cadre trying to omit the conclusive, prescriptive statements from the MEDRS reviews they otherwise support need to step aside and make way for editors who have respect for the NPOV policy. At this point I agree that a two week ban on edits by those who have previously edited the article is the only way to accomplish that. A topic ban alone would make things worse. EllenCT (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban It is obvious that the RFC mentioned above is formulated as a vague motherhood statement to be used as a pretext to revert unwanted edits. Contributors wanting to tell the world about the benefits of e-cigarettes will have to excuse the slow and methodical approach of the WP:MEDRS editors who correctly want to wait for suitable sources. AlbinoFerret has 272 edits to Electronic cigarette and 680 to Talk:Electronic cigarette, all made in the last 42 days, and the frenetic pace is not matched by improvements to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    Banning someone because editors with an opposing POV don't like the way an RFC is worded would be abhorrent. Issues with the RFC should be addressed within the RFC itself, not by begging admins to squelch the voice of its author. EllenCT (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    Three hours after my above comment, AlbinoFerret removed verified text from the article (diff) with edit summary "remove speculative statement added while RFC on topic is ongoing". In other words, the RFC is already being used as a pretext to remove information verified by a reliable source. The point about e-cigarettes is that they are new and it will be many years before proper studies are available to provide accurate information. Until then, reliable sources will make many tentative statements such as the one removed on the basis that it was speculative. The big problem is that every statement about the efficacy and benefits of e-cigarettes is speculative (other than statements such as the one removed). The article talk page shows AlbinoFerret still arguing that the RFC is valid—that is why a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban based on above comments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. The construction of an off-policy RfC and the subsequent mass deletion of content because of its assumed authority is damaging the page; the torrents of WP:IDHT text on the Talk page are similarly unwelcome. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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

  • Oppose topic ban It is sad reflection of the state of relations between users who edit the e-cig article that what is effectively a content dispute gets raised here. From all that I have seen AlbinoFerret's behaviour and actions have been mostly positive ones (and certainly in good faith). In regards to the points originally raised, AlbinoFerret's low opinion of The WHO that was voiced on a talk page is not a violation of any policies/guidelines that I know of, he is fully entitled to an opinion. The point regarding him calling QuackGuru "the master of ridiculous" also carries little weight since the intention was clearly to highlight QuackGuru's (an editor with an [exceptionally long block log], last blocked for disruptive editing on the e-cig article) own derogatory use of "ridiculous". WP:CANVASSING, well if it was canvassing AlbinoFerret very soon realised their mistake and notified editors with opposing opinions. WP:SPA is not specifically prohibited as I understand it, I see no evidence that they are engaging in advocacy and little evidence has been presented that they have a WP:COI. Better to WP:AGF in the face of a lack of evidence I think.Levelledout (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Levelledout is another SPA editing the e-cigarettes page according to the contributions. QuackGuru (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect, Levelledout has been focusing on this article in the last two weeks but has edited Christmas ceasefire, Christmas armistice, Enner Valencia and Battle of the Beanfield in the last 100 days. if you look at their edit history you'll see they have previously edited by focusing on one article for a while and then moved on to another. remember to act in good faith SPACKlick (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban this is a content dispute. I have done nothing to warrant a topic ban. Much has been said in the comments about an RFC I started on "Speculative" statements citing WP:CBALL. There has never been consensus for adding these "Unknown" and "unclear" statements. As noted they have been removed by me and others. Only to have the larger group of medical editors restore them, even if someone else removes them. But WP isnt build on who the larger group is, but consensus. I started the RFC top see where consensus lies. Citing it as a problem, use of an RFC to see what the consensus of the editors is, only goes to prove that this is a content issue. The fewer non medical editors, the easier it will be for group ownership to continue. AlbinoFerret 06:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, what I'm seeing isn't just a content dispute. It's concerns over behavior stemming from a content dispute that has gotten out of hand. Sometimes editors have a tough time disentangling those ideas. I've seen your concerns about "Unknown" and "unclear" statements on the page, and it looks like that is one of the main things that is getting the talk page pretty bloated. WP:CRYSTALBALL pertains to us as editors trying to figure out what future relevance may be. If a reliable source though is summarizing scientific research and stating its current state of knowledge in the field, that's a very different case (i.e., Here are important things that we don't know much about yet). Points like that don't seem to be getting across, which is a behavior issue described by WP:IDHT. Sometimes that's a competence issue, sometimes it's just being passionate in a controversial topic and not being as receptive to criticism depending on the editor. Normally, that is a behavior that can be remedied as it's not as serious as an isolated incident, but it can become very disruptive when it persists over time. I'd suggest just stepping back for a bit and reflecting on some of the legitimate criticism made about your behavior. You're definitely in a position where admin action isn't needed if you can resolve your behavior, so I'd suggest learning about how scientific research is summarized and maybe ask over at WP:NPOVN about how unknowns are summarized in literature too. I'm only slightly positive on a ban because it does seem like it would improve the talk page discussion, but it doesn't seem like a good option at all compared to following the path I just mentioned. You've definitely got room to move forward on this, so good luck. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment Kingofaces43, sometimes the words of an uninvolved editor have more impact when there is a controversy. I was hoping for more uninvolved editors to comment on the RFC, perhaps if that had happened it would have been withdrawn sooner. That a few people voted No to inclusion had me thinking perhaps I was correct that there was no consensus. I have withdrawn the RCF based on your post. I did go looking for information on WPNOV, but I asked the question in the wrong place. AlbinoFerret 16:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I dont believe adding speculative statements to the article has consensus, removing [edits shows there is no consensus,also this edit did not remove this claim from the article, but just from the lede, it existed in the Harm reduction section. This edit cited by QuackGuru was a misunderstanding thinking that other reviews had cleared things up. The claim exists in the article today and hasnt been removed. Two of the diffs added by you are duplicates of other links in your comment. AlbinoFerret 08:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

  • Comment. User:AlbinoFerret, please explain your accusation here. My recent edit did not change any section name. I commented on the talk page the section name should be simple rather than long. QuackGuru (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: I had already apologised at the exact same moment you were posting here. It was your pal Cloudjpk who reverted back to the inaccurate section name. After you did not change it, I changed it to one of the proposed names. The section name is inaccurate as it discusses 3 different particle sizes. Your wanting to keep the name and phrasing you have edited in is a ownership issue. AlbinoFerret
It was previously explained on the talk page that the text and sources describe the particles in the ultrafine range. User:Formerly 98 wrote: "I don't understand the OR tag on the Ultrafine particles section. The cited references clearly describe these particles as being in the nanometer size range, which is on the order of a couple of thousand molecules. Doesn't get much finer than that. What exactly is the OR being referred to here?"[31]
There is no need to have a long section name and you never had consensus in the first place to change the section name. QuackGuru (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The name still needs to be changed. The reasons why are clear. But this is not the place to discuss content issues. After 2 days of discussing it, I changed it to better describe its content. It needs to be changed as we speak because of a revert. This is an ongoing issue, things are done to improve the article, only to be reverted. AlbinoFerret 02:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Disagreed. The section name is accurate. Now you are arguing to change the wording back to vapor. But the article says "Mist produced from an e-cigarette is frequently but inaccurately called vapor.[2]" Do you understand the term vapor is inaccurate? QuackGuru (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not arguing, but discussing. The word Vapor is common usage when discussing e-cigarettes. WP:MEDMOS tells us we should write for the common reader using normal terms when possible, not jargon. It was never agreed to change every instance of vapor to mist. There was a discussion in the lede about the constant swapping out of vapor to aerosol by you, another ownership issue. An agreement was made for that sentence, excluding the whole article (see the last comment in the section I linked to), to change that sentence to mist. You have been busy changing vapor to mist, but forgot about aerosol. If it works for one word, it works for both. You have argued consistancy, if it works for one word , it should work for both words that were part of that discussion. But this is not the place to discuss content issues. AlbinoFerret 03:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you think your edit matched your edit summary? Part of your edit included deleting the wikilink for no apparent reason and you changed the text that was in quotes. You should not change the quoted text. Changing the text that were quoted is original research. You previously wrote "...a wikilink to aerosol isnt that bad either." QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I think a large boomerang should hit you. You are quick to post content issues here in an attempt to get me topic banned. This is not the place for content problems, but you insist on bringing them here. But talk little on the articles talk page except to defend the problems you insert in the page (see long line diff's below). You revert things to how you added them no matter how the wording was changed or who changes it. This wikilink was placed by you in order to get around the agreement you are trying to enforce. You originally added it here. You want things to be consistent. Based on limited agreements. But only so far as it doesnt touch edits you have made or wording you have placed in[32], because the limited agreement was to chose "mist" over "vapor" or "aerosol" you did not change one instance of aerosol without wikilinking to it to cheat the agreement, and then only for a few, but there is no consensus for any widespread change as shown by the limited agreement. Regardless what guidelines like WP:MEDMOS say you wirt like a medical journal and not for the general reader always adding jargon. You have been banned for disruptive editing more times than anyone I have edited a page with. Yet you still continue to disrupt the editing of e-cigarette. [33][34], [35], [36] [37], and here where you accused me of filing a fake 3rr report You insist on inserting WP:OR [38][39][40]. You argue over small words that have the same meaning and dont pahaphrase[41][42][43]. You insert non MEDRS to make medical claims [44]. You insist on placing one review out of order to serve your pov [45] and refuse any order but the one you want. After dating the citation names in the source to keep them in order[46][47] you changed them back to disguise your actions and edited the section to place your subjective order in place[48]. A forever boomerang should hit you because you have had banns (look at his talk page for a long list) but still continue disruptive editing. AlbinoFerret 12:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I may not be perfect and I may have a lot to learn when dealing with disruptive people. But when I do make mistakes, I apologize for them, and make changes going forward. AlbinoFerret 14:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I have started a new RFC, it is on the use of the word Mist vs Vapor vs Aerosol to see what the consensus is in using these words. There have been a lot of edit battles on the words as some want one thing other want something use used they are replaced with each other all the time by multiple editors. Quack Guru just made a statement that severely goes against WP:AGF with what I consider very serious accusations with no proof. These accusations include WP:ADVOCACY and to "carry on ideological WP:BATTLES". He is also suggesting we carry out WP:OR by using one source to correct others. I am trying to use the tools Wikipedia has to fix issues. These attacks are just sad. AlbinoFerret 08:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban - this is a thinly-veiled attempt to resolve a content dispute by getting an editor with opposing views removed from the discussion. Mihaister (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Mihaister is another SPA editing the e-cigarettes page according to the contributions. QuackGuru (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect, Mihaister has edited Romanian diaspora, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania, Prime Minister of Romania , President of Romania, Klaus Iohannis, Radio-controlled helicopter, Tobacco harm reduction, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science in the last week. Please remember to act in good faith. SPACKlick (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban - I agree with Mihaister; this is just an attempt to get rid of an editor the MED cabal don't like. If anyone should be topic banned it's QuackGuru and Doc James, who've turned an article about a consumer product into a terrifying list of speculation and unfounded concerns based mostly on a single paper by a mechanical engineer.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Note. User:CheesyAppleFlake was indefinitely blocked from editing by User:Secret on 18 November 2014.[49]. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban Since it seems that all the involved editors have chosen to give their 2 cents here, i will do so as well, even if i'm involved, and really shouldn't :( . What is happening here is basically one "side" of a content dispute trying to get rid of an editor on the other "side" - and that really should have been thrown away immediately. I find it a sad state of affairs that something as silly as this gets escalated to ANI - but perhaps it is time to find some non-involved volunteer admin who will "police" the article for misbehaviour on either "side". --Kim D. Petersen 01:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
KimDabelsteinPetersen is another SPA editing the e-cigarettes page according to the contributions. QuackGuru (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
My recent contribution history might lead you to think so, especially if you are desperately looking for ways to shoot the messenger, but i'm not. I've been editing WP for the last 8+ years with close to 18,000 edits[50]. Please assume good faith instead of bad. --Kim D. Petersen 08:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect, KimDabelSteinPeterson has edited List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, while they have been focused on this article for a while they contribute elsewhere. Please remember to act in good faith
Comment: I think you will find that most editors (on both 'sides') involved in the e-cig article have been guilty of some amount of WP:IDHT and partisan editing, where is the evidence that AlbinoFerret is substantially more guilty than everyone else? In fact AlbinoFerret has [made special efforts] to try and diffuse all the feuding between 'sides'.
I couldn't agree more with the likes of Mihaister and Kim D. Petersen that this all has far more to do with trying to suppress the opinions and legitimate editing of a particularly active editor, therefore gaining ground in a content dispute. Whether intended or not, it is also likely to intimidate other editors.Levelledout (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban per EllenCT, Levelledout, Mihaister, CheesyAppleFlake and Kim D. Petersen. I have no involvement in this content dispute but have been watching from a far. This appears to be an effort to get rid of opposing views. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban - Albino has gone on a tear now, adding non-NPOV content about pharma companies lobbying to have e-cigs treated as medical devices in europe, to a bunch of articles: here and here and here and here. None of his edits mention lobbying efforts by the e-cig industry against treating them like medical devices. These efforts are named in the title of the NYTimes article he is using a source: "Aided by Army of ‘Vapers,’ E-Cigarette Industry Woos and Wins Europe" and the e-cig industry lobbying is the focus of most articles about it. argh. Albino's WP:SPA POV-pushing related to a pro-e-cig POV is extending out beyond the e-cig article. In the GSK article, I've reverted the addition and asked why the content should be given any WP:WEIGHT and if so, how much, and the question is just going right over his head. (discussion is here) All he can see is e-cigs. Enough already. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice twisting of what happened. The orignal claim was based on this story, link I added the claim on Electronic cigarette first with this edit.diff Later Cloudjpk switched out the source saying it was based on the link he inserted. diff I assumed good faith, perhaps I shouldn't have and just attributed it to the columnist. I changed it in other areas, and the Glaxo site was added by copying and making it only about Glaxo. This was all explained in the discussion As for weight, there are 4 or 5 articles on the lobbying by Glaxo against a product it competes with, it had enough weight to have one line at the bottom of the article. AlbinoFerret 06:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice twisting of things. As explained in this section of the talk 3 of those were edits, and the remaining two are over a day apart. I have already gone over the twisting of what happened on Legal status as it was part of the twisting by Jytdog which you commented on the Glaxo page so you knew what happened before writing this. As for the blog, no I didnt say it was commercial in nature, but that I stay away from sites that were commercial in nature. Mr. Busardo is an expert, who's work has been published by third party sites. I did remove it though because it just wasnt worth the battle for what should be non contentious uses. Finally, yes I rewrote them for readability. The article reads like a medical journal Serious work needs to be done all over it to make it geared more to the general reader as WP:MEDMOS tells us. There is unneeded complexity and higher level complexity for a consumer product. AlbinoFerret 13:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


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

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

I didn't call other editors retarded chipmunks. I said the Health Effects section looks like it was written by retarded chipmunks, because it does. However any attempt to change the wording gets reverted by Doc James or Quack, neither of whom appears to be a native English speaker.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Cheesy, you might have been able to hide behind this tiny fig leaf, which is nothing more than a technical letter-but-not-spirit loophole in WP:NPA policy, had you not gone ahead and named Doc James and QuackGuru explicitly on your User Talk as the individual editors you were referring to. And if you recognize that calling other editors "retarded chipmunks" was unacceptable enough to attempt to hide behind a technicality in WP:NPA policy to distance yourself from it, what are we to think about the other comments you've made, where you haven't bothered to make even that effort? Zad68 13:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I may not have put it that way. but a lot of the article looks like someone wrote down claims on slips of paper, tossed them in a bag, and pulled them out one at a time and inserted them. "looks like it was written by retarded chipmunks" looks to be a very sarcastic comment, not something based in anger. It also addresses a common issue on the article where at least one editor cant paraphrase or refuses to. Where at least one major contributor has what appear to be reading comprehension issues, and that isnt an insult but assuming good faith. Where that editor wont rewrite sentences or remove problematic uses of sources where they acknowledge a problem probably exists, but insists others do it for them. You are pointing out the symptom and not seeing the underlying problem. The way its addressed could definitely use some improvement, but we need people pointing out issues in the article so it can be improved. Silencing someone for anything but a small time to think on their actions is counterproductive. AlbinoFerret 16:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
His response here looks to be in response to the conflict currently going on in this section. Where you, and you are an admin, are refusing to follow WP:NOCONSENSUS. AlbinoFerret 05:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You are saying there is justification for Cheesy calling Doc James "Sieg Heilman"? Zad68 05:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes; his dictatorial attitude and serious WP:OWN issues. He's just an editor like anyone else, but he throws his weight around like he owns the place. No interest in consensus, just an obsession with forcing MED rules on everything that takes his interest.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
There is never a reason for racial slurs, never, ever, ever, ever. The way you addressed a problem is wrong. But there is a problem. The reasons for the actions you see is because there is a larger group of editors acting as a group. I cant prove collusion, but if an issue pops up editors from the medical side amazingly pop up. Doc James has already been warned for edit warring and canvassing. He knows that he has backup. A big issue on the article is a heightened standard of references for what should be non contentious claims and requiring every claim have a reference even in areas that are not medical in nature on a article about a consumer product. There is also a problem imho with completely silencing any criticism of the Grana article or the WHO. AlbinoFerret 16:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
There he constant battle between two groups of editors, medical, and non medical over content. I agree he does have a lot to learn, but if asked nicely he may change. I have asked him nicely to remove other things before, and he did. But there is no time really to teach anyone anything on the article talk pages. Its a constant battleground that leads to a battleground mentality. The article needs someone to step in, not someone with ties to the article, or Wikiprojects that have an interest in it. Its getting worse, and the article has more problems, frankly I fear to bring them up because of it. AlbinoFerret 05:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Civility--basic respect for editors you don't necessarily agree with--is essential, especially at a contentious article. You don't even seem to be aware that Cheesy's involvement at the article is significantly inhibiting your ability to work on it. Zad68 05:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
But it wouldn't be a contentious article if a few members from one Wikiproject weren't insisting on treating it as medical and using massive over-reliance on one dubious paper to slant it the way they want.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I think there is a bigger problem than Cheesy, QuackGuru is involved in almost all the conflicts as a main participant. Could Cheesy use a break to think on what he has done? Maybe, but a ban? I dont think so. Like I said, there are lots of problems, and conflicts start all the time. I am doing my very best to stay calm and just work on the article, but its near impossible. Formally 98 had it quiet for a day or so, to bad it didnt last. AlbinoFerret 05:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe so but Cheesy's behavior is disruptive, inexcusable, and isn't stopping after repeated warnings. Let's start there. Zad68 05:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe so? I take that back QuackGuru is a main participant in ALL the conflicts. As for Cheesy, bans are not ment to be punitiveWP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. Thats what I see happening here, and how Cheesy will take it. We need to quiet the conflicts, because thats whats causing the problem with Cheesy, we need to stop with the "I Just Dont Like it" edits. Because as I said above, its a battleground and it brings about a battleground mentality. Its turning everyone into a fighter when we should be editing. These notice board filings are treating a symptom and not the problem underneath. If anything, a short topic block to cool off. AlbinoFerret 06:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Please start a new section if you want to complain about something else. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It isnt a complaint so much as context. QG's conduct is already chronicled above, but perhaps a section of his own instead of hoping for a boomerang would be better. Without undestanding the root of the problem, its just treating a symtom. AlbinoFerret 06:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
AF, re "As for Cheesy, bans are not ment to be punitive WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE" -- If you really believe BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE applies here, you are seriously misunderstanding what's going on. However per your own comment here where you call out Cheesy's behavior as unacceptable and implore him not to continue doing it indicates that you know his behavior has been bad and is likely to continue--that is exactly what sanctions are designed for. Any sanction being considered for Cheesy will be preventative against future bad behavior, and so BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE does not apply here. Zad68 13:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
If you dont see that a ban instead of a short topic block will be seen as punishment by Cheesy and a lot of the editors that see the same problems with the article, it brings questions about your understanding of people and how to help with admin actions and not hurt. Where are the comments on any other page but their own and e-cigaertte that are problems? Why the heavy handed approach? AlbinoFerret 16:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This was not an appropriate or collaborative, content-focused comment, and it was just one of many unnecessary sharp comments you've made at that article's already overly-contentious Talk page. Please reconsider your approach to working alongside your fellow editors. Zad68 9:01 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8)
It was perfectly appropriate, because the article is being destroyed by semi-literate idiots intent on forcing a medical agenda onto an article about a consumer product. And you can't seriously tell me that either Sieg Heilman or Quack has any significant mastery of the English language, because they don't.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 9:07 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8)

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

Hi Cheesy. The e-cigarette article needs editors. I like having someone else like you who sees the components section as important and in need of developing on the article. But the personal stuff has got to stop. I really really know its hard to bite your tong or sit on your hands. But it doesnt do any good to post some of the stuff they have links of you posting. I truly believe that some people do and say things hoping to get a reaction they can use against you. But posting stuff only plays into their game. Take some time to cool down. Strike the words you have posted in aggravation towards someone else. Be a better person and rise above it. Again, its not easy, it never is, and the Lord knows I have not always followed my own advice in the past. AlbinoFerret 10:52 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8) Formerly 98 (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I dont think that was a nice thing to do. An attempt to help someone turned around and used against them. This proposed ban is treating the symptom and not the problem. Some of Cheesy's comments are problems. I would never make them. But so are a lot of the actions on e-cigarette that bring these comments out. Its a battleground and it has got to stop. Would a short time off to cool down and think about all this help? Probably. My comments on Cheesy's talk page were an attempt to get more thinking and less instant action. I agree with what I assume to be a lot of the underlying reasons for the posts, just not the words used and the way he went about confronting the problem. AlbinoFerret 15:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

  • support block per original posting and subject's behavior in the discussion above. WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support block too as an uninvolved editor having reviewed the evidence. Jack Stamps (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Block and indefinite topic ban from electronic cigarettes, as they clearly are too emotionally involved in the topic to contribute usefully to the topic. "Sieg Heilman"? Seriously? How are they not blocked already? Yobol (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why we are discussing a block here when the editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and his actions at this noticeboard is of a battleground mentality that we don't need in this project. I went ahead and gave him an indefinite block. Secret account 16:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • support short topic block. The users actions are problematic, but centred on one article with no proof that it extends to any other page. A short time to step away and think on their actions would be helpful. A complete removal from WP is heavy handed and a long term topic block will let the underlying problems with the article continue by talking one more voice of a small group that speak on them. I hope Cheesy can come back and change their actions and work in a constructive way to address the problems that exist on e-cigarette and are not going away. AlbinoFerret 16:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I type to slow. AlbinoFerret 16:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You really believe that if you could just have typed a little faster, you could have "saved" Cheesy, given the above? No. Zad68 17:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I may not be perfect and I may have a lot to learn when dealing with disruptive people. But when I do make mistakes, I apologize for them, and make changes going forward. AlbinoFerret 14:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I have started a new RFC, it is on the use of the word Mist vs Vapor vs Aerosol to see what the consensus is in using these words. There have been a lot of edit battles on the words as some want one thing other want something use used they are replaced with each other all the time by multiple editors. Quack Guru just made a statement that severely goes against WP:AGF with what I consider very serious accusations with no proof. These accusations include WP:ADVOCACY and to "carry on ideological WP:BATTLES". He is also suggesting we carry out WP:OR by using one source to correct others. I am trying to use the tools Wikipedia has to fix issues. These attacks are just sad. AlbinoFerret 08:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Continued edit warring while listed here[edit]

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

You're being ridiculous. You modified another editor's comments. What was his very next edit? Zad68 18:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not edit his comments, I edited a fake section he created.diff The words he posted remained intact. The section they are in remained the same. He is edit warring. AlbinoFerret 18:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave it to others to review the edits to determine whether you refactored. QG then undid your change one time, to leave you an edit summary explaining why you probably should not have modified it. Then QG immediately removed it. You are describing this as "edit warring".... on the Talk page. Zad68 18:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:WAR edit waring is "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts". WP:3RR which is a section of WP:WAR says any part of a page is the scope "A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space." I have changed header once, I have changed the embellishments the second time because they were a fake header that looked like one. QuackGuru insists on the form, and the word. Per WP:TPO Section headings no one owns section headers, they are not comments. AlbinoFerret 19:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Removal of sourced material[edit]

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

Sounds like a continuation of the content dispute to me. As several editors have attempted to explain to you on the other pages where you attempted to edit war this same content into place, you don't have an inalienable right to add material to the encyclopedia just because you have reliable sources for it. It has to add to the quality of the article, be important enough to include, and you need the consensus of other editors that these things are true. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Thats might makes right, thats not how wikipedia runs, I am seriously thinking of bringing you and the other editor that removed source material here. What industry did you work in again? AlbinoFerret 04:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Casting aspersions, AF? Zad68 04:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Just curiosity, ferrets are known for it. AlbinoFerret 13:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

No, you are misrepresenting QG's edit. In the lead, QG replaced one sentence summarizing safety of e-cigs as NRT with another sentence that says quite nearly the same thing. Both Caponnetto 2013 and the Public Health England report are still in use in the article. Zad68 04:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I think your wrong, WP:OR is what he claims it is. link. The reason is clearly shown in the edit where he replaced it.diff Even after being shown it wasnt by copying from the source he still thought it was, look at the talk section link earlier in this reply. This is either a language or a reading comprehension issue that pops up over and over. I truly believe that the vapor/aerosol/mist thing is the same kind of issue. He doesnt get it that people who are general readers dont always use the "technically" correct term. This is a big problem, and he argues about it. Its disruptive to the article and talk page. It slows work that could go to working on the article in other areas. It also makes the article read like a medical journal article. We seriously need to simplify areas he edits, but the argument that would cause would be weeks long. AlbinoFerret 13:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Block or Ban[edit]

  • I think he is a candidate for an indefinite block. AlbinoFerret 15:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Support Block or Topic BanWhile some have tried to label this as a content issue, it is not. The problem is long term disruptive editing and talk page posting that is seriously harming the article, and from his system log shows it is widespread. Way to much time has already been wasted on discussing the copyright, ownership, and misapplication of WP policies like WP:OR with no change in actions or posting. He has had lots of chances to fix these issues brought up by previous blocks and banns but continues to do it. It has even continued after this section was placed and he was notified. Other editors should not be distracted with these problems that continue so disrupt and place WP at risk with copyright issues. While a block would protect WP, a topic ban if made long enough might, and I am not at all convinced it might, convince him of the need to change. So far all other attempts, blocks, and bans have failed. There have also been allegations that I am doing this because of what happed above to CheesyAppleFlake, or that I somehow excused his actions. I never defended those actions, I only suggested that a topic ban might be effective. Its a diffrent case entirely with QuackGuru who has had numerous blocks/bans and has not changed. The types of behaviour are also different, Cheesy never put WP at risk of copyright violations where QuackGuru continues to. It is also a case of two wrongs dont make a right, because someone else may have done something wrong, is no excuse for QuackGuru's actions. AlbinoFerret 16:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose block I support blocks when editors either are being uncivil or are creating a impassable barrier to resolution. The conversation at the article in question is ongoing. Discussions of extremely controversial topics of international importance are unlikely to be resolved quickly by a few Wikipedians on a talk page, so while I recognize the difficulty here I am not ready to dismiss a leading participant in this conversation, especially when practically everyone who even looks at the talk page of this article loses all their sense and goes crazy.
I have defended QuackGuru in the past because this user seeks out the most controversial spaces in Wikipedia's health articles. I do not think this user creates the controversy, nor do I blame any Wikipedia user for the controversy's existence. It is the nature of Wikipedia to create forums where people of various perspectives would meet, and if there is controversy on Wikipedia, then this is only because there is no other forum anywhere in which people of varying perspectives can meet to seek consensus.
The biggest fault that I find in all of this is lack of good source material, ambiguity in the subject matter, and a greater burden to seek quality on Wikipedia editors than the burden is on scientific and popular publishers. The pressure here is that Wikipedia editors should achieve higher quality than exists among think tanks which with huge amounts of funding have only produced lower-quality explanations. I find no fault with the debate in this article. It is progressing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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


This is the kind of thing that makes Wikipedia a laughingstock - endless battles over individual words - such as vapor vs. mist vs. whatever. What do valid sources call it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yup sort of a case of who cares. Best available sources call it a aerosol. Albino it appears does not like the term as it sounds negative.
Of the last 500 edits in less than 2 weeks QG made ~142 and Albino made ~168.
I have proposed a topic ban for Abino above [70]
Since that has occurred they have supported a now banned user who more or less made racist comments [71] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
That is an inaccurate description of the discussion here. I did not support or excuse the things he did. In fact I said that racist slurs "should never, ever, ever, ever be used" I spoke to lessoning of the actions and giving Cheesy time away from the article with a topic ban, to think, and perhaps change for the better. That since his actions were only on one article, in the midst of a controversy, a block of all WP was a bit extreme imo. AlbinoFerret 19:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Baseball Bugs:The problem is, that sources call it different things. Best sources is a matter of opinion as the majority of them use vapor and it is the most common term used that a general reader will easily understand. There is an effort to remove the term "vapor" from the article citing a few medical reviews and that its "promotional" but I disagree. The article is on a consumer product, in a consumer category. The reason the RFC was started was to find consensus because the words were constantly being changed and reverted. QuackGuru seems to be at the center and yes as DocJames pointed out I make a lot of edits. But in defence I dont just make one edit to add something but usually have to make 4 or so to get it right. The actions of QuackGuru are disruptive to the article because they seek to put an ephisis on a limited consensus, that he broke, through a twisting of the facts. They are classic WP:IDHT because other editors besides myself have told him he is not correct. Yet he adds them again and again. The adding of a subsection is just trying to draw attention to the lie. He is a disruptive editor in a controversy. AlbinoFerret 17:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I am involved with both AF and QG at the article, but I am not seeing evidence presented here of genuine disruptive editing that rises to the level that it needs an indef block... not anything even close. This is a garden-variety content dispute that doesn't belong at ANI. Zad68 16:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
At the least an indefinite topic ban, but I think a block is more appropriate because of the wide scope of disruptive editing he has engaged in and has had numerous bans of time. He just refuses to learn that he cant do it, its WP:IDHT. He has been topic banned from Electronic cigarette before. The time needs to seriously escalate because of repeated problems. AlbinoFerret 17:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

The issue that everyone is focusing on is there is a controversy, thats not been disputed, but what actions QuackGuru is engaging in during the discussions are the problem imho, WP:IDHT and clear WP:AGF violations where he has accused me of WP:ADVOCACY without a shred of evidence, and trying to bias the responders to the RFC with attention grabbing embellishments and a twisting of the history. The question shouldn't be why is there a conflict, but why is QuackGuru acting as he is during a conflict. AlbinoFerret 18:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
AF, the page has been full of WP:IDHT. I can see that QG hasn't been a model of AGF towards you. I think the whole page needs to be left to calm down a bit, sadly there's no way that would happen. SPACKlick (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
There was a listening to others. There was a compromise on the lede, that was limited to the lede. I was happy with leaving the rest of the page use whatever the source said. I was happy letting the specific section that had a specific common word use that word that was most appropriate. QuackGuru as chronicled above broke that agreement by going and changing vapor to mist in sections he did not edit leaving aerosol alone in other parts of the article. The RFC may seem silly to some, but the conflict on the page made it necessary. He is now trying to improperly influence the RFC with embellishments and a twisting of the history. He keeps adding it. Others have engaged in discussion, he has not and its a clear case of WP:IDHT because I am not the only person to tell him so. AlbinoFerret 18:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I am involved with both Albino and QuackGuru, vaguely, on the talk page and I have to say whilst i could understand someone finding QuackGuru a bit of a pain and he certainly treads close to POV pushing at times and can be a bit abrasive,I haven't seen anything which looked like it would warrant sanctions. SPACKlick (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret's complaints here fit his long history of lobbying for terms not supported by best sources. It's also an obvious attempt at retribution. "I think a large boomerang should hit you" etc. make it pretty clear this is about AlbinoFerret, not QuackGuru.
This is at best a garden-variety content dispute that doesn't belong at ANI. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appearances can be deceiving, especially when you assume things. The rate of improvements to the article would increase and posts to talk pages would decrease if a QuackGuru's disruptive actions on the article and interaction on the talk page stopped. Its death by a thousand cuts. I have also explained that I rarely make one edit and leave. Even on talk pages. I fix my comments sometimes 4 and 5 times before the comment is done. A look at the history will prove that.
This is not about Cheesy getting blocked, its because of a continuous pattern of problems. I am a Christian who follows the Bible to the best of my ability. Cheesy had issues but, I am a firm believer that people can change. I was following "Open thy mouth for the dumb, in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction". Cheesy wasnt a "friend" but an acquaintance on a talk page. I am not doing this because Cheesy got blocked.
Unfortunately in QuackGuru's case he hasnt changed even though he has been given chances to change in the past. Its a steady adding of problem on top of problem. He has comprehension issues that add to the problems. I have talked about bringing him here and here way before Cheesy was blocked. I have added a lot of diff's above, the underlying issue may have been content. But the edits on the page and the sections linked above clearly show that the problem I am talking about isnt the disagreement with content on the page, but the but the way he acts when there is a problem. User:Levelledout has a better way with words, and hit the nail on the head. AlbinoFerret 02:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Note that QuackGuru did not file the complaint against CheesyAppleFlake or even contribute to the discussion. I also condemn CheesyAppleFlake's actions that got them blocked. I agree that there are issues with editing at the e-cigarette article being disrupted although that is not specifically what is being discussed here. By the way QuackGuru himself has made about 38 edits in the past 24 hours relating to the e-cigarette article.Levelledout (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The edit counts are not important (although they show excessive enthusiasm), but for the record QG has 328 edits at the article and 365 at its talk, from 30 September 2014 (total 15/day); QG's first edit was at 20 April 2014 and from that date the edits are 459 + 404. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Here is a prime example of WP:IDHT copied from the talk page. This type of discussion is commonplace in any discussion including QuackGuru. He just doesnt listen. Its disruptive.
According to you it is original research to change aerosol to vapor. You claimed aerosol is not a synonym of vapor but according to this change[72] you did replace aerosol with vapor. Do you think it is original research to change aerosol to vapor (or mist) and do you think vapor should be used throughout the body of the article no matter what the source says? QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
This is bait and switch. You are saying again that I am claiming it is original research. I never have and I already explained this to you.diff[73] But you dont here it WP:IDHT The diffs you use dont prove the accusations you are levelling. This diff has clear comments on it "change sentence to avoid copyright problems" that mention "copyright issues". This diff has clear comments on it that the change was "change to be consistent" or consistency with the rest of the article according to the agreement that you broke.AlbinoFerret 19:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You claimed we are using another source to correct another source. You previously wrote "We are not permitted to use one source to correct others. That would be WP:OR."[74] However, This diff shows your replaced aerosol with vapor. Your edit summary claims it was a copyright issue but you changed it because it appears you wanted to use the word vapor. You edit showed at the time you did think aerosol and vapor are synonyms. Editors want to use commonsense and use more neutral wording or more accurate synonyms in accordance with NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
We have went over this art least once. You dont seem to get it. I explained why you are wrong yet you still persist. Here is the answer I gave yesterday on why I went to the OR board. I never claimed anything, I simply asked a question for information. Here is what I told you yesterday:
"I have suspicions that it may be OR based on a question I asked yesterday on the OR notice board. But since it is such a difficult question I was seeking information on if it was OR before bringing it up here. I dont like sticking my foot in my mouth as you just did here claiming one thing, when in fact it is another."
I changed the word because of a copyright issue, the whole sentance was a close copy of the source, I should have changed it more. We have gone over this quite a few times in the past. AlbinoFerret 03:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Your edit changed it to vapor but what did the source say? You changed it because you also preferred the synonym vapor over aerosol. Why would anyone think synonyms could be an OR issue? QuackGuru (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Its endless, you cant discuss anything with him. He goes on and on, and on, on the same thing, over, and over, and over again. If there is an issue with his edits for any reason, its endless rounds in circles trying to explain whats wrong. Then when he possibly gets it, he insists you make the changes. Here is a whole section of the talk page where he just doesnt seem to get it. I can find a lot more sections just like it, like this one. The issue isnt a content disagreement. Its the disruptions caused by bringing up problems he inserts like copyright violations. He insists on the wording he copied in. He will misapply WP:OR if its changed. This ends up seriously harming the article and hampering the work done on it. AlbinoFerret 04:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I too have been involved in editing and discussion of this article and have been frustrated by QG's attitude. The unrelenting disruptive editing makes any substantive progress in the article impossible. QuackGuru's history of POV-pushing [75] and WP:OWNership issues [76] and his rather lengthy block log for similar behavior seem to suggest that it is unlikely he will change his ways or learn how to edit collaboratively. Mihaister (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

AlbinoFerret's continued, endless, complaints here are much like what he puts in the Talk page. I find them tiresome, WP:TENDENTIOUS, vindictive, and seldom justified by the facts. Some here amount to just plain false accusations. I believe boomerang applies. I propose a lengthy block for AlbinoFerret. Cloudjpk (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Petty? No, just demonstrating the continued disruptive editing and postings on the talk page. GuackGuru has been editing a long time, but still dose not paraphrase, even though its been gone over with him numerous times. This puts WP at risk because of copyright issues. He also continuously misuses WP:OR to justify changing edits back to words he gets fixated on. This isnt about me but the article, and how its being disrupted and how WP is put at risk.
Vindictive? No., but I think I know who is. Its amazing the amount of times you suddenly appear to defend QuackGuru. I also question this comment on the talk page section where only you and QuackGuru take one side of a discussion. Link You make this comment "We need not rely entirely on Cheng.". We? Yes you and your friend QuackGuru. You both are the only editors taking the same point of view. I cant remember ever seeing an editor say "We", its always "I". AlbinoFerret 04:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's need to cast aspersions AF, remember to WP:AGF. However, I am coming to the view that QG is causing a lot of difficulties in improving the article. Very territorial, Very POV. The whole Mist debacle is a good example. The fact that with no respect for WP:Weight he will include any speculation in a WP:RS that's negative to e-cigs, going so far as to create a new section just to say "We also don't know that they don't damage the environment" based on one source. It's difficult to work there at the moment. I think QG may need some time to cool off and AF, you're taking things personally. QG may be pushing your buttons but you're letting them be pushed. You could probably also do with some time to cool off. SPACKlick (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
@SPACKlick: The statement above, which I just struck, was in response to accusations of a similar nature that were levelled against me. While its factual and has some proof behind it, I will take the high road and take it out. As for pushing buttons, its a fact and I have made a effort to stop letting it happen as much. I do have an area that I have to draw the line at, placing WP at risk with copyright issues, it cant be allowed to continue and has to be addressed every time. AlbinoFerret 16:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Do you think that would actually help though? I mean from everything I've witnessed so far that would probably result in everybody picking up where they left off in two weeks time. I'm sure that a psuedo-science article (can't remember which one, acupuncture maybe??) was recently put into some sort of special measures by an administrator and I'm starting to think that might be needed on the e-cigarette article. Basically absolute zero-tolerance of certain policy violations, 1RR to prevent edit-warring, etc.Levelledout (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Levelledout, two days wont help anything. The refusal to compromise pre-dates my first edit on the article if the archives are any proof. It looks like he is also right on acupuncture from the look of the talk page there. Its also one of the articles QuackGuru edits regularly. AlbinoFerret 08:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
This is Exactly the problem, Albino You explain this childish conflict that has taken over your life with comments like "I explained to editor XYZ that he was wrong, and he still didn't accept my point of view" or "Oh, we're still fighting because the other side won't see reason". Honest to god, its time to fucking grow up. Nobody gives a shit a←bout this and we all tire of the endless bickering. Walk away from the keyboard, take your wife out to dinner, get a hobby and forget Wikipedia exists for 2 weeks. Electronic cigarettes will not be banned as a result of your failure to bicker with Quack for 2 weeks. Or for the rest of your life for that matter. I don't know how to put it any plainer. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Although I can understand the general frustration, I don't think these comments are particularly helpful. The more I try and step back and think about this multiple editors are involved in the problems and eradicating one or even two of them is actually unlikely to improve the article. The feuding pre-dates AF's involvement and goes back as long as I have been trying to edit the article. We need to find a way forward, a block on all editing is all very well but it needs to followed up by very strict enforcement of WP:CONSENSUS, 1RR and possibly some other core policies like WP:NPOV in addition to close monitoring of all editors' conduct in general. I don't like authoritarian measures more than anybody else but something needs to be done, this is the only thing I can think of. Somehow we need to get to point where editors actually make genuine efforts to reach WP:CONSENSUS as opposed to simply taking sides and adopting battleground mentality.Levelledout (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep removing sourced information from other articles, Im sure it helps WP. AlbinoFerret 06:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Is this sarcasm? Regardless, AF, you're exhibiting pure WP:IDHT behavior here, we are tiring of explaining how "I have a source" doesn't automatically mean you can use it in every article. Zad68 04:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Glad you can see sarcasm in text. The only thing I have learned is its ok to dump endless speculation in some articles, but not well sourced activities of a company in others. That people can misuse WP:TRIVIA. But every time an edit gets removed, I remember how it was removed, and where the reasons for removal were. AlbinoFerret 22:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Action or closure? (e-cig threads)[edit]

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

  • As far as I can see, AlbinoFerret has won because AF's editing rate drives away all except the most dedicated editors who might try to follow a topic. In the last five days, AF has made over 40 edits/comments per day relating to e-cigs. AF is now righting great wrongs relating to the evils of big pharma re e-cigs. Johnuniq (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
As Far as I can see QG's aggressiveness and blinkered approach and AF's scatter shot flood everywhere approach are both making the article harder to improve and consensus harder to reach. Would a temp topic ban for both editors acheive anything? SPACKlick (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like this time, a baby and the bathwater approach might be the way to go. A topic ban for both might be the ticket. Blackmane (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Johnuniq. I have experienced the difficulty myself: AF's editing/talk is just endless. However I can't agree with throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Without pretending that QG has been perfect, there's also no reason to pretend the problem is equal, or to respond as if it was. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There has been no specific evidence presented that qualifies that either editor is worse than the other, stating that QG is worse than AF or vice-versa is inherently very subjective without blatant gross and serious violations of policy that have not been presented. I am coming to the realization that singling out specific editors in attempts to have the opposition removed is not going to solve the problem/disputing, [which has been going on for many months] and appears to involve most editors at the article. As I have said we need to find a way forward and I would urge an uninvolved admin to take at look at monitoring this article for a while.Levelledout (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I wasnt aware that editing and discussing articles was grounds to be banned. Where can I find that WP policy? Yes, every time a WP policy or guideline is broken by QuackGuru I will add it here, this is the place to discuss such issues. But so far, other than editing and a few questionable remarks, all I have done is discuss things on the talk page. As posted in numerous locations in this section I seldom make one edit or comment and stop. But find problems with what I have added and change it 4 or 5 times to make it right. As for the scatter approach, that must be where I added something to 4 articles. One was a little section on e-cigarette that is linked to page that was broken out. The second to the page that was broken out because if its in the summery of the page it should also be on the broken out page. The other two were the articles on the companies that did the lobbying. It was all sourced to reliable sources. Sadly its been removed. I do agree with Levelledout, the article could use an uninvolved admin to come in and monitor the article. The problems on the article pre-date my first edit on the article if the archives are any proof. By the way QuackGuru's section is only 9 days old. AlbinoFerret 03:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Many details are not covered by policies, but it should be obvious that overwhelming others with frequent edits is unhelpful: you have 443 edits at Electronic cigarette and 1100 edits at Talk:Electronic cigarette, and hundreds more edits relating to this topic elsewhere—over 30 edits per day for two months. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Divide that by 4 or 5, because that how many edits it takes most of the time to get something edited right or a comment done. If its something you can ban someone for, it should be in a guideline or policy some place. Perhaps your not disabled and work out of your home, and kill time online. Thats my life, want to trade so you can post more? AlbinoFerret 04:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If it makes any difference, I still support a temporary month-long ban of everyone (including me) who has edited the article over the past month, so that we get a fresh approach from different uninvolved editors. Can administrators do that? Is there precedent for it? EllenCT (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
A month long topic ban stands to stop the disruption for a month. Doesn't really seem like it will resolve any of the issues, only postpone them. How about protecting the page and the involved users go to dispute resolution? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree, I don't think an outright ban on all editing will solve the problem alone, may help a little to get everyone to calm down but I'm confident the problems will soon re-emerge. DRN, well yes that may help but the last time something was brought to DRN, [only one side joined in]. So yes if we can get to the stage of most editors on both sides agreeing to engage in genuine debate of the key disputed issues (NPOV, medical/consumer argument including MEDMOS, reliable sources and where V and MEDRS should apply, etc).Levelledout (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@Levelledout: That wasnt the only place, a poll was started to give each side a view of the other sides It was voluntary, but only one editor from the medical point of view participated.AlbinoFerret 07:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
How about page protection, some form of dispute resolution, and a topic ban for anyone that doesn't take part and anyone that tries to crash or filibuster the process.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Obviously some finer details would need to be worked out but yeah if that's possible it sounds like a very good plan.Levelledout (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I think most of those those would be doable, page protection all the time isnt really necessary. I would add a 1RR rule on any specific section of the page, it would be a good idea, and stopping reverts by multiple people to win something by one side or the other. That would limit the problems and force discussion. I would be against the whole page because the article does get its fair share of spam. There is a problem with discussion on the talk pages, some form of third party intervention would be helpful if both sides have to address issues. AlbinoFerret 14:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
This is not the Wikipedia model. We do not have policemen moderating Talk pages so that problematic editors can have "minders" enabling them to participate alongside non-problematic ones. We do not have the manpower for that. What we do is notice when problematic behavior is happening, warn the individual editors, and if the problematic behavior doesn't stop we prevent the continuation of that behavior with sanctions. Zad68 14:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
1RR is just fine it would seem. No we don't need no policeman there. They can self police just fine. If anyone of them comes back here with this with any claim and that claim is remotely frivolous then they topic banned. There's enough rope there that they will either be able to settle their issue amongst themselves appropriately or they will hang themselves.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not highly experienced on Wikipedia so it is good to hear clarification from Zad on the point that they make. Incidentally I don't particularly want policing of articles either, but my intention is to find a way forward to solve the dispute and what has happened so far has not worked. Note that sometimes administrators do impose conditions on articles, such as [here]. How common this type of action is I don't know but I think that if those conditions were imposed on the e-cig article it would help, any violations could be sorted out at ANI.
With regards to problematic editing, either both sides are engaging in it (since there have been plenty of editors on both sides claiming this) or both sides are simply trying to solve a content dispute by removing the other side.Levelledout (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
For full awareness the page is currently admin only protected Here is the RPP thread SPACKlick (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Wanted to note to any closing editors QuackGuru has claimed three editors so far are SPA's two of whom are clearly very active across wikipedia and one of whom has some activity elsewhere. There is little good faith in this action and it smacks of trying to change the position of the editors by hook or by crook rather than trying to build consensus. SPACKlick (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I just had the time to glance through this case. SPACKlick, perhaps you can open up a little bit that who are those "three editors"" who are SPA's? And who are the two who are very active across Wikipedia? And who is this one having "some activity elsewhere"? That'd help a lot for the beginning. Thank you! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, should have put the diffs here, it's higher up in this thread. Diff of QuackGuru implicating user:Levelledout[contributions], Mihaister[contributions] and KimDabelsteinPetersen[contributions] as SPA's. KDP is the one closest to an SPA, Since 2 October 2014 they've posted almost exclusively about e-cigs. Mihaister edits Romanian topics and remote controlled helicopters and is in no way an SPA. Levelledout has been mostly focussed on e-cigs for the last month, although has edited elsewhere. SPACKlick (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This is not the first time QuackGuru has thrown unsubstantiated accusations and inflammatory language around. I've gotten fed up with the personal attacks and insults, that's why I pulled back from editing on the e-cigarette topic. As I wrote above, I do not think QG's behavior is likely to improve. I'm hoping this discussion can put an end to the incivility so we can all go back to improving Wikipedia. Mihaister (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a serious assumption of bad faith from User:QuackGuru which i find disturbing. For those who think that i'm an SPA please examine this. --Kim D. Petersen 08:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes I echo both Kim D. Petersen and Mihaister's thoughts. Please also take a look at my ['Top Edited Pages'] and you will see that a topic completely unrelated to e-cigarettes is 1st. I have been pretty active at the e-cigarette talk page but that is mainly due to often futile and protracted attempts to try and obtain consensus on the multiple ongoing disputes.Levelledout (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah? You have made 180 edits of which more than 100 pertain to e-cigs. Kim has edited both about global warming and e-cigs and mostly about the latter lately. Mihaister has begun editing other stuff but initially did just edit cig related topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Having thought about it overnight, I think QuackGuru should be formally sanctioned for these personal attacks without warrant or foundation. That said I don't find it surprising, givne the general attitude of QG that when scrutinised about behaviour on wikipedia he's tried to discredit rather than discuss. I think the e-cig page would be better off when the protection is lifted if QG was not actively editing there. SPACKlick (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Behavior of User:Eightball[edit]

Yesterday afternoon, a disgrameent ensued over the inclusion of a flag in 2015_Formula_One_season. This quickly developed into a fierce dispute including a violation of WP:3RR. User:Eightball has reverted other users' contributions labeling them vandalism and calling the users making them liars [77], [78], [79]. The user has harassed other users involved on their talk pages [80], [81], has declared their intention not to discuss and to keep reverting despite already being in violation of WP:3RR [82], and declared their intention not to accept consensus [83]. During the discussion process the users has repeatedly issued personal attacks through calling disagreeing users vandals and liars [84], [85]. I consider the attitude Eightball diplayed in the dispute utterly unacceptable. I will not deny that my own behavior was not what it should have been (in particular, I reverted to much which I deeply regret). I've allowed myself to be dragged into this way to deeply. What I would like to see is for this user to learn to collaborate constructively with other users instead of calling them liars and vandals. That they learn to respect other users' opinions and that at that at times the community disagrees with them. I would also like that this user learns to have respect for the Wikipedia policies such as WP:Consensus, WP:3RR,... Tvx1 (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone going to take a look at this at all? Tvx1 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This has already been to the 3RR noticeboard, and a case is also underway at DRN. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't change the unacceptable behavior the user has displayed. And I wouldn't say the DRN case is underway. A request has been lodged, but it hasn't been accepted yet Tvx1 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
In the mean time it is more or less underway. Tvx1 (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate (again)[edit]

The article Gamergate_controversy has been unprotected for less than an hour. Edit warring began within minutes in order to restore the allegation that Zoe Quinn exchanged sexual favors for favorable reviews. These allegations are unsupported by reliable sources, and indeed have been frequently refuted. Nevertheless, editors insist that the longstanding heading language must report the Allegations without qualifier, or with only the qualifier "unproven".

This page needs eyes (and IMHO protection) urgently. Obviously, Wikipedia’s repeating an untrue allegation about a game developer's sexual history involves BLP, and given the prominence of the issue. Note that I believe I may have violated 3RR under the BLP exemption and hope this was done appropriately. I'd appreciate it if the authorities could take over now. [[86]] MarkBernstein (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering how long this nonsense has been going on, protecting it for only ten days was Pollyannish at best. It should be re-protected for a lengthier time, like say a year or two, and then reverted back to the last non-BLP-violating version. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

And mybe MarkBernstein should assume good faith before making such accusations because I made it clear that that wasn't my intentions Avono (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Gamaliel's already full protected it again. NE Ent 17:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Per Bugs, I've extended protection. Chaos seems to erupt whenever protection expires or is downgraded, so we ought not let it expire again so soon. For a while, full protection was set to expire in late April, so I've put it back to that; other admins are welcome to downgrade it if they believe it necessary (no need to ask me or notify me; I don't care about the topic), although I'd advise against it. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure protection was necessary. User Avono seems to concede the issue to MarkBernstein's suggestion.--v/r - TP 17:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it was necessary because of this specific incident, but that wasn't the reason for the extension of protection; I did it because of the longer-term trends, and I would have believed protection necessary even without this specific incident. Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Plus, long term protection violates WP:PILLAR as this is supposed to be the Wikipedia that everybody can edit, not the encyclopedia that any admin can protect a page for a long amount of time just because it has 'problems'. A lot of page have freakin' editing problems. NPOV, biased content, tendendious editors. The solution to those problems is to discuss on the talk page, (and maybe file for enforcement for the more conduct related) not shut down all editing for literally 5 months because you think 'it'll calm down after that'. That's a fool's errand, and just delays the problem. You should absolutely use full protection for short periods of time, but not for this longer period since it happily negates any meaningful discussion on the talk page. I urge to you restore the full protection original date. This I also believe is unprecedented. Tutelary (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Tutelary, no one is being oppressed. If you have a particular edit suggestion, propose it on the talk page, get consensus, and then sit back and enjoy the improved product. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Not worth worrying about here and now. Twenty four hours after this [87] vote, the criteria was met for the opening of an arbcom case. (The actual declaration depends on the availability of an arbcom clerk, who are volunteers like the rest of us.) NE Ent 18:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm extremely happy to see the page receive long-term protection. If anything resembling a consensus can be established on the talk page, then it can go into main article space. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The article should not be removed to a semi-permanent draft version that will serve like an admin-only Pending Changes article. Such a concept goes against our core policies. I will recognize that there is a major effort by parties to advance an agenda, but semi-protection and the sanctions on the page are tools enough to control the matter without becoming draconian. Wikipedia is a neutral party, but compromising our standards and processes sets a bad precedent and it indicates that Wikipedia is helpless to regulate, control and maintain high-visibility articles. Full protection only projects vulnerability and shame in our self-regulation because when we pride ourselves on the notion that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The sanctions did not prevent (false) allegations about a young woman’s sexual history from being posted to article space within five minutes of the end of protection. The sanctions have not prevented Ryulong's doxxing and the shameful anti-semitic rants against him offsite, nor have they yet taken effective measures against relentless speculation about other unsourced claims [[88]], nor an admin’s repeated talk-page assertion that two reliable sources that refer to an image as a "rape joke" must be wrong because no static image can depict rape. This page needs an extended time-out, and related pages need watchful eyes. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Uh, we can only deal with the vandalistic edit after the fact, and that's an oversight that has happened to other articles before. (Not restoring semi protection after full protection and a vandalistic edit gets through) To try to say that the article should be protected for 5 months because of a single vandalistic edit is absolutely crazy. And we don't control what happens off site, and linking to a general enforcement page in which the user is warned is not productive. Also commenting on deal dispute matters which you don't like the reply of an admin is also not exactly relevant to the topic. Also please don't insult or personally attack other editors, per WP:NPA. Tutelary (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The accusations against Quinn was the focal point for all of Gamergate, and discussed many many times in reliable sources, and considered refuted by most of those reliable sources. It has been long since accepted in talk page discussion that in discussing those allegations as the starting point and the fact they've been pretty much disproven is not a violation of BLP. Further, you need to stop misquoting me and making veiled personal attacks. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting real tired of the harassment I'm getting. --DSA510 Pls No H8 19:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Draconian Proposal[edit]

On the one hand, I agree with the comment that putting the article under several months of full page protection, which amounts to Pending Changes by admins, and gives too much power to admins, is contrary to Wikipedia policy that anyone can edit as long as they do not edit disruptively. On the other hand, it does appear that every time page protection expires, someone re-inserts the sexual allegations against Zoe Quinn, and the sexual allegations are an intolerable biographies of living persons violation, and potentially libelous, and Wikipedia has a legal and moral responsibility to remove them again summarily. Therefore, I propose the remedy that we establish that anyone who re-inserts the allegations with any wording other than “false” should immediately (without further warning) be topic-banned by any uninvolved administrator, and may be immediately blocked in order to allow time for the topic-ban to be posted. It should be understood that any wording of the allegations short of ‘false’ (and ‘unproven’ is short of ‘false’) is an attempt to weasel around the ban on re-inserting the allegations and so not permitted. With this specific definition of sanctionable conduct, perhaps we can go back to short-term rather than long-term page protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no need for this; this is what the general sanctions are supposed to handle. The editors that edit warred (both ways) over long-established phrasing should be warned and/or have sanctions enforced to mitigation the issue. Doing this type of solution, having admin actions on specific details, I can see grow way too fast out of control. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as the sanctions would cover this and, if things were to change in the future, would preempt the ability of the article to change with time. Terrible suggestion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as necessary (extended page protection is also necessary). Also -- and knowing that I am walking directly up to the line of WP:CIVIL here, both MASEM and Thargor Orlando, opposing above, fought long and hard today to make the sexual allegations as visible as possible, and their discussion as protracted as possible,MarkBernstein (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sanctions cover this sort of stuff. Redundant and unnecessary. Tutelary (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As this was never the issue. Avono (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose --DSA510 Pls No H8 20:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - unnecessary per above. ansh666 21:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Current sanctions are sufficient and because we should never impose an requirement that certain wording is not allowed here. The evidence of the current consensus is clear, is here and it's disruptive to change it but consensus can still change. The solution is for those editors to propose a more neutral wording and see if that is permissible. Their BLP attacks are not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Follow-Up Reply, and Alternate Suggestion[edit]

I see that consensus is running against my draconian proposal. I can understand that. I also see that it is said that the sanctions should cover the issue of the deletion of the word "False", which has been done several times today (along with other stuff) before full page protection was imposed. Is there a noticeboard for requesting that actual sanctions, such as topic-bans, be imposed under the general sanctions? If these were Arbcom discretionary sanctions, I would know how to request action. Is this the proper noticeboard? If so, is it in order to request that the editors who changed "False Allegations" to "Allegations", aware of the general sanctions, be topic-banned from the article? It appears that the general sanctions are not being used effectively to deal with disruptive editing that violates BLP guidelines. Is that because full page-protection is easier for admins to impose, or why? Are the general sanctions not being used effectively, or are they not suitable for being used effectively? Can the editors who removed "False" be topic-banned? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The sanctions page is [89]. Other than the initial flurry, and today's topic ban of DSA (after a at least one previous request and two or more trips here), enforcement has been glacial and, in my view, ineffective. Not only was the False allegations edit warred, but a subsequent edit war broke out on the talk page over whether discussion of Zoe Quinn’s sex life could be hatted or whether the five pillars require that the BLP violations remain prominently visible on the talk page. Yesterday's rape discussion was, in my view, beyond belief and also deserves close scrutiny, which I have been inviting just as I felt I had to open this discussion with my own 3RR violation. That this should be necessary to gather attention to the matter is unfortunate, but if attention is being paid otherwise, its effects are not evident to attentive onlookers. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
If you're going to slander me, at least ping me. I don't sit around all day looking through contribs, so I'd prefer i know who is slandering my name, and where and when. --DSA510 Pls No H8 23:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
As your conduct was not under discussion here, and as it's not clear that you could contribute to this discussion (having been topic banned), it didn't occur to me. I'm regret the omission, @DungeonSiegeAddict510.MarkBernstein (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Just changing "false allegations" to "allegations" one time is in no way a violation of the general sanctions though trout-worthy due to the fact the issue has been discussed much per talk archives (and while using "false" is still controversial, is generally considered a stable solution at the present time), but edit warring over that would be. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, for crying out loud. Telstar introduced the issue [[90]], reverted by NorthBySouthwestBaranof. Telstar restated the BLP violation again [[91]], was stepped on by Avono introducing the draft revision wholesale, and again reverted by NorthBySouthwestBaranof. Avono immediately reverted to plain "Allegations" [[92]], reverted by me. Avono tries to replace "Allegations" with "Unproven allegations", reverted by me. As I'm reporting myself to ANI for that revert (head of this discussion), Gamaliel protects the page.
MASEM knows this. MASEM can, presumably, read view history just as well as I can. I know people hate drama here, but in the post above, MASEM can only be intentionally misleading his colleagues -- what other explanation can we offer for the edit immediately above. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
For further reference, MASEM's talk page edits today insisting on fuller exposure of Zoe Quinn's sex life, and attempting to argue that the allegations concerning her alleged exchange of sexual favors for editorial coverage were not false, in the teeth of (as far as I am aware) unanimous reliable sources: [[93]], [[94]] (page is protected at this point), [95], [96],[[97]] (worrying that new editors might not be familiar with Zoe Quinn's sex life), [[98]] (alluding to 'more sexual accusations which we will not discuss because they're not true either, except we have to mention again and again that they were alleged), [[99]], plus five subsequent diffs that interested readers can pursue as easily as I through View History. All of this, mind you, was closely coordinated with a small group of associated editors who play assigned roles: one is always careful to claim neutrality (while invariably favoring more discussion of Zoe Quinn's private life), one is more aggressive, a third is now topic-banned. But, after a whole day parsing whether or not "sodomy" is a good euphemism for rape and asserting that a static image cannot n any case refer to rape -- again in the teeth of the sources and defiance of art history and semiotics and common sense -- if this is, on a page already subject to sanctions and already at ArbCom -- if this is not misconduct, then let's just turn out the lights right now. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Please stop personally attacking me. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

With respect MASEM, I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the pattern of your edits on the page in question which (a) have consistently ignored WP:BLP in favor of prurient inquiry into the sexual history of a game developer whom the sources and you yourself agree is blameless, (b) bitterly contested efforts to at least hat the BLP violations on the talk page which you could easily have ended, (c) have facilitated a coordinated POV attack on this page and its talk page which is known to be coordinated offsite, and where your aid is specifically cited as an important asset, and where (d) these tactics are openly discussed. I confess that WP:CIVILity in the teeth of facilitating threats of rape against my colleagues, which you spend yesterday defending, was difficult. But you assert above that one edit was made, when all can plainly see -- and you very clearly knew -- that many edits had been made and that you spend hours -- literally -- defending them personally. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are attacking me. "have facilitated a coordinated POV attack on this page and its talk page which is known to be coordinated offsite, and where your aid is specifically cited as an important asset" is an outright attack without proof and I can tell you is 100% false - I have purposely avoided any discussion of the GG article with anyone outside of the discussions on Wikipedia (save for what I've already documented at ArbCom as one private discussion with a person that wanted to know how reliable sources work on WP). I'm well aware my name comes up in several conversations on outside sources, but that's why I have fully avoiding interaction (and in part I am not proGG, I'm only fighting for an impartial article per NPOV). So that's an outright fabrication and a personal attack. Additionally, it is not BLP to discuss an accusation that has been the center of discussion of numerous mainstream reliable sources and central to the entire debate, which has also been generally debunked. BLP says we should be using the best sources if we have to discuss it (which we are) and we just have to establish how the allegations came and how they were refuted. You're claiming I'm trying to drag more of her life into this which is absolutely bogus - I know other other allegations exist but will not state what those on WP are because that would be a BLP violation at the current time. I'm trying to argue from the proper accurate and neutral wording to how to present the nature of the accusations. And I am only contesting hatting when involved editors are doing so, because of the talk page being under sanctions - if a discussion needs hatting, grab an uninvolved admin and do it themselves.--MASEM (t) 04:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I urge careful attention to the paragraph above, notably the phrase I know other other allegations [[concerning Zoe Quinn's sex life that] exist but will not state what those on WP are because that would be a BLP violation at the current time. That's breathtaking -- and so generous of you to not wish to discuss prurient details in a matter in which this software developer is blameless at the current time! Please: someone. Take this to sanctions or wherever it needs to go. It has to be done, and I can't face another long day of being dragged through innuendo about a colleague's sex life for the amusement of Wikipedia process. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Where did I say "sex life"? There are other allegations about her life, but not about her sex life. You are misquoting me left and right. Please stop immediately. --MASEM (t) 05:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
(And to be clear, these are allegations I am aware the proGG has made, but no RS has covered in any detail we can even start to use, and hence why I won't bring the specifics up at all) --MASEM (t) 05:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
That's breathtaking Masem. If you're not willing to drop the topic for a couple of months I think sanctions will be necessary. Meanwhile, readers here can thnk about what bad things Zoe Quinn might have done—that is, bad things apart from her sex life. Perhaps the allegations are that she has committed fraud or blackmail? Or that she threatened to kill or rape someone? Can't you see how utterly inappropriate it is for editors to use any page on Wikipedia to promote such nonsense? Please stop immediately. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I am absolutely not promoting those. I am saying, as editors of an article that has received an inordinate amount of outside interest, that we need to be aware that there are other things the proGg side would like WP to say but we are nowhere close to having any sources to even speak to them, much less cover them. I don't believe any of said things are true in any remote way, but that doesn't change the fact that there are people that want to come to WP to ask us to add them, and to respond best to them it is better not to be ignorant of these other claims and broadly what they involve (as it tells us what other articles might be subject to outside influence because of the connection). I am absolutely not promoting adding anything more regarding Quinn. --MASEM (t) 11:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
How much longer should the community tolerate these repeated attacks from MarkBernstein? Is there a reason his continued attacks and posts are tolerated? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@Thargor Orlando: Apparently the enforcement page would be the revenue to have such issues dealt with as previously unfounded accusations were hatted by dreadstar [100]. Avono (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Likely useless exhortation[edit]

Gamergate is a tawdry, toxic mess of gossipy juvenile personalities worrying about crap they don't need to be worrying about, and I'm not talking about Gamergate-the-Wikipedia-article. While I'm fairly "iar brave" around here, I took a glance a couple weeks ago and immediately recalled the wise words of Monty Python: Run away! Run away!! I'd like to do nothing more than Afd the thing because it's not really worth the angst; unfortunately a quick Google search made it disappointingly clear it was too notable for an Afd. Given the nature of the source material, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then for Wikipedia to write a proper NPOV article which does not trip into BLP territory. Seeing too many regulars at each other's throats over this makes me sad. Please just try to dial it down a notch and remember most editors are here for the same reason (singing Kumbaya is optional, but if helps and you can carry a tune...) NE Ent 15:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This is fine and I agree in principle. Would you agree so readily, NE Ent, if we'd spent six hours yesterday discussing whom you, or your daughter, had slept with? If an edit war was conducted, as it was conducted yesterday, to change a section heading of the article from "FALSE ALLEGATIONS ABOUTNE Ent" followed by a paragraph on your sexual history, and replacing the heading with "ALLEGATIONS ABOUT NE Ent" or, as a compromise, ""UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS ABOUT NE Ent]"?
More to the point, beyond being a tawdry toxic mess, Gamergate does involve sending countless threats of beatings, rape, and murder to numerous female software developers. Suppose, heaven forfend, the least-sensible follower of this tawdry, toxic mess decides to follow through. If that were to happen today, could you stand on Wikipedia's talk page and say, "we did an excellent job and demonstrated how sensibly we can handle a difficult situation?" If so, do you imagine that the New York Times or Der Spiegel would agree? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
NE Ent, the precise problem is that there are a great many editors who are not here to build a source-based encyclopedia article about this issue, but are here to portray Gamergate as it wishes to be portrayed for public relations purposes while presenting a wide array of Gamergate's "tawdry, toxic, gossipy, juvenile" allegations against living people as something other than specious, disproven, ill-founded and frankly-nonsensical — which has been and is the clear and unambiguous conclusion of mainstream reliable sources. I would like nothing so much as to "run away," but it is my responsibility as a Wikipedia editor — and my responsibility as a humane person — to work to ensure that our project does not serve to perpetuate and propagate a series of anonymous, vicious and violent harassment campaigns targeting living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • At least in my opinion we should be TRYING to get gamergate back to being at least semi-protected. A very long term protect would be bad. Impose 1RR if needed, and then unprotect it (back to semi), if people start edit warring, temporary protect the page long enough to sort out who is edit warring (like 24 hours at most) and get them topic banned, and then unprotect again. Rinse and repeat until all those disrupting the page are topic banned. (and by edit warring I mean more then just propose removing false, and then someone reverts that and says take it to the talk page) --Obsidi (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The Gamergate article is suffering from serious recentism and bloat due to it being a current event with a small but persistent group coordinating efforts offsite to keep the mess front and center at WP, all out of proportion to its actual importance. Keeping the page locked for a significant length of time will give a chance for things to die down and for the actual cultural impact -- IF ANY -- to be properly assessed and the article appropriately trimmed. Frankly, it seems unlikely that in six months anyone is going to care about the minutiae of Gamergate. It'll be remembered as just another nasty, ugly little crapstorm drummed up to try to drive women out of "men's spaces". There's no real reason to keep wasting the time of editors who right now have to keep a hawk's eye on it to prevent BLP violations and material "sourced" on Youtube personalities from sprouting in it like dandelions after a spring rain. Keep it protected. ReynTime (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Also it seem arbcom will take the case (6 supporting and 1 recuse with 12 active arbcom members seems likely to take the case at this point). So whatever we do now may be moot, arbcom is likely to have some kind of preliminary injunction. --Obsidi (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • IMO the best solution here would be to delete and salt the article, then start again in six to twelve months when the drama has died down and the RS (not just news websites) have had a chance to get into gear. The world would not be a worse place for Wikipedia not having an article on GamerGate for a year. That's my 2p; unfortunately, I can't see it flying. GoldenRing (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    That suggestion gets thrown around a lot on a particular reddit forum.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    Er, right. Do you have a point to make here? GoldenRing (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    I'm guessing he means that removing the page is what the GGers want, except I disagree -- what the GGers actually want is to have a lengthy WP article that legitimizes their BS "movement." I tend to think that getting rid of the GG article entirely or at least paring it down to the two or so short paragraphs it may, possibly, deserve (due only to the extremes of harassment of women in the industry that occurred via the use of social media) would go further to indicate how meaningless, petty, and nasty the whole thing is than to have an insanely long entry going into every last little detail of the GGers terrible behavior. With a long and detailed WP article GG can run around claiming that (A) GG is REALLY IMPORTANT! and (B) WP is full of "SJW shills!" and other such tripe, which leads them to engage in coordinated offsite harassment of editors they don't like, and to try to drag in tangentially involved figures like Christina Hoff Sommers and David Auerbach (of Slate) to push their agenda for them via harassing Jimbo on Twitter and on his talk page, because they expect him to step in and personally "fix" things to their liking. (Not that JW can't handle it since this is by far not his first rodeo, but it's still really, really stupid.) Removing or severely trimming the article would reduce the potential for such behavior substantially, although WP would of course then have to deal with the shrieks of "CENSORSHIP!!" that would follow. As it is, I'm betting that the GG group has more SPAs and zombies they can bring in than WP has genuine editors willing to police the article properly until the GGers get tired of messing with it, and the GGers have more patience because they simply care much more about it. While WP:NOTPAPER holds, of course, having this crazy long and detailed article about GG gives it far, far more legitimacy than it deserves. (150 citations?! Seriously?!)ReynTime (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    Just so. Reading the current article, it seems insanely long for such a storm in a tea-cup. So by suggesting that we delete the article and leave it alone for a year, I was trying to say that I think some historical perspective will pare this down to, as you suggest, a few paragraphs dispassionately describing the controversy. But we are getting into a content discussion here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone point to another precedent of a fully protected article just because the article has problems without being fixed? I don't believe such an article exists. Tutelary (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely bizarre behavior on US House Election Pages, 1789-1800[edit]

The US House Election pages from 1789-1800 seem to be a huge source of contention in recent weeks. User:GoldRingChip, who happens to be a administrator, has been wiping infoboxes from all of these pages, taking out the pictures of Speaker of the House candidates from all of these pages (and only these pages). When asked why he was going through with such a bold action without discussing it on the talk page, he said that he believed that the info box members referred to "House minority leaders", and he stated that this position was not created until the 1890s. I then stated that the pictures in the infobox referred to Speaker of the House. For confirmation, I asked him to refer to the 2012 and 2014 election pages, which did not include portraits of Eric Cantor, Republican House Leader, but John Boehner, Republican Speaker of the House. He then proceeded to bizarrely accuse me of "name calling", which a single glance at his talk page would disprove. I have never called him anything offensive. He proceeded to change the argument, going back to talking about minority leaders, while I already pointed out minority leaders had nothing to do with the portraits. I am getting seriously exasperated of dealing with this individual, and I fear that an edit war is coming to a large number of pages. I have no idea why he doesn't just look at to 2012 and 2014 pages, which again do not state anything about "minority leaders". It is truly shameful for a moderator to act like this, on any page. The accusations of "name calling" are ridiculous. Themane2 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the infobox images are suppose to be those of the person who was elected Speaker & the challenger who wasn't. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
None of the edits were made as an Admin, so I don't know why that's an issue here. I made edits just like any user should (see WP:BB). I noted the reasons. Another user disagreed with my edits. So far, that's fine. But then that user started asking for apologies and taking it all personally. That I couldn't explain. As you see from the very title of this section, "Absolutely bizarre behavior," another editor cannot understand conflicting opinions without them being an explosive issue. Perhaps the infoboxes should be changed to reflect "the person who was elected Speaker & the challenger who wasn't," and that's fine. We can discuss that on the talk pages and reach a consensus. But this over-the-top action by an editor is inappropriate. —GoldRingChip 16:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Edits made by you at any time are done as an admin, since you are an administrator. This is regardless of whether they were actual use of administrator tools. It looks like you've been an administrator since 2005. Do you feel that your knowledge of policies, guidelines and editing norms is current enough? This exchange is a bit odd and certainly disruptive, and perhaps seeking a third opinion or starting a request for comment would have been better than blanking a large batch of infoboxes in an apparently controversial manner. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't know the casual edits of an admin would be treated at a higher standard. That's was my mistake. There was nothing to indicate at the time that the edits would be controversial. I make edits all the time which are taken for what they are: edits. If/when an editor disagrees, then we hash it out the usual Wikipedia way. Instead, the other editor started accusing me and demanding apologies. I didn't blank infoboxes, by the way, I just removed a small portion of data from them because they were unsupported and appeared factually incorrect. Indeed, I assert that there should be no data in those fields, as supported by my claims in the Edit summaries. (see, e.g., here. Unlike the other editor, I am providing a sample diff for this discussion, as suggested by this noticeboard.) If, in fact, I was incorrect, I welcome citations to support the claim and on we go. That's the system working the way it should. Please take the other editor's tone for what it is: a personal affront that there was an edit. I take no insult from other people's edits, because Wikipedia is about teamwork. —GoldRingChip 21:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, administrators *are* held to a higher standard. That's how they became administrators in the first place, by determination that they were deserving of greater responsibility than the average editor during their RfA. It would also be nice to see some diffs from Themane2 to support their accusations, though. Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Is an admin not allowed to edit? Can't I make regular uncontroversial ordinary edits? The other editor has made a harsh accusation and I'm being judged just because I'm an admin. —GoldRingChip 17:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I have 3 accusations against you: 1. You played the "name-calling" card when I never called you anything offensive, which can be verified through a simple viewing of your talk page. 2. You continued to ignore me when I pointed out that the Speaker of the House was always put in for the portraits. 3. You then refused to at the very least go to the 2012 or 2014 election page, which have been edited by scores of authors and are, at the very least, decent indicators of consensus. Basically, my problem is you came in to change a widely held consensus, without so much as a discussion, and then proceeded to ignore me when I asked some questions. The diffs are pretty much any edit summary from any of these pages, as well as his talk page. It's all in the public record and it's frankly embarrassing for any editor, administrator or not, to act this way. Themane2 (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Some diffs of note. I try to get through to him... He continues to ignore me... Themane2 (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Skamecrazy123 Tendentious Editing[edit]

Api Chaining has kept getting brought up for deletion by Skamercrazy123 and now it is up for discussion for deletion. This time he openly stated his issues with user in the discussion. When having discussions to 'delete', editors are to take into consideration WP:HERE, are to have WP:NPOV and NOT to do WP:TE. As a first time creator of a page, I am trying to learn as I go and learn the rules and editors are supposed to not WP:BITE. But to punish the ontent because they don't like the user breaks all the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orubel (talkcontribs)

Um.... I only prodded it once here. Mcmatter then nominated it for AfD. As for biting you, I have apologised both on your talk page and at the AfD request here and struck through the offending comments. If my edits were truly tendentious, I would have not offered the apology and struck through the relevant comment. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You've done nothing wrong. No problems with listing the article. Now WP:BOOMERANG time: Orubel, your history here has not been on great help to the project. Your editing has been problematic to say the least. You need to knock off the attacks on everyone. I'd say it's pretty close to a WP:NOTHERE solution and moving on if you continue on this routine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Have to disagree User shows a history of attack against user by editing content and now stated it in page. This has been happening previously on the api chaining page and then he is more than happy to vote for delete because he has issue with user. If you have issue with user, you dont bring it WP:HERE Orubel (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I have a feeling you are making this up as you go along. All these accusations of me bringing the page to deletion when I only prodded it once. All this stuff about me having a problem with you when I struck out the only comment that could be perceived as an attack and apologised for it. At the end of the day, I voted the way I voted because of a perceived lack of notability, not because I wanted to rub your nose in it. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ' I have a feeling you are making this up as you go along'... obviously, you are completely unbiased. Orubel (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
As per the nomination on the on the AFD, I nominated it because the prod had been removed by a new single purpose account during my new user patrol. After looking at the article I questioned the validity of the references and the article itself and initiated the AFD process to gather input from the community. It was not until after I nominated the article that I found out the creator had been blocked or was having issues and it was his wife who was the SPA account which removed the prod. So far, through this process Orubel has been very combative and has taken everything very personally. A review of WP:OWN may be helpful, especially since he has admitted to a conflict of interest as the creator of the pattern as per this post [103] which he later retracted and removed.[104]. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You've done nothing wrong either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not question McMatter, I have felt the effect of WP:BITE and am just knee jerk responding as a user. Regardless of my actions, editors need to remember why we are WP:HERE and understand that scientific evidence for tech community is not presented in magazines anymore... it is at peer reviewed technical conferences, open source conferences, etc. This is where a board reviews your work to see if it is noteworthy and then invites you to present and a group of peers then sees and begins to implement your work. Magazines may never write about the intricacies of software... it just becomes fact. And it is up to us to make sure people can have access to that information. Orubel (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I have begun a mediation process between these 2 users and have begun work to assist Orubel with his articles for inclusion on Wikipedia. Please review Orubel's talk page for the discussion. At this point I believe we can close this topic.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

More Ararat arev IP-hopping[edit]

An IP editor has recently been editing articles related to Orion (constellation) and Osiris as a roundabout way of promoting his nationalist fringe theories. This is a typical example. He was identified as Ararat arev in the discussion at Talk:Orion (constellation)#Ancient Egypt, and several of his IP addresses were rangeblocked a couple of days ago, in this AN discussion. He has reappeared today, under a wider range of addresses, at ancient Egyptian deities, dying-and-rising god, winged sun and, judging by this message on my talk page, probably elsewhere. At the very least, these three pages need semi-protection. Because he's willing to insert his claims in just about any article, the IP addresses should probably be blocked, too:

The last one should certainly be blocked, as it's the one he's used most recently. A. Parrot (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

And apparently he is able to leave one IP address, edit from another, and come back to the first, so they should all be blocked. A. Parrot (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
And (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Hayk. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
All + blocked. Favonian (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Another one (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

More eyes on User:EoRdE6[edit]

If any administrator can spare the time, I'd very much appreciate it if they could keep an eye on this blocked user. I blocked them, and there are now a ton of IPs popping up fast and furious disruptively editing this page and other pages. See, e.g., 2600:1004:B043:6CB3:0:11:208F:E501 (talk · contribs · count). I have increased the duration of the user's block twice for block evasion and threatened him with an indefinite block. However, I should have gone to bed about 30 minutes ago, and I can't keep doing this.

Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone watched, but after trying to sleep for a few hours and failing, I'm back up, a bit tired and frustrated but here, at least for a while. As far as I can tell, the block evasions finally ceased, at least for the moment. The user protested the duration increases imposed by me on his talk page, and I've addressed his points on the same page. He also says that he's "emailed an admin friend of mine who will look into it when he wakes up." That should be fun.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I received an email from EoRdE6 this morning. I granted him rollback rights a few days ago. I don't think I've had any interaction with him beyond that. I have attempted to clarify why he was originally blocked and the rationale behind the subsequent blocks. In his email, he claims the IPs were not him. I've reviewed the edits, and it seems quite obvious that it's block evasion, or someone he knows personally trying to aid him in getting unblocked. I've strongly encouraged him to refrain from editing outside his talk page. Blocking these IPs was certainly the right thing to do, but I'm not sure however about the increase of EoRdE6's block to the chosen duration. 31 days seems excessive. I think the one week was enough, but that's just my opinion. I trust Bbb23, I just wanted to offer my two cents. To be clear, I will not myself be responding to EoRdE6's still active unblock request. Best — MusikAnimal talk 16:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
MusikAnimal, I suspected it was you because I saw the rollback grant. The disruption by the multiple IPs was significant. Thus, in my view, it went beyond simple block evasion. Also, the initial block evasion was obviously the same person as everything at ANI was expressed in the first person. Perhaps it's because I'm a jaded SPI clerk, but I simply didn't believe that the other socks (all in the same range) were not him but "friends" of his. And as I stated, even if it were meat puppetry rather than sock puppetry, both are sanctionable. Thanks for expressing your view. His initial block request was declined. He's on his second. As usual, he has a persistent habit of distorting policy. I've never seen such wikilawyering so badly done.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather see more addressing the behavior that lead to the block than debate over a discretionary length. I've closed the unblock request as such; it may be helpful to encourage him reflect on how he will change this approach than to spend more time subjectively pouring over discretionary guidelines looking for a "loophole". Kuru (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand your point, but I find his distortions of policy to be troubling. When he was edit warring, he was specifying clearly unreliable sources to a BLP article he'd created. During the war, one of his edit summaries said, "just because a source isnt reliable doesn't mean it must be removed. please point me to a ruoe that says that" ([105]). I find that to be astounding in multiple ways.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Non administrator comment: For what it is worth, I can see a very valid argument that this editor is WP:NOTHERE. See this diff from an AfD: [106]. A user that can make that kind of inane comment (both the on topic and the off topic ones, actually) showing obvious lack of WP:CLUE regarding how Wikipedia works and then turn around a day or two later and rush in to AfC and sign up for that (since reverted thankfully) needs to have required mentoring prior to his return. How do you do that with any kind of limited block? Also, someone should check on the damage he may have done at AfC. He did promote several articles, but most are out of my areas of knowledge. John from Idegon (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

His rollback right should be rescinded. Troublesome editors should not be given any tools which can ease their abuse of the project, and they should lose them when they start making trouble. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
By all means rollback rights should be rescinded. Editor has some serious competency issues, not to mention his trying to game the system. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I have revoked the permission. While there was not blatant misuse of rollback, I don't really approve of what he's done with STiki, and given these other circumstances at this point I have my doubts he can be trusted with the tool moving forward. — MusikAnimal talk 19:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I considered the same action based on trust issues, you beat me to it. Chillum 19:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

a threat from colleague Legacypac[edit]

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

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

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

Legacypac has a long history of extremely aggressive interaction and a unilateral edit style that includes page moves and blanking against consensus in this specific topic area; he probably will drag you to ANI, he is a regular visitor here. If it's any solace, none of his reports result in any action: [107], [108], [109], [[110] etc., but he keeps filing them. He has previously been given a topic ban, but that didn't take [111]. He has been warned by PBS and countless others more times than anyone can count for unilateral page moves and page blanking. At this point it appears he basically has carte blanch so, unfortunately, we all just have to grin and bear it. I gave-up on editing these topics as the amount of time it took undoing unilateral page blanking/moves, and being screamed and threatened with the ANI cudgel just wasn't interesting anymore. I'm sorry you're the latest one to be on the receiving end of this. Honestly, you'd be better off just giving up and editing something else. I regret I don't have more up-beat advice to offer. DocumentError (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

FYI, I just undid your edit of my comment. You have been repeatedly told not to edit others comments by moving them out of sequence or changing verbiage. Stop it. You have also been repeatedly told not to engage in name calling against other editors. My name is not "Mr Error." DocumentError (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Repeated editing of your comments by you was causing edit conflicts. If I inadvertently edited your comment, sorry about that. As an editor who intentionally misused my user name all over the place to falsely imply an association with an organization, you are hardly one to talk. You make demonstrably false claims about other editors all the time. Now go away and stop harassing me. Legacypac (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The history of your Talk page - for those who dive into it - is essentially a parade of dozens of other editors pleading, cajoling, and imploring you to stop 3RR, personal attacks, and against-consensus edits. You declare all of these attempts to engage with you as editors "harassing" and spreading lies about you. You are, quite possibly, the most combative, "take no prisoners" editor on WP as of today, 27NOV2014. DocumentError (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think at this point Legacypac and @DocumentError: could benefit from a self imposed two way IBAN. Now as for @Corriebertus: and @Legacypac:, have either of you had any other contact about the above material other than this "threat" on the talk page?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I don't think this is really an ANI issue. I recommend that both of you in the future consider civil conversation with each other, Legacypac and Corriebertus, instead of snarky reverts and overeactive page warnings.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks DocumentError and Serieljoepsycho for your comments. Some terms (IBAN, ANI, PBS) I’m not acquainted with. Serialjoeps asks: have you two had earlier contact about that material? No, I believe we have not. The tricky, dirty thing is, that after I had deleted about five times some listing of Canada/Australia, with clear motivation, after those five times Legacypac at last came up(24 Nov) with sources that corroborate his standpoint, and then apparently considered that a good opportunity to start screaming and lying and threatening and cursing AND even making a personal attack (“user pushing some agenda”) at me. By the way, Serial: what is my ‘snarky revert’ and what my ‘overreactive page warning’?
I understand from DocError that Legacypac has had his way with DocError in scaring him away from editing certain pages by screaming and threatening him and whatever other aggressive interaction and unilateral editing style. If that would be true, we would seem to have in Legacypac an editor that basically threatens Wikipedia. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
DocumentErrors edits from a clear pro-Iran, anti-American POV and did engage in forum shopping, but his efforts to push the Iran intervention in Iraq over the American-led one were largely unsuccessful. I'll go so far to say that DocumentError specializes in error - I and quite a few other editors have spent far to much time refuting his erroneous accusations. I ignore him and yet he continues to HOUND me damaging my reputation (which is my job, thank-you very much).
To Corriebertus I am sorry you feel attacked. My initial edit summary was not directed at you specifically as I did not know who deleted the Canadian airstrikes at the time. I did not like your edit summary (repeated above) that called me out by name. Let's try to improve your wikipedia experience. In Wikipedia we do not automatically delete everything that is not directly sourced. We just write stuff that is widely known or easily confirmed like "Canada is a country in North America" or "there is a civil war in Syria" with no need for a specific reference everytime. There are lots of things that are opinions or maybe gray area facts, but it is undisputed fact (not my opinion or standpoint) that Canada is bombing in Iraq in November 2014. Adding a cite to the fact improves the page, deleting the fact 5 times because you perceive some other editor(s) failed to provide a cite is really annoying. This behavior is perceived by other editors as POV pushing because you are making changes in a strange direction suggesting some unknown agenda. Editors get blocked and banned for behavior regularly. Your edits left the article saying Canada was NOT doing airstrike yet - which you can not support with any cite because it just is not true. Now can you understand the issue and withdraw your complaint here?
WP:IBAN is an interaction ban, ANi is here-Admin Noticeboard incidents. PBS is a specific Admin editor. Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Corriebertus:What ever comment that Legacypac felt was snarky. I don't know if actually was snarky. Please do find that edit and review it and take into account that they felt that it was snarky. This may help you in your dealings with them in the future. They seem to have realized that some of the things they have said may have offended you and it does seem they are going to try to take that into account into the future. As far as 'Overreactive page warning' I was referring to Legacypac warning or (as you called it threat) that they would report you. You both seem reasonable. There's really nothing for ANI to do here in my opinion. I do think you to can work this out amongst yourself.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

If I had more time at the moment I would file a separate ANI about this as you've already been cautioned about race-baiting, LP, more times than I can possibly count. You've also been told not to revert other editors contributions on the basis that they are "anti-American" as "anti/pro-American" is not a WP policy.
Corriebertus - the acidic style of LP's interaction with other editors, and his occasional penchant for vandalism (specifically making edits on topics that are open for RfC and unilaterally moving entire pages and, in one instance, simply deleting an entire page he declared was "anti-American") for which PBS (and many others) have cautioned him, is not worth your sanity. Search his name in the ANI or talk to other tenured editors like User:Supreme Deliciousness, User:GB fan, User:Drmies, or a thousand others who have crossed his path on articles related to political violence in the Muslim world (which are 90% of his edits). He's on a one-man crusade to save Apple Pie and Baseball, though frequently (as he did above) invokes the name of some vast assemblage of nameless "other editors" backing him up. The edit summary he left you in reverting one of your edits "What the hell is wrong with this guy?" [112] is eerily reminiscent to one he's previously left me. Every edit he approaches as a battleground in some vast war for the defense of western civilization against the circling hordes. As frustrating as it can be, I recommend you disengage completely and stay as far away from him as you can. Feel free to email me if you'd like to discuss it in detail or need to commiserate. DocumentError (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment @Serialjoepsycho:I am in complete sympathy with DocumentError and Corriebertus, and am another that he's abusing process and community standards repeatedly; and he's just done it again with a complete OR fabrication on Ottawa shootings article; please read this comment of mine on the other ANI launched by LegacyPac against me below, and note his edit warring and abuse of the RPA template on the article in question's talkpage. It's endless, it seems; I invite you to explore his usercontributions as indicated by DocumentError and Corriebertus above re this being a chronically disruptive and "hostile" editor and "edit warrior".Skookum1 (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • This censor-deletion of my criticisms of his conduct on that article I have not restored due to intervening edits, and a mounting sense of irritation and futility dealing with him. Note that he did not just remove my comments but those critical of him for mis-using RPA for what were not personal attacks, but very provable notes about how his presence has impacted the article and the discussion page both. And note here @GBFan's: reversion of his second reversion of his censoring of my posts with invalid abuse of the RPA template; GBFan's comments were among those deleted/censored in the previous link. "If you don't want to be talked about for doing bad things, don't do bad things"....screwing with other peoples' posts and acting as a one-man censor are not a "good thing" are they? The persistence of this behaviour is noticeable all the way through his usercontributions, which I spent a day exploring while he was drafting the ANI below. IMO a broader ANI on "terror POV" is needed, but also in that context the behaviour of "terror campaigners", as mentioned in [section of the talkpage] in response to another "terror campaigner"'s attempt to euhemerize/neuter content on an "agenda" basis. i.e. that on that article, and on the Saint Jean sur Richelieu one, an ongoing abuse of sources mis-quoted, distorted, with OR claims/wording used willy-nilly, is an ongoing problem, just as it seems to be with the other articles such people frequent in their busy not-paid, not-at-the-office {yeah, sure} wiki-days.Skookum1 (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


Editor blocked--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Single purpose account ‎WikiEditor2016, whom I suspect of being a sock or meatpuppet of Chasbo123 continues to revert changes to The Fairly OddParents (season 9), Phineas and Ferb (season 4) in spite of an open RFC. Edits are being made in bad-faith, with a specific agenda in mind. User keeps removing notifications from their talk page and aren't interested in participating in the discussion, only reverting per their POV. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking thru the history on The Fairly OddParents (season 9) history I can't see a solitary revert or edit by them. Nor can I see an RFC on the talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
User may have meant Phineas and Ferb (season 4) which they have edited and does have an RFC. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry guys, my sloppy mistake. Phineas and Ferb (season 4), yes. Fixed above. The problem began when the user showed up and started making changes like this one with the erroneous edit summary "Consensus to pair". There was no such consensus since the talk page discussion kept going in circles and I had to set up an RfC. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
They have violated 3RR on Phineas and Ferb (season 4). Maybe an admin can give a temp block and perhaps the SPI will have concluded before they get back. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: BTW, there is no issue with them removing your warnings from their page, WP:REMOVED, they can do that. Removal also tends to show that they have in fact read those.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Of this I am aware. I mention it more to illustrate their lack of interest in discussion in favor of their POV. Oh and here's a link to the SPI report for ease of viewing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I was wondering if that is what you may have meant. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
+1 with this edit: [117]. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Blocked 24 hours for 3RR. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

New Jersey is NOT owned by one editor[edit]

I'm sorry to keep troubling you, but I really hope someone there could have a word with User:Alansohn. I've made thousands of edits to cities and towns across the United States, but have carefully avoided New Jersey due to this one editor. Please look at the ridiculous edits he reverted today on Linden, New Jersey, and in his edit summaries called me "disruptive". All my edits followed policy and were in good faith. This person DOES NOT OWN NEW JERSEY! As long as he continues to bully and intimidate, editors will avoid this state. This isn't what Wikipedia is about. Thank you again for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be related to a series of edits adding Rhashonna C. Cosby-Hurling to the "people from" section of Linden, New Jersey. No comment on the addition itself, but from the look of things Alansohn is at 4 or 5 reverts in the last 24 hours on that article (one of those reverts was almost immediately self-reverted by Alansohn, but was followed by another revert). Magnolia667 is at 4 reverts in the last 24 hours. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I have backed away from this already after a self revert in an effort to find a place to keep a non-notable in the article. The material was relocated to the government section, where it properly belongs. Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
If you look carefully at the Linden, New Jersey article, you'll see that User:Alansohn quickly removed from the list of notable people Rhashonna Cosby-Hurling, the first African American female elected to Linden City Council. Yet, he carefully passed over Cathy Dorin-Lizzi, a non-notable bowler who has been redlinked since Alansohn added her to the list SEVEN YEARS AGO! see [118]. Can we please bring some democracy to these New Jersey articles? Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I took the entry and shifted it to the government section, an appropriate shift for someone who is not notable. If there is an issue with the claim of notability for Cathy Dorin-Lizzi, a notable professional bowler added with an appropriate reference in an entry apparently made seven years ago, then it should be removed. Alansohn (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
And so it goes, the same old arguments and deflections. I'm sure you folks have seen these before, every time someone makes an edit to one of Alansohn's personal New Jersey articles. The real problem here, is it chases away other editors who have something valuable to add. Anyway, thanks again for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Democracy? I heard a rumor that Wikipedia is not democracy. That rumor suggested that wikipedia is based off consensus or some such nonsense.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yesterday I created Foul Rift, New Jersey, and in less than 24 hours, Alansohn made two edits to the article. While all of us welcome constructive edits, Alansohn insists on adding "his" favorite map to the article. Unfortunately, his map is hard to see, with a tiny map-within-a-map, while the map I had added is easy to see. So, he increased the map size in the infobox to 400, destroying the look of the article. Is this my punishment for adding a new article about New Jersey? C'mon folks, please lend a hand. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I followed the editor from Linden, NJ article to their new one and changed the map. We used to use the state size maps with a pushpin in the township years ago as the default map. We now use the more information dense county size maps to show the township for all the US articles. When I see one of the old maps, I know the article has not been updated in over a year. If the consensus is to go back to the state size maps, then we can change all of them back. Do we want a consistent look and feel to the township articles or are outliers ok? Should we be patrolling pages to make them comply, or allow drift into different styles? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is drifting into content territory now, which is out of the purview of ANI. You should continue this discussion on the talk page for Foul Rift rather than here. demize (t · c) 00:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I have plenty to add to this discussion, but unfortunately I do not have the time today. I also formatted this discussion for ease of reading. I should have time tomorrow night. John from Idegon (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Collusion / Canvassing by User:Magnolia677 and User:John from Idegon[edit]

It took a little bit longer for User:John from Idegon than expected, but they had been colluding in advance to manufacture an incident. Here are some snippets from a conversation earlier this week:

  • John from Idegon: this edit - "have you had similar problems perhaps from a similar source?"
  • Magnolia677: this edit - "I was a new editor at the time and made some poorly sourced edits to New Jersey articles. I learned my lesson through rudeness and intimidation. When you and I see a well-intentioned new editor we offer a hand. That being said, that editor has made a huge contribution to New Jersey articles (but likely scared a few great editors away too)."
  • John fron Idegon: this edit - "do you have email enabled? The first subject needs a private conversation."
  • Magnolia677: this edit - "Email on."

Magnolia677 has been desperately trying to generate an argument about the type and size of a map in an article he claims to own, among other efforts to generate a controversy that he could manufacture for ANI purposes. Surprise! John from Idegon now comes along and has to refactor the existing comments because we've done it all wrong. I'd be curious to read the text of the email conversation, but I bet it lays out what we see in front of us. I hope both can explain this improper collusion. Alansohn (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Two editors have a similar problem with another editor and discuss it a bit. How is that a violation of anything? I never got around to emailing Magnolia and an administrator is welcome to look at the email log to verify that. I do not have much time on a PC these days and do most of my editing from my phone (not a smart phone either). I resent having what little time on a PC I do have wasted dealing with frivolous crap like this. I do not have to prove a damn thing to Alansohn and neither does Magnolia. Even if we did do what he is accusing us of doing, that isn't a violation of any policy. Frankly, this should result in a boomerang. I will not have anything further to say on either this or the above subject. So it appears he got what he wanted. The red herring worked. This is just another in a line of problems like this and I do not have the time or inclination to go find all the diffs for it. And Alan, the text of my emails are never going to be your concern. It is illustrative of the problem at hand that you think it is. John from Idegon (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Did these two editors have a problem with the same editor in the same article?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud[edit]

Would an admin please take a look at recent editing at Sigmund Freud and its talkpage? I've been tempted to wield my tools, but since I set up the RfC, I'd prefer to get more eyes on it. Bishonen | talk 13:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

I've closed the RfC, with an implicit warning that further edit-warring against consensus will be met with sanctions. Fut.Perf. 17:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Fut. It's frankly a mystery to me how it dragged out so long. Bishonen | talk 18:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

Dealing with personal attacks[edit]

I am requesting Admin comment on a users actions because my efforts to stop this have failed. Apparently this is the place.

User reverted my edits and started a section header: "arbitary/questionable deletion of birthname and cites by Legacypac:" which is now permanently enshrined in the article diffs for all time. I recall we are not supposed to use user names in section headers (though in frustration I added his name to the same section header and then removed it. Later that edit was restored multiple times, then removed by the editor with a nasty personal attack on my edit history in the comments.

I asked (not as nicely as I should have) for the user to remove his inappropriate comments.

I focused on the content. I sought a 3rd opinion then started an RfC on the talk page about the content where all other comments have supported my edit to the content.

I went to [[119]] for advice, which sadly resulted in another editor restoring the personal attacks against me.

I read all the guidelines on personal attacks, then for the first time ever used the WP:RPA template in a series of edits to remove the PAs while being sure to leave the editors content points in place. This effort was promptly reverted (easiest way to see disputed words). I twice restored the NPA templates and was reverted again, and then again by another user who I have no prior contact with but who's 1stfirst action near me is to insert personal attacks against me.

Next the user started a talk page section called abuse of RPA guideline and proceeds to make comments that have nothing at all to do with the article or its contents. Yes there is a long since expired BLP ban (which I served out, and have never had a BLP issue since) and a "no action" checkuser investigation (I never used a sock puppet). I understand that bringing up unrelated editor history on talk pages is forbidden. One of the latest comments is "I've spent the day researching his user contributions" which begs the question - why???

One of the less obvious things was posting a link to a google search of my user name and impling that I represent a US based Political Action Committee, an false idea that likely comes from a comment on my user page by Beeblebrox (who is not a random editor but I understand a member of the committee that decides on the appropriateness of usernames).

I admit I can get hotheaded at times but I have been focussing on being a good editor who tries to focus on content in the article spaces and restrict comments on user conduct to stuff directly related to specific edits. In the 7 years of editing here I've surely done or said some bad things, but not many of the things I'm publically accused of. Please consider if you would appreciate being on the receiving end of this treatment.

Any assistance or advice is welcome. I'd ignore this all but it seems that these users tend to feed off each other , researching users history and throwing up everything anyone else has ever said against a user plus whatever other garbage they can invent, so I'd like to clean this mess up and understand what tools I can use to deal with future situations. Thank-you in advance.Legacypac (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I did revert Legacypac's refactoring of Skookum1's comments on the talk page. I do not believe they are blatant personal attacks that require refactoring. Since then Legacypac has stated that because I restored what he is calling personal attacks, I am just as guilty of making them as the editor who initially added them. -- GB fan 18:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Is this related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#a_threat_from_colleague_Legacypac in anyway?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
His disavowel/denial following aside, there is common context which you will discover if you go through his usercontributions and a stream of contentious editing and actions and talkpage b.s. for nearly all of his wiki-career, you will also find his attempt to CANVASS for more support against me on the edit warring noticeboard a few days ago. A pattern of conduct including abuse of boards such as this one is very clear in his history, and "gaming the system" seems evident, including dragging this to ANI, or even launching edit wars in the first place as he has done re this matter, and the other. I'll be back later with various diffs but I'm tired of having this time-wasting nonsense and source-abusing/conflating ways take up my days.Skookum1 (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Not at all -Serialjoepsycho- Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the title has been changed to say "arbitary/questionable deletion of birthname and cites". The prior title did seem inappropriate. The content issue seems to have been moved to the an RFC. I think it would be a good suggestion to ask everyone to discuss the content and not other editors. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@GB fan: In my experience, you shouldn't restore a {{rpa}}-refactored comment if a user has indicated that they take it personally. Individual interpretations of personal attacks can vary, and this just fuels the fire more often than not (i.e. this thread). And Legacypac is right - if you restore a comment you bear the same moral responsibility as if you had made the comment yourself. That being said, I agree that Skookum's ad hominems were not that serious in the spectrum of abuse we come across here.
@Legacypac: My advice is if you are focusing on quality editing, you should continue to do so. If another editor is attacking you and getting under your skin, often you can defuse the situation by responding calmly, and if you find that you can't, you should step away for a bit. I admit that it's not great advice, but responding with your own attacks just escalates the situation and causes more trouble. Ivanvector (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: an ad hominem "attack" is a groundless one, my criticisms were based in his ongoing conduct on the talkpage and re the article itself (and others). They were not ad hominem...they were justified.Skookum1 (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No, an ad hominem is attacking your opponent's character instead of attacking your opponent's argument. It needn't be groundless, and very rarely is it justified, especially here. You did a fine job of discrediting the editor's argument - you did not need to resort to discrediting the editor. Ivanvector (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
And if the person who originally added the comments indicates that they take it personally that they are accused of personal attacks? Which side in your experience do you go with? The one who was not attacked or the one who has been accused of personal attacks? I chose to restore it to the most unoffending version available, the one without the attacks. If I had restored actual personal attacks, I do bear responsibility but as I did not restore any personal attacks I do not bear any responsibility. -- GB fan 19:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully GB fan the only thing your edit did was reinsert the statements I consider personal attacks by reverting every use of the RPA template on the page. Maybe you thought you were doing something else but 100% of your contribution was actually inserting personal attacks. Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You are the only person that has said there are any personal attacks in there. Every other person who has commented has said they are not personal attacks. -- GB fan 20:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Only two uninvolved editors have commented -Serialjoepsycho- and User:Ivanvector and I'd suggest rereading carefully their comments. Legacypac (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
But you restored it to a version with the attacks, at least the ones that Legacypac interpreted as attacks. A better question is do those bits of text (whether they are attacks or not) serve any purpose in furthering the discussion? In my opinion, clearly not. YMMV. Ivanvector (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

(now way out of sequence after a bunch of insertions above) I appreciate the enlightening input from everyone. Here is my Request
1. Allow me to revert GB's reinsertion of all the personal attacks and if required, continue to let my use of the NPA template so far to stand without fear of being sanctioned for 3RR.

2. That an Admin close or preferably delete [this inappropriate thread] which additionally accuses me of lying about my citizenship - something that has been on my user page since April 2013 and other absurd things that have nothing to do with the Parliament Hill shootings article.

Note I have never asked for sanctions against either editor here. Thank you for your consideration. Legacypac (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That section, should be removed as it does not discuss article improvement, but it does not accuse you of lying about your citizenship. Skookum1 comments that he is not sure you are Canadian. He does not say you aren't Canadian just that he isn't sure if you are. You are reading things into comments that are not there. -- GB fan 20:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
How about we scrub that thread and then drop the stick? Talk about the content and not the people? That thread is inappropriate and does seem kind of WP:POINTy as a TLDR off topic rant about censorship to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Conflation/distortion of what others say is an observable repeat behaviour if you look deep into his usercontributions, as I did yesterday; conflation/distortion of what sources say is also a "habit". I never challenged his citizenship, I just find it strange that claiming being a Canadian is why he's never heard of American Legacy PAC, as we are regularly indundated with American political news and familiar with many such orgs....that he doesn't write on Canadian articles other than this one (other than the two mentioned re minor edits) and is bulk en masse working on American-oriented edits in Middle East articles also makes that claim harder to give any credence to. How is it that someone who doesn't know about US electoral politics is so versed in American foreign policy as to spend nearly his whole wiki-time working on that? He also said re that username challenge that he had different accounts on other wikis and wanted to combine them here, apparently as User:JadeDragon....but that name is available so, like so much else he says, that just doesn't make sense...this ANI is a "nuisance procedure" like so many of his others; and here he's conflating what I said, just as he has on the talkpage, and yet he misquotes and misuses sources all the time in his arguments/obfuscations. he's done it lots before; again, I invite you to look at his usercontributions and the many confrontational and disruptive matters you will discover there.Skookum1 (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Why was User:GB fan and User:Skookum1 not notified about this thread? It's been over 9 hours since this was opened and nobody noticed? GB fan already knows and I notified Skookum1. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Need to get my eyes checked. It was there and I missed it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  • You missed it, as did I, because he did not give it a section header as per normal procedure. As for the TLDR jab, that essay (not a guideline) is meant to be invoked only about articles and is not to be invoked on discussion pages (though it all too often is). What I see here is LP while claiming "I have never asked for sanctions here before" he has come to the edit-warring board repeatedly, or been brought there, and seem to file nuisance-procedures willy-nilly when confronted about page blankings/moves and disrupting discussions and more. Why else come to an ANI board if not looking for sanctions? Here's he's asking someone else to silence me since his own self-appointed censorship didn't work, but implicitly per that statement he does want sanctions against me i.e. to block/ban me so I'm not "in his way" or challenging his "agenda", the subject of which is easy enough to find by a review of his usercontributions. I'll be back later with diffs of the disruptive edits and false/misleading and POV edit comments on this article, and samples of his other "work" which show a too-consistent pattern.
I was already contemplating an ANI about "terror POV" editing at large, of which he has been an obvious and persistent part, but his own fondness for procedural gambits means he filed this against me first; for daring to challenge his one-sided interpretation of my criticism of his conduct about the page as "personal attacks", which they are not. Not the first time NPA has been mis-applied/claimed because of criticisms of editing behaviour and no doubt the last; but his heavy-handed editing of my post, followed by an edit war over it (after just having had a dress-down for edit warring in his previous ANI about me), is far beyond the pale of talkpage behaviour and mores. IMO he should have a topic ban on terrorism/ISIS/US military campaigns and what-not (see his usercontributions); he'd already had a BLP topic ban for a year. It seems that he's very much a one-trick pony kind of "contributor", but has been disruptive and hard to deal with since day one. This like his other ANI against me is a "nuisance procedure" and IMO meant to use up time and energy on the one hand, and to seek someone else to do what he cannot (censor me). The farce of his account of my conduct above I won't bother commenting on; and it's "TLDR" too.Skookum1 (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
another post about me in the article space. To clarify my statement above, I mean I have not sought sanctions against anyone in this thread - I came for advice and to clarify what procedures are available to me including use of the NPA template as reflected in my first post. I guess we should wait for the rest of the presentation. Legacypac (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
then you should wait, and not unilaterally remove material that you claim is "personal attack"; as per GBFan's comment, what you claim warranted the "NPA template" was not valid as such. Your behaviour continues to be disruptive, and IMO it's you who should be sanctioned for your ongoing actions on that article and talkpage and on many other articles and talkpages per your user contributions where edit warring and spurious complaints are rife; your claim that you're not seeking sanctions by coming here is disingenuous IMO.Skookum1 (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
[120] with negative comments on the general edit history of User:ShulMaven and Inthefastlane and open mocking of my comments.
From WP:WIAPA "some types of comments are never acceptable:: ...Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. ...These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Legacypac (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
the evidence is there, on the article talkpage, I just haven't taken time to transfer those diffs here, or others I've found in your usercontributions. A very good example of your very questionable behaviour and obvious "POV agenda" follows, and it's one of many. Many many many. Instead of bitching about being confronted about your misconduct and illicit use of sources and pushing your OR/SYNTH/POV, and saying "talk about the article not the editor" there wouldn't be any need for having to talk about you if you were an honest editor and behaving responsibly - but you're not.Skookum1 (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's a very good example of the kind of POV fabrication/conflation/extemporization regularly done on that and other articles by my accuser. This is the Globe and Mail article cited for that addition - the content of which is already stated elsewhere above on the page - and nowhere in that source is the analysis "provided" by LP in his addition is anything similar to what he tried to add; and while he added mention of ISIL and the Governor-General and more none of that is in the source. This is such a regular and consistent pattern in his behaviour, and not just re this article but throughout his wiki-career, and also a habit/tactic of other "terror campaigners" in Wikipedia (ok, let's call them "terror specialists" but "pushers" is more like it), is why I had been planning a POV board discussion on the whole subject of Wikipedia being used as a platform to "push" newspeak like this. I have a life outside of Wikipedia so haven't taken a half-day to transfer all the false/misleading edit comments and OR and abuse of sources that I know of and have remarked upon already on the talkpage, but seeing this one - so blatantly complete SYNTH and mis-use of sources, pushing the "terror attack" mantra again even though it's already in the article....was so rank and so hypocritical given all the posturing by him above.Skookum1 (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • To those monitoring this discussion, you may already be aware of this other ANI against LP farther up this page; the observations made by DocumentError and Corriebertus testify and bear witness to the ongoing disruptiveness of LP, whether on articles, talkpages, or his endless visits to "not seek sanction" but seemingly CANVASS for support at ANI and other boards.Skookum1 (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Xaosflux removing confirmed status from accounts which have 'never edited'[edit]

Xaosflux (talk · contribs) seems to have taken it upon themselves to remove the confirmed status from various accounts, with the reasoning of 'account never used' or similar. The ones who are autoconfirmed I can understand, but why strip the status just because an account has 'never been used'?

I see no policy or precedent for these actions and believe they need to explain themselves publicly. (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) I can see Xaosflux's point. Why would an editor need editing rights if they never edited? Sounds counterintuitive to me. Epicgenius (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
There have been problems with sleeper accounts of late. Not sure what his motive is beyond the account not being used but I am sure there is more to it. Chillum 19:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC), given your familiarity of our policy and precedence do you perhaps have an account here? Chillum 19:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
That is materially irrelevant and you know it. (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
And that is called a "non-denial denial", a term which you may or may not know. More to the point: Why are you so interested in this? Is he zapping some of your own sleeper socks? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Mostly I clean up redundant autoconfirmed/confirmed and old tests that were left behind. Any admin is welcome to revert any of these changes immediately without consultation for the good of the project. Yes, some is BEANSy prevention. — xaosflux Talk 19:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
What harm are these rights doing? Why do you feel it is your right and responsibility to go around removing them? (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
(Non-admin comment) Considering that users aren't supposed to be given the confirmed right without demonstrating a need for it, and if the user does end up needing it they can just request the permission again, what harm is there in removing these rights? demize (t · c) 20:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, if any actual account holder has been hampered, I offer apologies, please leave me a talk message from your account and this can be resolved. — xaosflux Talk 19:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Good work. Keep it up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
LI do the same boring thankless job every few months on sites where I am an Admin. Why should unused accts be autoconfirmed? Good work User:Xaosflux Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]

User has been directed to wmf:Contact us as well as the contact - nothing further to be done here. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat here [121] concerning Brittany Maynard: associated account is Coconot (talk · contribs). IP and account are posting what they claim are the "truth" concerning her relationship with her family, entirely unsourced. Acroterion (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I will take Wikipedia to court if it does not [...] Yep, bright-line legal threat. A WP:DOLT analysis reveals that, indeed, the editor's contributions were entirely unsourced, and therefore subject to removal per WP:BDP. The argument that she was "survived" by people other than those mentioned in the article, and that failing to mention those people merits a legal threat, is unconvincing in my view. Particularly given our sources are very good. While I could see removing the sentence about her survivors as unnecessary to the article, it's not like it says she was only survived by the people named. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
(ec)Blatant legal threat. Put him on ice until or if he recants and disavows the threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Now comes 1d4everlol (talk · contribs) [122] as well. I would advise them to take the matter up with the New York Times and People, but they seem to find Wikipedia a more accessible venue. I am busy in Real Life at the moment, so if someone will do what's necessary? Acroterion (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
All these have been blocked:
  • Coconot has been indeffed for obviously having used the IP address for making legal threats,
  • 1d4everlol indeffed for illegimate use of a second account
  • IP blocked temporarily.
As Acroterion said, any issues should first be settled with the NYT and People and other sources that have allegedly reported wrong facts. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I think 1d4everlol was a passing vandal who picked the wrong section for some harassment. It's also worth noting that the account and IP assert that Maynard is alive and that People is covering that up ... Acroterion (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Surprinsingly though, there is no connection in the edits between Coconot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 1d4everlol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), although the latter is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia so the block might be kept. But posting directly in Coconot's thread on the user talk page of Acroterion looks somewhat like an admission. De728631 (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It appears that Coconot (talk · contribs) is persisting on making legal threats on their talk page, despite the block - trying to negotiate terms for its removal by stating "If you do so, I will withdraw my threat of legal action." I have warned the user that persisting in making such threats can result in talk page privileges being revoked. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 00:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Including some after you posted, but it has quieted down for now. But one more threat, and the user should have talk page access revoked. If an editor has legitimate concerns about a BLP, legal threats are totally the wrong way to go about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer to avoid escalating the issue by blocking their talk page access, even though I notified them of that potentiality.
I gave one more try to explain the issue, as well as providing them with links to Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects and wmf:Contact us. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 03:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Please make a judgement whether a Single purpose account[edit]

Nothing to see here, frivolous complaint by apparent sock IP. Fut.Perf. 11:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

It seems every editions from User:Piledhighandeep are about Greco-Byzantine topic. Some editions in non-Byzantine article are also focused on Greek or Byzantine [123],[124],[125],[126],[127], [128], [129],[130][131],[132], [133] Please check his editions and spa rule to make a judgement.

Speaking of single-purpose accounts, the above IP (talk · contribs) has only posted once. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You should have informed Piledhighandeep of this discussion (which I have now done). As to the accusation of being an SPA, Piledhighandeep surely has a preference for Byzantine and Greek topics but I wouldn't call that an SPA. Some editors like to narrow their edit on a broad topic – like ancient Greece and Byzantium in this case – and also Wikipedia:Single-purpose account states that "if a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not mean the user is an SPA." De728631 (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm just wondering what the problem is if they are an SPA? There is nothing wrong with being a SPA in itself that I can see.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
There is of course nothing wrong with User:Piledhighandeep. To all appearances, he's a perfectly legitimate, good-faith and knowledgeable contributor, and certainly no single-purpose account (there's obviously nothing at all wrong with having a more or less specialized topic area one works in.) The IP who posted this complaint might need to be looked into though. Not sure if Piledhighandeep had the misfortune of having some run-in with some kind of banned sockpuppeter lately or why else he would have upset this IP editor so much. Fut.Perf. 21:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I upset now banned user User:Why should I have a User Name? with my very first edits to wikipedia (to baklava) when I signed up in July, and he accused me on my Talk page of being a "single purpose account." If I had realized when I signed up how contentious these Balkan topics can be on wikipedia I would not have been so bold as to start with baklava. After a long Talk debate, and my first initiation of an RfC, we reached a consensus in late September, which he did not seem to object to. User:Why should I have a User Name? was not banned until early November. I did not contribute to his banning, but prior to it he seemed to be upset in general with edits I'd make involving historical Greek connections. (His edits were heavily focussed on Turkish issues.) I understand the current nationalistic rivalries in that region, and I think I would agree with him that it is unfortunate that century-old history is still seen by both sides as having nationalistic overtones. Piledhighandeep (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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


Very problematic user having long history of personal attacks, harassment, 3RR violation (

As an argument in debate he said following: "(...)

Further note: whatever the case may be regarding the commonname, this nomination is likely connected to the recent upsurge of nationalism in Serbia, what with the Putin visit to Belgrade, the big military parade, Vojislav Seselj being released, etc... POV is not a reason to move from the sourced name, and I'm tempted to oppose this on grounds of it being pretty obvious nationalist POV-pushing, but I still think we can do better than the current name by following the sources more closely. -- Director (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)"

that is complete nonsense. What is connection between "the recent upsurge of nationalism in Serbia etc." between actual page content, or that was just another way of insulting me, calling me a nationalist.

I have contacted this user and asked them if they could prove that I was a nationalist and of what use is that fact to that debate, but received no response.

Note: this user has already been reported for 3RR violation on page Split, Croatia. Alex discussion 21:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-admin observation) User:Director doesn't appear to be trying to insult you or calling you a Serbian Nationalist. The "recent upsurge of nationalism" does have a connection to the debate though, since the debate is about the naming of an article with what appears to be fairly strong ties to Serbia (judging simply from a cursory look at the debate itself). Those ties mean the motive (or possible motive) behind the move is important to take into consideration so that the article can remain adherent to WP:NPOV. While I personally might disagree with the assertion that the proposed change there is POV-pushing, it is an issue for the editors of that article to consider. demize (t · c) 21:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
For the outcome of the 3RR complaint filed by User:Aleksa Lukic about Split, Croatia please see this link to the complaint. User:Director and User:Tzowu were warned, and the article has been protected for a week. I think Aleksa is complaining about a remark that Director made in the move discussion at Talk:Croatian War of Independence#Wrong title. When Balkan nationalist sentiment on Wikipedia exceeds the normal bounds the remedies of WP:ARBMAC are available. EdJohnston (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There is much hullabaloo currently in Serbia and I merely wanted to point that out for the participants, I did not mean to imply anything about any individual user. In fact, I was among the few users that basically supported Aleksa's move and accepted his POV reasoning as accurate (though not relevant). Nevertheless, if offense was taken, I apologize. I don't know anything about you Aleksa, least of all who you support in the horrible mess that is Serbian politics. Could you, in return, take a break from stalking me now? -- Director (talk) 09:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Horrible! I can't believe, now when I reported you for obvious violation of 3RR, instead of accepting that you did wrong, you acusse me of stalking. If you're asking me if I'm going to report further violations. Yes, I am. And that's not stalking. Alex discussion 12:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Didn't I just apologize?? I did not intend to insult you, I'm not sure I really did, but if that's how you perceive it - I'm sorry. If you recall I supported your initiative - it was not my intention to denigrate you personally in any way. As for whether a continuation of your malicious revenge-seeking for some perceived insult would constitute WP:HOUNDING, that will be left for the community to determine. My advice would be to find a more useful pastime. -- Director (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Aleksa Lukic: I would recommend you drop the stick here. Director appears to be more than willing to work this out civilly, so I would recommend continuing this discussion on one of your talk pages if you absolutely must. If you continue to escalate it to here, then please be aware that it could easily boomerang on you. Director, it would be advisable to remain civil and avoid further allegations of wikihounding. The best thing to do here is to drop this, and if that can't happen then you should hash it out civilly on your talk pages. Discuss the issues that you have (if any), avoid shouting allegations, and avoid escalating it to ANI again. demize (t · c) 16:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Stalking, and using admin noticeboards to kick an opponent out of the game? Aleksa Lukic, why do you keep doing this? bobrayner (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Bobrayner, stop being obsessed with me, and stop stalking me. Alex discussion 23:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Jewelpet Vandalism, it's getting out of hand[edit]

First of all I am almost going to Dementia due to serious problems arising but the matter is this, there are an endless influx of vandalism in every single pages related to the Jewelpet franchise. All of them are done by a lot of anons (User talk:, User talk:, User talk:, User talk:,, User talk:, trying to do what, just insult a wikipedia article and make it look bad?? I am doing a lot of reverting but this is getting out of hand because they keep coming back and always, always add things that aren't accepted to Wikipedia policy. Please do something about this, I don't want to kill a puppy from all of this chaos!--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Blackgaia02:You can request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. This will stop anons from editing. see below That being said, I took a quick look at the edits made since September to Jewelpet (anime), which is the page you seem to be talking about here (based on your recent edit summaries). Some of it seems a bit careless, for example the person that made these edits should have used the show preview button, but none of it stands out to me as vandalism. Would you please elaborate on what edits in particular you consider vandalism, and why? --Richard Yin (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Note that this is coming from a person who's never heard of the franchise in question. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, I see that you've requested full protection for the article. You are of course aware that full protection will stop you from editing the article? --Richard Yin (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of this, thought I really need those vandals to stop ruining the article itself, especially if I suspect that the vandal edits are coming from one banned user. Some anon edits are ok, I just despise vandal edits adding nonsense categories and entries.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, does this considered not vandalism? No, even new users know this.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Why are you requesting full protection and not semi-protection if all the problem users are IPs?
(And some of the IPs you list as "vandals" appear to be good-faith editors. In particular, (talk · contribs · WHOIS) looks awfully like a constructive contributor.) Sideways713 (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Because someone is compromising their IPs just because there's one butt-hurt user who is banned here in wikipedia causing chaos. Even thought they were in good faith, vandals are still vandals. Well no, the much better term is someone is using a vpn or proxy to do bad edits. This has been going on SINCE JULY.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
No, good-faith editors are not vandals, and shouldn't be called such. And not only is not a vandal, they're not even editing disruptively.
Both and seem to be completely unconnected to the user behind the other IPs. Even if they all were the same user and all vandals, though, that still wouldn't explain why semi-protecting the article(s) – which only stops IP edits, and is the normal response to persistent IP vandalism – wouldn't be a sufficient solution here.
Can you tell us what the original account of 103.14.60.xx/ was, and where and when was he banned (or blocked, which is not the same thing)? If he's evading a block or ban, it would probably be more effective to block his IPs (the other normal response to persistent IP vandalism) than to semi-protect the pages; he doesn't hop from IP to IP that much. Sideways713 (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

IBAN violations by The Rambling Man, further evidence[edit]

This was archived automatically after getting plenty of viewing. No action is likely to be taken here. Please let it go. Chillum 18:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

(Given this was archived but not closed I am reposting it with further documentaion of prior explicit violations and warnings, as well as historyof the "policy" obsession by TRM. Can an admin Either Notif The Rambling Man that this remains open, or advise me that I may do so on his talk page? Also, please let me know if I need to re-notify people mentioned in the collapsed sect. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC))

Well, once again, in violation of our iban, User:The Rambling Man has quoted (with quote marks!) and responded to me directly at ITN nominations: "For the fiftieth time".

Here are the previous violations of the IBAN by TRM:

(1) "indeed" (TRM comments agreeing with my critic at ITN vote)

(2) "certainly no clear consensus at all" (TRM reverts my Ready tag, quoting my comment on consensus)

(3) "good consensus" (My comments noting consensus, of which he referred to, showing his awareness of who tagged the article)

(4) "please be careful and do not skirt the ban further or I'll block you" (Bishonen's warning to TRM he be blocked immediately on any further violation, I am quoting it here so you don't need to read the markup)

Bish's warning to TRM:

"Picking at your IBAN

"TRM, I've seen you making indirect comments directed at Medeis lately. Here, three minutes after they posted this, you added this immediately below. I hope you're not going to tell me that was just a general comment and you didn't mean anybody in particular had been offering half-arsed opinions and pissing in the wind. At ITN, here, you removed Medeis' "Ready" mark and commented on their reasoning for it, immediately underneath. Here, you reverted their removal of a section tag at H. R. Giger. On that one, I might possibly take it as an accidental interaction, but on the other two I really don't see it. As you know, per WP:IBAN you don't get to make reference to or comment on Medeis anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly, nor undo their edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means). Please be more careful and do not attempt to skirt the ban further, or I'll block you. And before you ask, yes, I'm serious." Bishonen | talk 06:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

"Of course, you've warned her too, right, for her "indirect comments" directed clearly at me? No. Once again a perfect demonstration of your one-sided view of this. And sorry, she removed my edits on Giger first. Do me a favour, get someone else to do your edits here as I'm sick of your undying love and defence of her." The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
"If there are such edits by Medeis, why don't you tell me about them? I'd appreciate knowing these things. Vague allegations are less useful." Bishonen | talk 06:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)." [This exchange was later deleted by TRM with no response--Medeis]

Here, prior to our IBAN, we can see edits dated NYC time by TRM and his obsession with the use of "policy", which I will place in bold:

Medeis, please, please stop claiming that any update recommendations are policy. As you have been told on a number of occasions, they are simply guidelines, there's a distinct difference. And no, there is no RfC, nor does there need to be one. There was a discussion on the removal of the arbitrary numerical update guideline on the talkpage here. The Rambling Man (talk) 3:16 am, 14 November 2013, Thursday (1 year, 12 days ago) (UTC−5)
Oh dear, try again, look closely!!!! (And for the fifth time, there is no policy, it's only ever been a guideline....) The Rambling Man (talk) 1:21 pm, 14 November 2013, Thursday (1 year, 11 days ago) (UTC−5)
For the sixth time, this is not a policy. There is no RD policy. There is nothing demanding an RfC to change the wording of the guideline. I do suggest you get to grips with terminology: a policy is something that must be adhered to... The Rambling Man (talk) 5:09 pm, 15 November 2013, Friday (1 year, 10 days ago) (UTC−5)

These edits show that the "for the fiftieth time" was not addressed generally, but was a direct interaction with me. Given Drmies' warning, an immediate block of TRM is warranted. Of course, having been directed by private email to Wikipediocracy, I am not sure that expecting an admin and sysop to be blocked is expected. If that's the case, I request an immediate reversal of te IBAN between myself, the violator, and Baseball Bugs (who is not party to this complaint). μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  • This section (and my comment) should be removed and Medeis advised to drop the stick. Why should people have to pick through this mess to determine whether anything new has been added? Topics at ANI do not need to be formally closed—the matter got a fair hearing and there was no consensus for action. If there is a problem with someone mentioning that "policy" is wrongly used, the Wikipedian solution would be to stop mentioning it incorrectly. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to strike your comments, Johnuniq but it was falsely asserted that TRM had not addressed me with his "for the fiftieth time" comment on "policy", and I have given direct diffs to his previous comments, as well as direct diffs to his previous direct comments on other issues, his reversions, and warnings about his behaviour. TRM is entirely unable to respond with any evidence that I have addressed him, moral equivalence in this case amounts to negligence. This is quite clear-cut, and if you don't want to read the diffs than simply withdraw. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It is possible for people to dominant places like reference desks but that is a lot harder at ANI. Your mental model that ANI is a place to get opponents blocked is only partially correct—in addition, if it is seen that someone has unhelpfully been using incorrect terminology (by repeatedly referring to nonexistent policies), that will be exposed. Why are you not engaging with that issue? How does your comment address "Why should people have to pick through this mess to determine whether anything new has been added?" Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I suppose indefing Medeis and The Rambling Man (listed alphabetically) is out of the question? Could we site ban one on odd months (e.g. Jan, Mar..) and the other on even? Any other ideas??? NE Ent 03:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Just lift the IBAN, they seem to be happier arguing with each other. Count Iblis (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the ANI discussion from two weeks ago that was referenced above but not linked. Dragons flight (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

They weren't ignored, Medeis, they were dismissed as being not obvious breaches of the IBAN. Has the Medeis/TRM saga become the next drama to dominate this board? Referencing months old and year old diffs to show that this is part of some sort of continuous badgering which came before your IBAN just doesn't cut it in my mind and is more like clutching at straws. I'm sure you'll dismiss my commentary as you did Johnuniq's in your unending search for editors whose opinion match yours and you get TRM blocked on some spurious charge of IBAN violation. NE Ent's suggestion isn't a bad one. Maybe we should just ban Medeis from making reports on ANI as well. This is petty and ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

* Whole heartedly agree It's pretty obvious Medeis is trying to get Rambling Man blocked or banned. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I have explicitly argued against any sort of ban, and asked for a warning block, which TRM himself expected might be the result of is latest action. TRM is otherwise a very good contributer. Putting words in my mouth is not very helpful. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • (ec)I simply want the violations to stop. I basically had to waste the entire holiday season last year retting the iban in place, yet it's not enforced. According to the Iban we are not to refer to each other directly or indirectly (or revert each other, etc.) Given the violations are all one-sided, I think it's clear some action by this board is warranted, if only a warning note on TRM's talk page.
If editors here are going to say that "for the fiftieth time there is no policy" had nothing to do with me, why should I not show that "for the fifth and sixth time there is no policy" was one of the last things TRM said. Suggesting I be banned from ANI is, frankly, offensive. If I play video of my neighbour throwing trash over the fence into my yard I don't expect to annoyedly by the police that its only a little trash, and he only does it once in a while.
I really have nothing else to say. I would appreciate a ruling as to whether I can place an ani warning on trm's talk page in the future if necessary, and if I need to do so now, or if it would constitute an iban violation on my part. A note can be placed on my talk page, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Anon hogging Iranian military articles, possible disruptive editing[edit]

There's an IP user undoing the revisions I've tried to make on these articles on Iranian servicemen Yadollah Javadpour and Jalil Zandi. My edits were aimed at making the wording in them less praise-giving, except apparently that means to this guy that I'm trying to make the Iraqis sound good. On the same matter he also claimed that they're supposed to be biased. I don't think it's going to get anywhere, trying to reason with that sort of thinking. CFFan116 (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Bullying, owning, meatpuppeting, and more![edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm fully aware that bullying is a very serious accusation and I made it very seriously.
You have also just proven my points: you don't want one actress mentioned because she was brief even though the guideline states "multiple portrayers should be listed in chronological order" NOT "only add the ones Arre9 thinks were around for a suitable amount of time." You claim this other "consensus conversation" happened stating breaks should be noted only when they've lasted more than 12 months but, you don't link to it or state where it happened, the rest of the wiki world should just believe you. And in one sentence, you state that accusations are not called for and then make a personal attack. HAHAHAHA.
As I said on your talk page, sorry for thinking you were a guy. It's not like we haven't had multiple, multiple conversations in the past where you could have corrected me before today.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
And you have proved my point as well...why should temporary actresses (barely any source on the internet even supports her portrayal - we don't even know how long - was it for a week? A day? Half an episode?) be listed when there is nothing to support notability, and it simply ends up being clutter. The guidelines of that template are immensely vague, and you keep treating them as if they are the 10 commandments. Also, I never dictated anything to you about info-box guidelines, my issues with you were about around your inability to understand what non-free/free images meant. How did I attack you personally? You are being a tad petty. Claiming that you have been bullied is not laughable, as it is a serious matter, but sad, as it is a serious thing which you are using to try and prove a point. No one has bullied you.— Arre 05:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The guidelines specifically state that only years should be listed and she only played the part in 1990 so whether it was a week, a day, or half an episode isn't relevant. Mentioning THAT would be clutter. You mentioning the infobox guidelines was our first conversation ever. It was on your talk page but, you deleted it recently. Do you want me to go find it?Cebr1979 (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Cebr1979, Raintheone asked for my advice about you, because you were not listening to what they were saying. They were confused because they told you that there is consensus on Wikipedia that soap opera characters who have had breaks of less than one year, the duration field does not change, yet you told them consensus talks do not take place on Wikipedia. Something you later contradicted.
I then sent you a message advising you that consensus is basically how Wikipedia works so there's no way that consensus talks would not take place as per your claim. I explained to you that this consensus was reached to avoid infoboxes becoming cluttered every time a character decides to disappear for a few months. When you say we haven't told you where these discussions took place, you have been advised on numerous occasions that I think it was at WP:SOAP, as that is the project page for soap articles. As the consensus has been in place now for the best part of some 4 or 5 years I'm not 100% sure.
I have also told you, again a number of times that you will need to take this discussion to WP:SOAPS, something which you are refusing to do.
You have also refused to accept the warnings issued to you and have been generally quite rude to myself and others.
Cebr1979 please take this up at WP:SOAPS--5 albert square (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
My error in regards to consensus talks was because I had confused that with meatpuppeting and I've made that clear. I have not ignored warnings issued to me, there were none correctly issued to me, they were bogus and I explained that to you in that same conversation. Plus, they were reverted back by both you and Raintheone even after I told you both you're not allowed to do that to my talk page (in that same conversation and here and here). WP:SOAPS is for when someone wants something changed, not when something is already there in black and white. You three have been incredibly difficult with your phantom conversations and made-up policies when I have stuck to one thing and one thing only: wikipedia's guidelines are there for a reason and that reason is because they should be followed. You guys need to go to WP:SOAPS if you want the guidelines changed, I don't need to go there and ask permission to follow them as they already are! Telling one editor not to do something that wikipedia say's they are allowed to do is wrong. Again, why don't you know this?Cebr1979 (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
P.S. You realise your first example of me being rude was actually me quoting what you had said to me, right? That's why I used quotation marks. I was QUOTING YOU but, only I was being rude (hint: since I was quoting you, you said it first)? The rest of them aren't rude at all. Frustrated, yes. Rude, no.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

I've checked my talk page and you said that consensus is allowed when it's relevant, you've then accused Raintheone of coming to me because they know I'll agree with them. You haven't said that you got them confused, unless I'm not seeing something on the diff you provided, and I've already explained why Rain approached me above. I don't know why you won't accept this.
I'm not being difficult, I'm trying to help you. I would suggest that you ask at WP:SOAPS about it, aside from anything else maybe someone else there can remember then consensus discussion? However, as you are the one disputing this it will need to be you that asks about it
With regards to civilness, in my opinion you're even being a bit rude above by making out that we know nothing when we do know our policies. The diff that I posted above, I found the whole comment rude, but you were extremely sarcastic at the end of it. I had been trying to explain something to you I think on your talk page and I did say to you that I apologise if you found it offensive. Myself and others have pointed out that we found your comments rude and you haven't apologised once.
I agree with you though that we need to let someone else in now--5 albert square (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
What would like me to apologise for, Albert? Getting reverted when my edits follow the rules? Asking for clarification when you say phantom conversations happened but, don't remember when they happened or where (the template has been updated multiple times in the last "4 or 5 years," if your conversation had happened, it would be there like all the other consensus conversations are and you specifically stated you aren't even sure the conversation happened at WP:SOAPS)? Me having to show you, a site admin, many wikipedia policies and then you still arguing that you're right and they're wrong? The fact that we're at ANI (mainly) because you, a site admin, are encouraging others to ignore guidelines you now know are real? Well, that won't be happening. Now, since you've agreed with me that leaving this conversation is a good idea, why don't we do that.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I was actually meaning the uncivil comment you made to me. As for ignoring guidelines I haven't told anyone to ignore any guidelines. I was trying to help and I suggested that you bring this up at WP:SOAPS as I thought that's where the discussion was 5 albert square (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
There was no uncivil comment to you. I've already pointed out I was quoting something you said to me first. That can be seen right there in the diff you posted (along with more examples of you being wrong about things all admins should know *cough*talk page rules*cough*). You like apologies so damn much, go ahead and make one to me then. "Think about it" and then make your apology. I'll be here.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
already done 5 albert square (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Acroterion is selectively enforcing bans related to the Gamergate Controversy page for relatively minor transgressions[edit]

All involved parties in the GG dispute: all of you, immediately cease squabbling with each other in this noticeboard thread. ArmyLine, you raised your complaint here, now everybody leave it to uninvolved editors to evaluate. Fut.Perf. 10:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking further through this, I come to the conclusion that this posting is in itself a breach of the earlier topic-ban, since it (a) goes far beyond appealing ArmyLine's own sanction or any of the other legitimate purposes that are regularly exempt from topic bans, (b) contains accusations against other editors unrelated to ArmyLine's own sanction, and (c) repeats the offending allegations about BLP subjects for which ArmyLine was banned in the first place. I will therefore be hatting off this thread and blocking ArmyLine as an enforcement action. Fut.Perf. 10:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, I was going to comment that the topic ban seems perfectly valid and no good reason to reconsider it has been given. The enforcement block by FPaS is quite correct, since both the OP and later posts went far beyond a reconsideration request. Fram (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Getting back to the real problem here, Armyline was -never- notified of any discretionary sanctions for Gamergate or for BLP.]] So as a result, the topic ban does not exist because the topic ban was imposed without the editor ever being notified of any sanctions relating to Gamergate or for BLP. A notice on the talk page does not count. They need to be formally notified. The block and topic ban should be overturned as a result. Administrators are not allowed to impose sanctions out of process. Tutelary (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they were. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Gamaliel, these comments are directly related to the above. Hatting them is inappropriate. Specifically, reading the template for the hat template, it refers to follow the refactor advice, which says at WP:REFACTOR If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. Consider this my objection. Tutelary (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Your objections have been noted. Now please stop disrupting this thread and allow uninvolved editors to discuss this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

More selective enforcement[edit]

Technicalities just get us back to a repeat of Titanium Dragon's ban. Enough of this. You're all severely lacking in good faith. ArmyLine directly accused Tarc of colluding offsite because he tweeted at an article subject. It's nothing like TDA going onto The Escapist's forums and making these accusations to fuel the offsite fire against me or several other editors' constant threads on Reddit calling for my head over something as minimal as thinking 8chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) doesn't pass WP:NWEB. And the useless pedantry over where ArmyLine's ban should be logged is really pointless. These pre-WP:GS/GG bans should be grandfathered in at this point if only to save everyone this drama.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Mark Bernstein has accused others of colluding off site too, multiple times too yet I see no topic ban for him as of now. Diffs located here: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement#Statement_by_Tutelary_2 In any case, I don't want to get too off topic. The block for asking to examine conduct of an administrator is out of line. The fact that he is blocked just demonstrates the power dynamic that administrators have over other users. This is the appropriate avenue for review of administrator conduct. Instead, he gets blocked for a flimsy topic ban by an administrator who didn't even notify him of sanctions of BLP or even Gamergate. The conduct issues not even discussed. Tutelary (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Then report him FFS. That's what the enforcement page is for. And ArmyLine was banned a month ago "for one year from edits and discussion regarding GamerGate under BLP discretionary sanctions". Just because that's not the new GamerGate specific set of general sanctions does not mean he should be unblocked due to this loophole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
We have reported him, many of us numerous times. The problem is that no one wants to enforce the sanctions on editors who are perceived to be on a specific side of the issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Has any one of you actually opened up a thread at WP:GS/GG/E on Mark Bernstein or not?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying we should? Are you going to get your side to act? Are the dozens of diffs at the existing thread not enough to act? Can you only act on a specific thread being opened, or is reporting in the proper venue enough? Tell me, how much red tape must we go through to get bad actors sanctioned? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we could act on some of these things if all of you didn't start using every goddamn single thread on every single page to fight your GamerGate war, and then when we finally sort through it all to act on something, we have to go participate in another thread complaining about the actions we took, which then also degenerates into another GamerGate war. Do you have any idea how many hours Dreadstar and Future Perfect and EdJohnson and I and others have spent on your ridiculous squabble? Gamaliel (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The fact that an administrator sees their fellow editors as fighting a 'GamerGate war' or saying they've spent many hours on their 'ridiculous squabble' is apalling, maybe even WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Tutelary (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:DUCK. Gamaliel (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Did you just insinuate that I'm a sockpuppet? Tutelary (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Clearly not enough if certain editors are still avoiding sanctions. This isn't "my war," so stop assuming anything about my motives beyond wanting to be able to see this project move past it. You've had the diffs in front of you for days, maybe you can explain why you're not acting on them? You have enough time to hat discussions you don't like, after all. Maybe it might actually free up some time for more useful pursuits if some demonstration that the rules are being enforced equitably was in place? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I assume nothing about your motives, all I can see is the evidence of the constant squabbling from both sides. I have spend many hours this week dealing with this matter. If you want me to devote more time to a particular aspect of it, then stop spreading this edit war around multiple pages and threads so I can concentrate on one thing. Gamaliel (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Then why hasn't MarkBernstein been dealt with? As far as I can tell, I brought the diffs to the correct place, and you have clearly read them because you selectively read diffs listed about me. Are you saying what Ryulong is saying, that I need to start a whole new thread over there for it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Because I have to deal with this thread and everyone's disruptive grousing, and with the thread complaining about Cobbsaladin, and the ArbCom case, and the emails that I'm getting from everyone, and a thousand other things. My time is limited. Stop opening a thousand goddamn complaint threads and you'll get what you want. Gamaliel (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The thread has been open for days. You have even commented on it. Your time is limited, fine, mine is as well and I hate that I even bothered to dip my toes into this topic at all. You'd probably get less "disruptive grousing" had the situation been dealt with responsibly by you or anyone else up to this point, though. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It is easy to complain about the responsibilities of others when you have none of them. Gamaliel (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
And maybe someday I'll have the opportunity to change that. If you're not up for it, though, please seek out people who are. Help spread the responsibility. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
A number of other administrators are also participating at the sanctions enforcement page. I am not the only person there, nor am I obstructing other administrators from their work. So feel free to bring your complaints to them. Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I have, don't worry. But you're here, and you're continuing on this line of somehow not having enough time while spending it complaining about not having enough time when you could be dealing with the problems that are causing these complaints. Right now, all it looks like is that the sanctions are not for everyone. Is that the perception we should be getting? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I'm saying put up or shut up. Make a thread on the enforcement page calling out people for their violations of the general sanctions just like you feel they're doing to you. Prove through process that there's unfair treatment when you try to go tit for tat.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a thread, it's under the Masem accusation. If we're at the point of the bureaucracy where we need to repeat the allegations again, fine, but how incredibly stupid. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Is it a formal attempt at sanctioning him or is it just a boomerang attempt under Masem's sanctioning request?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
So, to be clear, you just want me to make some bureaucratic move. Got it. That's probably why you haven't been sanctioned either, I suppose. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It is this very situation with ArmyLine that creates this problem where editors seen as favoring one side get sanctioned over absurd technicalities while editors seen as favoring the other side get away with so much more despite being repeatedly reported to admins for rather flagrant misconduct. To be clear, you and others have been repeatedly reported both before and after the general sanctions. Hell, ArmyLine's sanction came about in a report filed against Tarc. Even the "enforcement page" is simply a diversion by people sympathetic to an extreme anti-GamerGate POV to try and stop an arbitration case from happening. Having an enforcement page means shit since admins seemed quite capable of taking action beforehand and part of the problem is that select admins have shown such blatant bias in their adminning that only one side can trust the process at this point.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate refactoring[edit]

Administrator Gamaliel has insisted on refactoring my comments when I've already let him know that I've objected to such. Per WP:REFACTOR. Tutelary (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And User:Thargor Orlando wonders why we can't get anything done. Gamaliel (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Stop refactoring and hatting others comments per WP:REFACTOR and The template's hat usage notes. The fragrant violating and oversight of this has been evident on the talk and on WP:ANI for a long time. It's no excuse to keep violating it. I've objected to refactoring of my comments and to continue to do such is disruptive and goes against WP:REFACTOR. Tutelary (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Nothing is keeping you from acting on MarkBernstein's edits right now. You're opting to spend your time fighting this battle when we're begging you to deal with real issues. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Nothing except the several hours of mine you and others have already wasted. Gamaliel (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Fine, keep using this excuse. I listed the diffs days ago. You have had ample time to review other people's alleged crimes, but somehow no time for Mark's. Why? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A comment from a little bit against his better judgement involved contributor: Gamaliel, your time would be better spent not wasting it on stupid things, like haggling over hats. (Which, incidentally, act as giant neon signs saying "Look here for drama!!!") Please see Wikipedia:Wikidryl. Oh, and since the arbcom accept a case requirements have been met, it's all going to get dumped on those guys and gal anyway, so why waste your time responding to every post?? I greatly believe in the power of WP:The Last Word -- if you let the other parties have it, they kind of have to stop, right? What are they going to do, keep talking to themselves? NE Ent 20:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm going attempt to drop GamerGate matters for today. Thank you, User:NE Ent. Gamaliel (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors[edit]

Please only post in this section if you are uninvolved in the content dispute (feel free to create another section or post in another section). (KoshVorlons is also an uninvolved with the gamergate (as far as I know) editor whos opinion was hidden above.)

To me the block was not good. It seems that ArmyLine was attempting to claim that the admin who blocked her was selectively enforcing sanctions against her that he was not doing so on others similarly situationed based on the admin’s personal views on the content dispute. That, if true, is a valid reason to appeal a ban and requires the person appealing to talk about the admin actions taken by the admin and the context in which they were applied. I do not consider that to be a violation of the topic ban as it is a valid reason to appeal a ban if true. Now in this case, but it at least seems plausible enough to not warrant a block for violation of the topic ban. But I have not seen enough proof of it yet.

(PS. My mistake, she was not notified of Gamergate sanctions, but was notified of BLP sanctions and that is what she was topic banned under)

  • Affirm She said that the subject cheated, but all I can find from reliable sources is Quinn’sGjoni's accusations of cheating (accusations are not a reliable source saying it occurred). She was notified of BLP sanctions [[140]]. --Obsidi (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • As involved as I am, I still think it is important to correct you here rather than trying to have another section for it, though I won't state my position. Quinn did not accuse anyone of cheating. I believe you mean Gjoni's accusations. Sources freely acknowledge the relationship with Grayson occurred, but avoid exactly stating that it was cheating. This argument about the difference between presenting it as an accusation and presenting it as fact in a noticeboard discussion when the whole point was that these were allegations of unethical conduct that were not proven wrong is basically splitting hairs.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry you are right, I meant Gjoni's accusations. And you are right the allegations were not proven wrong, but nor were they proven right, so to just say they are true is not good. --Obsidi (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Except what you have is that he alleged Quinn cheated on him with Grayson, among others. Reliable sources note this allegation and also confirm the existence of the relationship with Grayson. Only thing they don't confirm is that the relationship constituted cheating. Someone taking confirmation of the relationship as confirmation of the cheating aspect is hardly obscene since no source actually argues anything to the contrary. They just don't outright confirm it.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Given that Gjoni and Quinn were not married, whether anyone was "cheating" can only ever be a subjective question of each party's perception of the status of their relationship. Such "allegations" are a) inherently unprovable and b) not relevant in any way to the article in question. Reliable sources have, understandably, refused to be party to he-said-she-said investigations of relationship drama spilled on the Internet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The mental gymnastics in the above post are so impressive even the Chinese judge scored it at 10. Bravo (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The mental gymnastics required to believe that there is any public interest in who an indie developer slept with are so impressive that even 4chan said "No thanks." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Affirm - She was duly alerted and thus appropriately banned. I question whether ANI has jurisdiction to overturn such a ban, as I understand BLP sanctions are authorized by Arbcom. I would not support overturning this ban anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A silly proposal[edit]

Alright, I'm sure this is going to go nowhere, but I'm putting it out here anyway. This page has been inundated with nonsense from all sides of the Gamergate controversy, and many uninvolved editors have pointed out how disruptive it is to have these petty squabbles repeated on this page and on other pages over and over and over again. And as Gamaliel has strained to point out here (though he's being shouted down) it's impossible for any admin to reasonably and neutrally intervene with all of this going on. So why don't we just let these editors battle it out amongst themselves and continue turning that page into a stinking cesspool of hatred and disruption, but strictly limit it to the Gamergate controversy talk page and the Arbcom case page? I therefore propose that any post about Gamergate anywhere else on the project by any editor be subject to an immediate block, at a minimum until Arbcom hears the case, but preferably for much longer. Likewise, the Gamergate controversy page be full-protected until May 26, 2015. Yes, it's draconian; if editors don't like it they can simply not edit there. You know where to put the trouts. Ivanvector (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Or we can stop proposing draconian, totalitarian and stuff that violates the pillars in terms of proposals. And it's in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND policy and in good decency. Wikipedia is not a circus, and there are certain things I've objected to in terms of administrator conduct, but trying to give the talk page and arbcom immediate immunity towards any and everything would just turn out to be very nasty. (But if this is a secret proposal to make the worst come out of people and try to have them sanctioned for that, good work I wasn't able to tell the difference.) Plus ArbCom's justice wheel turns slowly but surely. Tutelary (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It's the opposite, unless I worded it wrong. I'm proposing giving the rest of the project immunity from the disruption of the petty battles going on over this controversy. Honestly it's hard to look at the discussion above and reconcile that with "Wikipedia is not a circus". I'll refer you to WP:BLOCKDETERRENT and suggest that this proposal does in fact prevent continuing damage to Wikipedia, as well as deter the continuation of disruptive behaviour and encourage a more productive editing style, at least on pages which are not Gamergate controversy. I'm not proposing any changes to the community sanctions already in place at that article, but without admins willing to delve into it they're completely, utterly useless anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
(as involved) I would actually support a slightly less draconian approach but with the same effect of removing the kudzu of the controversy on other pages: that is, unless the editor has already been notified of the sanctions, such posts about GG that fall in WP space (excluding ArbCom for the present, and ANI for any unusual situations) should be simply hatted and the poster notified that such discussion should be limited to the appropriate GG pages. Editors that are aware of this sanction (as documented on that page) and that purposely start something outside the GG pages about GG directly should be warned/blocked/handled with as seen fit. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I support this in theory, but that is exactly what happened above and it just exploded in more drama. Gamergate is an unusually disruptive situation which requires an unusually harsh solution. Ivanvector (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm only considering the issue of new editors to the debate (fully aware the bulk of these are outside editors that are trying to influence the article as well), we don't want to be too bitey to actual potentially editors that might miss the sanctions notice. And if it is a case of a pointless ANI, rapid close and pointing to the GS page still is an option. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


I was thinking something somewhat similar in concept; a simple topic ban for all editors for raising gamergate issues on AN or ANI. If any editor starts a thread, it is simply removed and the editor redirected to the WP:GS/GG/E page. No blocks should be necessarily unless an editor edit wars the post back in after being notified of the topic ban. NE Ent 21:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll support that as a much simpler version of my proposal which accomplishes the same effect. Would like to see it extend to AN3 as well. Ivanvector (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This actually isn't a terrible idea, except that the sanctions don't appear to be working in all directions, nor are administrators apparently willing to act. There's a reason this devolved so quickly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Above, Gamaliel exemplifies that administrators are slow to act because they are exasperated by the volume and frequency of complaints being posted in multiple forums. We can't stop users from emailing but we can at least limit them to a single forum. And it is appropriate to do so. Ivanvector (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If Gamaliel and the like were actually dealing with the problem children, we wouldn't see threads like this. Instead, certain editors are allowed to run rampant and the rest of us in the crossfire are forced to keep begging for enforcement when it isn't forthcoming from the so-called "proper channels." Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Why do we even have a subpage for GamerGate sanctions? I just realized that admins have to manually watchlist that page, rather than just the general 'requests for enforcement' page. Plus, the requests for enforcement has way more administrators watching it than the former. Why is it needed to be a separate page? (Not to mention the issue of the same admins commenting each time.) Tutelary (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I just did it anyway, as a WP:BOLD action. No users have been warned. Ivanvector (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like this and would ask for a reversion from you. What we need is more eyes on the sanction page, not shunting this issue to the same page where things are being ignored. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
And then you hat it over there, ensuring no one takes a look at it? What is that going to accomplish? The entire complaint is about the lax enforcement! Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I've undone the hat here per your request here and Tutelary's request on my talk page. Apologies for the delay, I had to step away for a bit. I wouldn't have considered it a hostile act for either of you to have undone the edit yourself per WP:BRD, and in that spirit I'll leave you to do what you like with the copy on the enforcement page. I'll also note that hatting does not make comments invisible - if anyone is interested in reading your comments there, they can click the button. I simply felt it would be extremely disruptive to copy 36,000 characters worth of fairly pointless back-and-forth without putting a hat on it. Ivanvector (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate it. The trigger finger people have on this thing has pretty much frozen me from acting on anything lest it get someone to decide to pursue sanctions, so I'm trying to be careful. I know hatting doesn't make it actually invisible, but the problem of the enforcement page is one of visible petitions being pointedly ignored, so hiding a thread about that in particular seems significantly counterproductive. Still, thank you for listening. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully, I don't think cross-posting things here is actually drawing any more attention to the problems there. It's just making problems here, disabling the central noticeboard for admin attention for the rest of the project, hence my admittedly extreme siloing proposal above. I can understand why no admins want to act against the mob and I don't blame them at all. Ivanvector (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

disruptive editing on Spanish conquest of Chiapas[edit]

New user Thymepeekk is repeatedly adding unreferenced templates to this fully referenced article, and moving the page to Spanish arrival to Chiapas, misleading as well as grammatically dubious. The user has not responded to attempts at communication on their talk page and shows no signs of wishing to discuss, or desist. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

User just posted here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Spanish arrival to Chiapas. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
As a first step, I've moved the page back to the previous title and protected it as Spanish arrival to Chiapas is clearly grammatically incorrect. I will leave an explanatory note on the editor's talk page as English appears not to be his/her first language.  Philg88 talk 16:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Phil. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

EngcolLab191480 and more conflict of interest[edit]

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

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

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

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

Threat to edit war[edit]

Requesting review of my actions.

In 2014 World Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the user Beuschman (talk · contribs) had stated in an edit summary: "I will keep deleting this section over and over and over! It is unwarranted and biased!"

I warned them, asked them to take it to the article talk page, and asked them to self-revert the threat. Instead, when someone else reverted them, they again blanked the material. As a result, I blocked the user. I was involved with reverting them, is the only reason I am bringing it here. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Good block. He was at four reverts and threatened to continue. -- GB fan 19:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not good content, though. The blocked editor shouldn't edit-war, but he's got a point. This past Series was being touted as one of the best, with the drama not atypical of a 7-game Series. The "criticism" section has at least three problems: (1) Other Series articles don't have a "criticism" section, so it's undue weight and it sounds like a sour-grapes POV-push. (2) The actual "worst" World Series was probably 1945, but anything prior to about 2010 is ancient history to ESPN types; nor does the 1945 Series have a "criticism" section, although I could find you a good quote from a contemporary reporter which supports that. (3) It's not even a criticism of the Series itself, but rather of the method used to produce the Series contenders. That's not the fault of either the Series or of the teams within it. It might belong somewhere, but it doesn't belong in that article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with the removal if consensus supports it - but it needs to be discussed; using WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments in the summary while edit warring just isn't going to fly. Even if left in the article, the contrary opinion of the criticism (which is linked in the section) needs to be emphasized more to better balance the section. And, as you said, the criticism is of the methodology to determine contenders, not the series itself, so it may be better suited to a different article entirely. All that can be hashed out in the article talk page. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Arab related articles[edit]

Infantom claims that none of the Arab Americans can be Jewish and that Arab-Israeli footballers are not Palestinians because "Not all Arabs in Israel identify as Palestinians" according to him. I don't think he is willing to talk in a civilized manner. He has been active here for 14 months and most of his edits are controversial. Also, since he came he has been involved in edit conflicts and blocked twice. It clearly seems that he don't adopt a neutral point of view.--Uishaki (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

First, Uishaki violated a topic ban[141] and refused to discuss his changes while edit warring on Category:Arab-Israeli footballers. He's the one that added content and was reverted, so he's the one that need to reach consensus. He hasn't tried to discuss that, he just warned me on my talkpage, his accusations about " not willing to talk in a civilized manner" are simply ridiculous. Now, i have clean history here, i was never blocked(you a free to check) while Uishaki has a long history with violations on these topics and had been blocked numerous times (including block evasions) and has a topic ban. --Infantom (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
See your block log and then talk about violations. I added the content but you removed it after one and a half year so who is ridiculous.--Uishaki (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
He calls for a block after hidding behind an IP address to make problematic edits see here--Uishaki (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
My block log is clean. As for the IP editor, that's not me, i have nothing to hide. Think otherwise? Prove it, i have no time for your games Infantom (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
There is absloutely no need for your childish behavior. I know you since you came here and began with your disruptive vandalising acts.--Uishaki (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior by IndianBio[edit]

This user has had a hostile attitude towards me for awhile now, culminating in this discussion on SNUGGUMS' talk page, where I was repeatedly accused of assuming bad faith by nominating various Rihanna song articles for deletion, having a personal vendetta against the Rihanna WikiProject, shooting down any suggestions I may have for another article's improvement, and baselessly accusing me of WP:OWN behavior.

After trying to resolve the matter on their own talk page, it got nowhere, with more comments about how my contributions are "shitty", a snide/sarcastic remark about suicide that may or may not be suggesting I do so, refusing my request to stop assuming bad faith, and discouraging me from making bold suggestions/contributions.

This user refuses to assume good faith with me or cooperate and is making it increasingly difficult to collaborate here. There are major civility concerns here that need to be addressed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Based primarily on the content User talk:IndianBio I'd generally say a minor trouting is in order on both sides and some disengagement is in order. On your end, have you had a broader discussion at WP:RIRI on the AfDs? That said, you have faced a few personal attacks that could fall deeper than what could be said is "standard" incivility. Debating content and bickering over policies is immediately trumped by incivility, making the other matters moot temporarily, at least.
Would welcome an admin's perspective, please!, but my entirley-non-binding random powerless editor's opinion would be a "last chance" warning for IndianBio before any blocks. Tstorm(talk) 23:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Chasewc91: I don't see anything actionable here in terms of behavior, but I agree that IndianBio should turn it down a notch ([142]). Seems like the two of you don't work so well together sometimes; it's best if you simply make your arguments once and avoid debating each other until you feel like you can do it productively. Relatedly, an RfC really needs to be opened on Talk:Lady_Gaga#Poor_image stat, so both of you can just move on. As for the discussions on Snuggums' talkpage, both of you should listen to Snuggums' advice there, which is sound with regard to the whole merge/AfD issue. And honestly, rather than hotly contest how best to organize an article for an FA review, do the best you can and if you cannot agree, just ask the reviewers. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism, fringe problems, and badhand IP editing by Bozo33[edit]

Editor blocked, appropriate SPI opened. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Bozo33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Bozo33 (who falsely claims to be an administrator on his user page) and the IP stick to the same topics of rap and esoteric Christianity (angels, mystics, so forth). I'm absolutely confident that a quick CU would confirm they're the same individual. They're also the main contributors for Blac Haze, which uses OR based on user-generated sites or merchant sites when the article isn't outright stealing from those "sources". They've also been focusing on the Cartesian ideas, particularly the Evil demon, making the same fringe claim.

While editing logged out is fine, doing so to avoid scrutiny is not. Even if there was no intention to avoid scrutiny, Bozo33/ has left a bunch of messes all over the place, and those messes are not going to be easier to clean up if he's still going to be making them.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

N.B. I removed the {{administrator}} tag from their page. — xaosflux Talk 21:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Have you filed a WP:SPI? Ivanvector (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Not yet, I thought it would be a formality given the WP:DUCK involved and that they've almost done enough separately to earn separate blocks (Also due to juggling a WP:ARARAT IP on the side). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Possibly moot, but SPI is where the checkusers lurk. Ivanvector (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Bozo33 continues to claim to be an administrator, though I've removed it and told him not to re-add it. Will someone just block him already? Do I really need to file an SPI despite the clear WP:DUCK, just because I mentioned checkuser offhand? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
24 hour block placed, this type of issue appears to be nothing new for this user. Suggest someone follow up on the SPI. — xaosflux Talk 04:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Here. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Topic bans and the like[edit]

This concerns the closed #IBAN violations by The Rambling Man, further evidence but WP:RESTRICT shows that there is an WP:IBAN for Baseball Bugs, and Medeis, and The Rambling Man, and nothing helpful will happen here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Let's suppose user A (admin) and user P (peon) have an interaction ban. Let's further suppose that user A has frequently violated the interaction ban but no one has taken any action, despite a number of complaints. At what point is it fair to assume that the interaction ban is de facto dissolved, and that user P is thus also entitled to violate the terms of the ban without fear? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Context is needed. Tutelary (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Why? A ban is a ban. I just want to know if it's standard practice to cut more slack for an admin than for a plain old editor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Because your 'violation of interaction ban' could or could not be an actual violation and context is needed to determine that. Tutelary (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
"This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors". Are you discussing an incident? If so, details are required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The only thing that the responses make clear is that your intent to stir the pot was recognized for what it was and shut down accordingly. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking exactly the same thing! (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd make a request that it be considered dissolved because my feeling is that any admin could justify punishment based on the interaction ban still being active. It's just a sword of Damocles. There's no set time as if one or both editors aren't that active, a year could be nothing, if very, a month could be significant. It's case by case. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I would think that if an Admin and an Editor had a twoway interaction ban , that their would be very little (implying that there is some) actions that admin could take on an article that editor is active in without being wp:involved (if they were aware of that editor being active there that is). Being that there is an interaction ban their activities would need to be limited also solely to their administrative capacity. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Is the ban in any way imposed by ArbCom? If so, there's a fairly direct remedy. P could go to ANI first to get perhaps get a shorter-term block until ArbCom commented? I personally would not violate the ban under any circumstances without a member of ArbCom acknowledging the matter or at minimum discussion at ANI from uninvolved admins. Even then I personally would not cave. Bans of any type are serious business. This world work for a P that was, say, me.
However, this is mostly bureaucratic and potentially moot, as P might not know how to report to ArbCom or ANI. Hopefully they can find an incident board. This would instantly go to AN or ArbCom depending ban source. I'm not familiar on process but I assume there are additional consequences to an admin violating a ban. At no point can "de facto" ever be quantified, but if P was responding to A some leeway should be per not understanding the process. WP:TLDR, sorry. Anyone can contact me on my talk page if you'd like to continue this; I have a lot of thoughts on the matter. Tstorm(talk) 01:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It is 100% obvious that this thread is about The Rambling Man. I hope that the irony of someone gaming the system to complain about an alleged gaming of the system is not lost on people. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

COI editor edit warring page where they have received money[edit]

frivolous, baseless and misplaced/forum-shopped request. Fut.Perf. 10:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Hello. User:Ryulong decided to go on a self imposed topic ban due to his WP:COI on November 19th, having been taken funds from and as a result, giving him said WP:COI. However, recently, he has begun edit warring on Draft:Gamergate_controversy, a violation of his self imposed topic ban and WP:COI. Proof of the former: Proof of the latter: [143], [144], [145]. This is in direct conflict of WP:COI and as a result, I am requesting that the user be community topic banned. Tutelary (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Claiming they were paid to edit something on WP is a somewhat extraordinary claim, where is your evidence for that? (the being paid money part) --Obsidi (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
They have received money from one side obviously affiliated with GamerGate, took a self imposed topic ban due to WP:COI, and then broke that self imposed topic ban. See WP:EXTERNALREL, I do not claim they are a paid editor, but a WP:COI editor. Tutelary (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
'Received money' from who? Where is your source for that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Archive links because some of the information has been deleted in order to cover tracks. Firstly is the thread Tutelary linked: wherein the moderator mentions talking with Ryulong about the latter's stepping away from the article "admitting that they may not be able to continue to approach a subject objectively" (the moderator's words). The linked GoFundMe campaign ( A subsequent thread was launched dedicated to the gofundme here: Here is a later archive of the same thread including Ryulong's reply thanking them: Weedwacker (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Why do you gamergate people constantly rely on And isn't this blacklisted sitewide or is that just in the article space?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Archive today saves pages that may have been changed, so "evidence" can be kept even if the source refactors/deletes their comments. It is also used to deny ad revenueRetartist (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't explain why it's been used to archive pages on Wikipedia when Wikipedia does not use advertising and has existing permanent links to pages so long as they haven't been deleted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how that's relevant to the current discussion as none of those links are archives of wikipedia pages. Weedwacker (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Not all that important Ry-san, but just remember some of us didn't use wikis before this. They aren't understanding that wikias and wikipedia don't need archiving. I typically only correct typos on fan wikis, so I'm still pretty inexperienced myself, which is why I didn't do any editing here.Ihadurca Il Imella (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, is blacklisted, and possibly on in article spaces, I have no knowledge of's status on wikipedia. It is useful in providing snapshots of webpages where changes can be made. Weedwacker (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Aren't and the same thing? And I recall trying to add the phrase "" to the Gamergate page weeks ago but got hit by the spam blacklist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong made edits to a draft page, not a live article, and his edits reverted a brand-new WP:SPA who leaped into an edit war against longstanding consensus that the lede does not need inline citations, per WP:LEDE. The edits in question were clearly tendentious (a "citation needed" template on every sentence? Please.) Would it have been better for someone else to make the edits? Probably. But don't pretend it's not obvious who's feeding the flames here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I really don't believe there's a difference here. A self imposed topic ban and a WP:COI is a self imposed topic ban and a WP:COI whether it's a live article or not. And do tell me where it says in WP:COI where one of the exemptions is edit warring against a SPA. Tutelary (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
So basically you're admitting that Ryulong is guilty of nothing more than taking the bait from tendentious single-purpose editors with a demonstrated vendetta. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong is guilty of violating WP:COI by editing GamerGate topics after receiving money from one side affiliated with GamerGate. He edit warred with one of these topics. Also read your own essay. WP:BAIT is about making uncivil comments. It's not my doing that Ryulong violated WP:COI. Tutelary (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Either provide evidence to support that claim, or withdraw it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I've already provided it within my opening post. Tutelary (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
(ec)I can see nothing in your post that supports a claim that Ryulong has received money for anything. Pleas make clear exactly what it is you are suggesting is evidence for this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the claim at least is based off this: [146] a crowd sourced request for money. and on some reddit posts by someone with the name on reddit of "ryulong67" thanking them for donating ([147]. However 1) I don't see how you prove that this ryulong is the same one as the WP user 2) I have not seen a request by this ryulong asking people to donate money in any way related to gamergate (or promising anything related to gamergate). (I would also support the move of this to WP:COIN) --Obsidi (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Evidence has been provided above by myself as wellWeedwacker (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Reverting a single purpose account on a draft space page that in no way will ever necessarily be a live article and the edits (reverts) I made that will be overwritten by any sort of subsequent edits to the page (do you really want {{fact}} tags on things that are suitably cited?) does not really weigh much in the end. I should not have taken the bait today but I did and thats all I'm really guilty of in the end.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
That's not what this is about. You took money from /r/gamerghazi, a party affiliated with GamerGate via a GoFundMe and your defense is that it was an WP:SPA and therefore, it was justified? I don't believe so, and it's a heavy violation of WP:COI to be commenting verbosely on GamerGate topics here and at WP:AN given your COI and self imposed topic ban. (This one is an exception per WP:BANEX.) Tutelary (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware that individual members of a message board forum can be considered "a party affiliated with" anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It's funny coming from a guy who claimed 8chan doxxed him and blamed GamerGate for it. Are we really getting into playing dumb here?
I posted a link on my personal blog to the gofundme page and never once personally posted any link to it on Reddit in any way. When I did so, I posted to the arbitration case page saying I would now have a conflict of interest and I would voluntarily step away from the Gamergate page and other topics. I would not know who necessarily donated to the page and where their affiliations lay. I was however notified that it was to be posted to both GamerGhazi and apparently some other unnamed pro-GG forum. I have the email to back that up. But saying that my conflict of interest extends to an unofficial sandbox version of the article being proxy edit warred over is ridiculous. All I've done is breach a self-imposed topic ban and for that I'm sorry.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Assuming this goes on I'd like to toss out a generic recommendation that this could be moved to WP:COIN to avoid further cluttering up on ANI. It's been shown that sanctions have not been broken thus this is exclusively a COI matter. Tstorm(talk) 22:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Following OP's logic, Ryulong has imposed a topic ban on himself thus we have no need to impose one from the community. Ivanvector (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Then he's fragrantly violated it. If they can't be enforced, then why even have the ability to apply one for lesser sanctions? Tutelary (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
1) If you can prove this is the same Ryulong and 2) if he had actually made an edit to mainspace or say voted in an RFC about gamergate, I would agree, but this wasn't that. --Obsidi (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Proof that ryulong67 is the same Ryulong: Reddit AMA [148] (archived [149]) which includes this proof shot [150]. Specifically this comment chain [151] (archive [152] which asks him to make an edit with the thread's url code, which he does here: [153]. Weedwacker (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I take [154] that as sufficient proof when combined with [155] that it is the same ryulong (although its possible that the reddit post was done after ryulong posted, I don't have time to track down exact timestamps, so I will presume it to be accurate unless ryulong objects and then ill go examine the timestamps closely). --Obsidi (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

I never said Ryulong was a paid editor. He's not (as far that I can tell). He's a WP:COI editor who was rewarded money from /r/gamerghazi, a subreddit affiliated with GamerGate, not necessarily being paid by /r/gamerghazi to edit Wikipedia. He took a self imposed topic ban which he violated (not just on the draft, but on WP:AN and WP:ANI, this thread is the exception) and so far has only apologized for taking the bait, not for anything else. Tutelary (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Bullshit. You started this thread by stating that Ryūlóng had a conflict of interest due to having "taken funds". How can that mean anything other than paid editing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
His placement of editing GamerGate after he had taken funds is called into question. And WP:COI does not mean paid editing. It means biased editing based on certain factors in a situation, Per WP:EXTERNALREL Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. That he received funds from a GamerGate affiliated site for his living expenses makes me question his ability to be neutral in the GamerGate topic. The self imposed topic ban which was not followed is another issue. All I'm asking is to upgrade the self imposed topic ban to a community based one, one that has actual teeth if broken, unlike the self imposed one. Tutelary (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
So you have no evidence that any funds he may possibly have received are in any way connected with his Wikipedia editing? Just as I thought. A 'COI' based on nothing but insinuation. As for Ryūlóng 'breaking' a self-imposed voluntary topic ban, since he 'self-banned' himself, he can self-unban himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Lets say you worked for company X, wouldn't you say it is a violation of COI to say nice things about company X in their WP page? Now Company X may not have paid you to say those things at all, but that doesn't mean it isn't a COI. As the WP:COI page says "Paid advocacy is a subset of COI editing". But that said it also says "COI editors causing disruption may be blocked" and in this case, it is at least arguable that he was not causing disruption. --Obsidi (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No lets no 'say' anything. Let's stick with the facts - that a claim of paid editing was made, and no proof of this has been provided. Hypothetical digressions that assume things we have seen no evidence of are irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No accusation of paid editing was made only editing with a COI, WP:COI:"Paid advocacy is a subset of COI editing". Proof has been provided sufficient to show that he has accepted money from a source which is clearly biased as to the articles content. Now that may not mean Ryūlóng should be topic banned, but it is well within saying that this isn't just worthy of WP:BOOMERANG for lack of evidence (as to the WP:POINT problems discussed below about posting here rather then talking about it on the DS page, that might be a much stronger argument). --Obsidi (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Because I'd rather this be seen by more than 55 people watchlisting that section, and for the basis of a community based topic ban. Tutelary (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The community has authorized community sanctions for this topic area under WP:GS/GG, thus any sanction imposed there is pre-authorized by the community. The appropriate place to request such a sanction is WP:GS/GG/E. You may be aware that there is already a thread there about this editor, and I think about this specific incident (I'd rather crush my nuts in a bench vise than delve into the details), why don't you add your comments to that request? Ivanvector (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, respectfully, if you were aware of that thread (I guess that you were because you know how many people are watching the page) and you decided to post here anyway, you may be disrupting this noticeboard to make a point. Ivanvector (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't wish for it to be there. Per WP:BUREAUCRACY. Tutelary (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It appears the topic has been posted there Weedwacker (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
There's also the issue that the sanctions don't work for certain editors who have a certain point of view. Regardless, of all of Ryulong's problems in this topic space, this is a bit of a reach. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

I wrote on my talk page first. I made the donation page and posted it to my blog. I announced I'd be leaving the article. I went to sleep. I woke up to see one person gave me all I asked for. I don't know the affiliation of this person. I've informed Jimbo of all of the events that unfolded. His request that I extend my self-imposed topic ban from other topics, my attempt to tag a page that I perceive as having issues, and reverting someone in a sandbox page should not mean anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If I had taken that money from KiA you'd be the first to have made the general sanctions thread and we both know it, the gofundme wasn't posted anywhere else, if by "another pro-GamerGate subreddit" you mean /r/againstgamergate which allows dissent unlike GamerGhazi, then it's hilarious considering the subreddit title. That's the problem, this is the 4th time you've announced leaving the article, every time you get an ANI you say you're steping back but you're back in less than 48 hours. Loganmac (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

He hasn't only edited a draft, he has added a POV tag and a notability tag to the 8chan article, after getting reverted he insisted, he went on the talk page and continued to push for it, he then vented on his personal talk page [156] [157] he has admitted to taking money from GamerGhazi, hence his self-imposed topic-ban, which has since been violated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganmac (talkcontribs)
If the topic ban was self-imposed, he is free to self-un-impose it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Here's where you're wrong Loganmac. I posted to my user talk at 6 am my time and then minutes later I tagged the article. A few minutes after that I posted to the talk page. Four hours later the POV tag is removed. Two hours after that you remove the notability tag. Another two hours pass and I agree with the fixes to neutrality that I had issues with but I still felt notability was an issue so I tagged it again. Then Pepsiwithcoke removes it. There's nothing to the effect that you're suggesting.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Just so we're clear, I support the upgrade of the self imposed topic ban to a community based one for a period no shorter of 3 months just to make sure that Ryulong does not edit pages relating to this topic, given his WP:COI and his frequently broken self imposed topic ban. Tutelary (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY - Ryulong's edits while self-topic-banned improved the encyclopedia. Well done. Ivanvector (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict × ∞) I also question whether a self-imposed topic ban is really a ban at all. There's no consensus for restrictions, thus they are invalid. Therefore, Ryulong's edits were not subject to the restrictions he attempted to impose on himself against consensus. So there could not have been any misconduct. The only misconduct was attempting to impose a ban on himself, and for that I propose he be sanctioned by having his self-imposed topic ban immediately reverted. Ivanvector (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You have voted to oppose twice, perhaps you should condense your edits to a single one. Weedwacker (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Not a duplicate - opposing separate proposals. See comments added below. Ivanvector (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

That section title for that quote is "Paid editing" with the link WP:PAY, however the WP:COI also says that "Paid advocacy is a subset of COI editing (see WP:PAY below)." One does not need to be paid to edit to have a COI (and no accusation was made that he was paid to edit anything, only that he had a COI). --Obsidi (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The section title for that quote is "Paid advocacy." The allegation is absolutely that he was "paid" to edit something — otherwise no, there isn't a conflict of interest here. There are five categories of COI discussed on the page: Financial, Legal, Political, Campaigning or Writing about yourself and your work. As the latter four are obviously not implicated here, the allegation must relate to the first. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
He does have a Financial COI, just not that he is a paid advocate, he has other financial COI. --Obsidi (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Correct. He's not been paid to edit, but he's been rewarded for editing he has done. Tutelary (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support declaring that Ryulong's has a COI for Gamergate This does not mean he would be topic banned. As it says on the WP:COIN page: "The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits." In this case the edits appear to have been uncontroversial on a draft document, and as such I am not willing to ding Ryulong's too hard for that. That said he does appear to have a COI and that should be recognized and declared. This does mean that someone could add to the talk page of gamergate {{Connected contributor}}. And future edits to article space without discussion could cause a topic ban on them latter. --Obsidi (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and trout proposer for violation of WP:OUTING. No evidence has been presented that Ryulong has received compensation for editing Wikipedia, and being a user of an online forum does not create a conflict of interest. (ec to add) That the user voluntarily stepped away from a contentious topic area when they were unduly accused of a conflict of interest does not establish that they have a conflict of interest. Ivanvector (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I've struck your !vote as you cannot !vote twice. Tutelary (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You can make that argument but he unambiguously received money from /r/gamerghazi, via a GoFundMe. What's being debated is whether that was intentional and affects his editing via WP:COI. Tutelary (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted your refactoring of my comment. There are two proposals in this thread and I am entitled to oppose both. I am opposed to the topic ban, and I am also opposed to declaring a conflict of interest where none has been disclosed and none can be established through evidence presented. Ivanvector (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per evidence of WP:COI. The self imposed ban which has been violated should be upgraded to an actual topic ban of some amount of time. As Ryulong himself admitted when he stepped away from the article that further action of his on it would be seen as a conflict of interest, the topic being brought here is not a surprise. [158] Weedwacker (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
That's not an admission of COI. That's a (reasonable and it turns out accurate) prediction of further drama. Ivanvector (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It should be noted that we're not debating on whether Ryulong has received financial assistance from /r/gamerghazi. We're debating on whether that has financial assistance is a WP:COI for him to edit the article. He's admitted to having received financial assistance via a GoFundMe. The version of events that differ is whether that GoFundMe being funded by /r/gamerghazi and presenting it to be a WP:COI or whether or not that /r/gamerghazi just happened to pick it up and that was no fault of Ryulong. But the fact that he also does AMA's (Ask me anything, like an interview kind of) on the same subreddit is also a concern. Tutelary (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per complete failure to demonstrate that anything Ryulong has done on Wikipedia has been influenced by 'funds'. And because you can't sanction someone for changing their mind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. And looking in from a distance, I start to wonder if a WP:BOOMERANG might have to be brought out at some point. These repeated reports are really starting to smell of harassment. Resolute 01:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Or maybe, just maybe, that these repeated reports of a person's behavior is a sign of not harassment, actual misconduct. When someone repeatedly is mentioned at the noticeboards, shouldn't that be a sign that maybe, they're doing something wrong? Of course it can't always be said to be true, as there are frivolous WP:ANI's made genuinely to attack a subject. But even truer still a person repeated brought to WP:ANI should have their conduct examined more thoroughly on -why- they're being brought to WP:ANI so much. Tutelary (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
When all the complaints come from the same group of people, many of whom are SPAs and many of whom are known to be using an off-site venue to coordinate campaigns against specific, named long-term Wikipedia editors, it tends to suggest that there exists an ulterior motive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Got a source for that serious accusation? Or please withdraw it. Tutelary (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure. See the Pastebin, see the array of 8chan/KiA threads, etc. Just because they're "anonymous" doesn't mean we have to ignore the WP:DUCK in the room. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose both proposed declaration of COI and proposed topic ban. Adding this here per multiple requests for me to strike duplicated oppose comments which I maintain were not duplicates, but this thread needn't be more disruptive than it already is. I think my actual comments are best left where they are but I have struck through the bolded text for the sake of the admin who closes this, who I don't envy. Also, since several of us have gone and commented now at WP:GS/GG/E about this specific thread, it may be best for future comments to be made there, but I'm not telling anyone to do anything. Now if you don't mind my fiancée just snapchatted me a picture of a KFC order and a fridge full of beer, so I'm out of here. Ivanvector (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose community-imposed ban and ask for consideration of a boomerang on the original complainant. Also to close discussion. For starters, ArbCom is taking up this case and it's almost certain topic bans will be included there. More importantly, stones in glass houses something something. There are other editors in this thread who seem at least if not more "dedicated" to this matter as Ryulong. Tstorm(talk) 01:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC) (Previously failed to sign on the last edit)
  • Oppose This is laughable, there is no evidence for anything claimed. Tutelary should be careful of WP:BOOMERANG, there are still some tensions after their last ANI. With that mentioned, isn't linking to associated accounts doxxing now Tutelary? How can you be sure this is said editor. After all, we were all convinced you were a hacker but apparently there is a completely different person using the same username as you to hack individuals -- (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
This thread may be of notice to editors: [159] -- (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
As to your question "How can you be sure this is said editor." this thread, combined with this Wikipedia edit shows that reddit user ryulong67 is Ryulong. --Obsidi (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and WP:BOOMERANG. Can an admin just step in and topic ban Tutelary from all articles related to gamergate and feminism? Add the other fringe POV pushers to that too. Also, just block all fo the SPAs that have infested the Gamergate Talk page, the clusterfuck of a GG/GS page and the 8chan Talk page? All being coordinated offsite, with Tutelary and others. How bad does this bullshit have to get before sane Wikipedia editors just say "Enough!"? Dave Dial (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I've not been active too much on the 8chan article, I was mostly on about the name and due to the 0RR obligation I can't do much about the content. There are some obvious problems with the page, namely WP:NOR and euphemism of Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, and Zoe Quinn. Please see the revision that I originally reformed it to. Also, this request against Ryulong should not turn into some harassment campaign against me because I dared to initiate the request against somebody who I believed violated WP:COI. Tutelary (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but what about people who might 'believe' that you started this thread to harass Ryulong? Aren't they entitled to their beliefs too? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh sure you can have that opinion. I just don't think people should be insulting me by claiming I'm a fringe POV pusher for daring to make a post on a noticeboard. I'm sure Dave Dial will also substantiate his accusations that I coordinate off site, or withdraw such a serious claim, right? Tutelary (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing daring about making postings. As for accusations of off-site coordination, isn't that what you were claiming? Or does being paid to make edits to Wikipedia not imply coordination between the person being paid and the person doing the paying? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Again misconstruing what I said. Conflict of interest is not always paid editing. I and other users have provided sufficient evidence for as a counterpoint to the 'daring to make such postings' remarks. He's garnered donations to his GoFundMe through an influence of /r/gamerghazi. That's not disputed. Ryulong has not disputed that. What is disputed is whether or not /r/gamerghazi picked it up randomly and without any influence of Ryulong. If so, that's not necessarily a WP:COI. However, since he's done AMAs on Reddit on the same subreddit, that's kind of suspect. Tutelary (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Nothing is 'kind of suspect' until you stop talking in unexplained jargon, and tell us what it is that you are claiming Ryulong has done to indicate that his editing has been influenced by 'donations'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@DD2K: you claim that All being coordinated offsite, with Tutelary and others without evidence, because you obviously don't know that 8chan doxxxed Tutelary. I'm not going to link to that. starship.paint ~ regal 02:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Mmm, twice I've been doxed for Wikipedia edits. Dave Dial, the revision of the 8chan article is what they did it to me for. Tutelary (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Saying "I am now going to step away from the page" is not "a self-imposed topic ban". Softlavender (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose any sanction on Ryulong based on unsubstantiated off-wiki allegations. It is possible, and likely, that Ryulong67 is not Ryulong, but a joe-job deliberately set up by Ryulong's enemies. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Except it's been confirmed that ryulong67 is Ryulong on Wikipedia. Diff:
Tutelary (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I would link to this part of the thread directly so people don't have to read through all those comments. --Obsidi (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

I hardly see how this comment is beneficial to the discussion. Weedwacker (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It made me laugh a lot. That's clearly beneficial.ReynTime (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Motion to close[edit]

Since this motion did not have a seconder, it is struck per Robert's Rules of Order. Ivanvector (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

No, I've already given you my response to this. WP:BUREAUCRACY. Tutelary (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Nope. Arkon (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I think WP:COIN is the better place for this (but I guess this board, or GG enforcement would work and there are already thread here and on GG). --Obsidi (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I am against this motion Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I also disagree with this motion. Weedwacker (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Motion to topic ban Tutelary (BOOMERANG)[edit]

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

I would hardly call Tutlelary someone who is opposed to the opposition of the GG camp and specifically targetting those editors. She has been doxxed by 8chan and GG has raised issues about her. I myself would not say I always agree with her. If anything I would say she is a neutral party concerned with WP:COI issues that are threatening the integrity of Wikipedia. Weedwacker (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You know what to me seems like a witchhunt? A user trying to topic ban me because I disagreed with their enforcement request of DSA. While you seem to say that I'm 'stirring the drama pot', here you are making a subsection purely because you didn't like the comment I made at general enforcement requests. I'm also a bit sick of the WP:BOOMERANG mentality, which is an essay btw. The fact that people request sanctions against the person who decides that yes, a person's conduct needs to have a look taken into it to the proper avenue--WP:ANI you wish to ban them for the sheer act of daring to disagree. The personal attacks such as In short, the it's time for the community to stand up and say that we will not tolerate Wikipedia being disrupted by witch hunts and personal vendettas in this topic space any more. are unacceptable. I propose a counter ban proposal for Hasteur trying to silence other user's who took the notion of disagreeing with them. I've also been doxed, my house phone called (yes, one of those 8channers were skilled enough to get that far) and along with that, a death threat. I'm sick of being harassed for my Wikipedia edits. Hasteur seriously needs to stop. Tutelary (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC) See below. Tutelary (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
See also WP:BATTLEFIELD and thanks for proving my point. Hasteur (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The pot calls the kettle black. Weedwacker (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm neither here nor there about this boomerang proposal, but I'm personally tired of reading about the doxxing. It seems to get mentioned way out of proportion to its actual relevance to matters under discussion, and has been to my mind repeatedly used as a card to justify behavior which should be justified on its own merit, not by events which happen off-wiki which have no actual bearing one way or another on this and some other matters. One off-wiki victimhood story, even concerning GG, has no bearing on wiki policy. Can we give it a rest? We get it. But victimhood ≠ innocence or license to abuse wiki protocol/policy/etc. (not saying she is, just saying one doesn't justify the other if she is). Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh I got it. I should just stay silent about it. No one wants to hear that a female Wikipedia editor got doxed for her edits. Completely irrelevant and no one wants to hear it. Got it. Doesn't matter that I'm seriously fearing for my freakin' life from the stuff that's happened in real life. Guess that gender gap might get just a teensy bit bigger on Wikipedia should I get sanctioned for wanting to bring stuff to admins' attention. Tutelary (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sure it's going to put scores of female editors from joining the project if an editor who relentlessly pushes an anti-feminist POV and is known for hacking [160] [161] [162] leaves the project -- (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If any user wants to request a topic ban against Tutelary under the GG sanctions, I recommend that he or she make an enforcement request at WP:GS/GG/E and provide the appropriate evidence. The reason we created that page was to keep this stuff out of AN/I, and to allow it to be dealt with in as a gentle a fashion as is possible. Let's take advantage of the resources we have, rather than muck up this place more. RGloucester 06:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for the editor Tutelary, who must, in the end, be judged strictly on their contributions to and/or disruptions of this encyclopedia, as opposed to their real life or claimed gender. In my judgment, this editor is a cleverly tendentious and disruptive contributor in this specific topic area. Perhaps they can be productive in editing completely different topics. We shall see. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Even our Dear Leader has asked Ryulong to step away from the issue due to various conduct issues and yet, despite repeatedly promising to step away, Ryulong is going all Brokeback Mountain on this topic. I don't think Tutelary is in error in asking for action against Ryulong as a result.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban for Tutelary. The frivolous throwing around of WP:BOOMERANG in this topic has become over-utilized to dissuade editors from raising concerns about the questionable conduct of other editors. Weedwacker (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Trout and close discussion on this thread. We're clearly not going anywhere and there was arguably never anything to discuss in the first place. Trout the boomerang-related editors with final warnings on ANI frivolity and personal vendettas. Users should be encouraged to post at WP:GS/GG/E if they want to seek topic restrictions. (Non-administrator observation) Tstorm(talk) 07:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Nah, people should just wait for the ArbCom case to open, because it is painfully clear that silly enforcement page was only ever a doomed-to-failure attempt at blocking the inevitable ArbCom case.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I have to mournfully agree with this sentiment. An admin at WP:GS/GG/E said this should be here yet here it's said it should be there. That enforcement page has shown it's ineffectiveness. Weedwacker (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Very well, I can agree on both points. The does leave things in the air as to whether short-term sanctions will be put into effect at the start of the case, so that's my only concern. I will stand by the trouting recommendation and desire to close, however. Tstorm(talk) 07:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Because a boomerang is offensive to me as an Australian. (and im sick of all these grenades going everywhere) Retartist (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment It was suggested above that this be sent to WP:COIN. I don't think we can fix it over there. At WP:COIN, we mostly check references, remove unverifiable content, trim peacocking, propose article deletions, and clean up messes created by COI editors. If an editor has to be sanctioned, that's referred to WP:AN/I here. John Nagle (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Tit-for-tat bullshit like this is by far the worst thing about this site. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Cullen328 put it very well. There have been more repeated frivolous attacks on users (of which Ryulong is clearly a frequent target) than there have actually been productive discussions on the articles in question. This kind of thing is exactly what the sanctions should be working to curb. Hustlecat do it! 08:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Tutelary is not helping the encyclopedia but is instead using every opportunity to push a discredited line regarding their favorite topic. That would normally be standard operating procedure for Wikipedia, but there are only a small number of good editors willing to spend hours every day combatting the nonsense, and Tutelary is working hard to knock them out—WP:NOTHERE. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support This is the second time Tutelarys edits have seriously disrupted the encyclopedia. They have been relentlessly pushing an anti-feminist POV for some time and are now focused pretty much exclusively on promoting fringe views per GamerGate. It is not unusual that they are attacking Ryulong because he has been the target of repeated harassment from GamerGate message boards. I am almost certain that Tutelary reads these message boards and most likely contributes. What is happening here is that the harassment from said message boards has been taken to the website and Tutelary is using their account (that has many edits) in an attempt to legitimise said harassment. Do we have no rules on the website to prevent harassment? There are plenty of websites on the internet if a person wants to harass another individual, Wikipedia shouldn't be one.
Furthermore, this users support of adding libelous content to BLP articles (such as Zoe Quinn), the repeated promotion of fringe anti-feminist views and part in creating dedicated articles to the fappening are just some ways in which Tutelary has used Wikipedia as a platform to attack women. I recommend any blocking admin reads this past ANI [163]. There are multiple editors who are uncomfortable with Tutelarys actions -- (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Tutelary's attempt at bringing up WP:COI issues was misunderstood by some to be an accusation of paid editing. Also unfortunately for Tutelary, she didn't bring up all the key evidence in the first post. More evidence was brought up slightly later by Obsidi and Weedwhacker, and I have a feeling that not everyone has read all of the other evidence. Compound these two factors together and you have a situation which seemingly paints her in a bad light when all she wanted was to bring up a potential conflict of interest Ryulong has even admitted to. Trout, at most. starship.paint ~ regal 12:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Per Johnuniq. ReynTime (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, close and trout: Ryulong has, at least, an apparent conflict of interest (as acknowledged by Ryulong and Jimbo), that makes it not an example of "witch hunts and personal vendettas" and as such not a valid WP:BOOMERANG to bring up. Furthermore, many of people on this thread seem to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as to there being actual evidence that Ryulong did actually accept money from what he at least believed to be someone on /r/gamerghazi. Now you can believe that doesn't create a COI, but it is silly to call that WP:BOOMERANG worthy. --Obsidi (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I think that Tutelary's edits in the topic area GamerGate/men's rights movement tend to be unconstructive. I expressed and provided diffs for my concerns in this ANI discussion. Since then, it looks to me as if Tutelary's editing in the topic area has become more, not less, problematic. Take a look at this edit, for example. They restored and later fine-tuned a rambling mess consisting almost entirely of MRM original research. When I explained on the article talk page that they added back original research, Tutelary was unresponsive at first and then seemingly unwilling to fix their own mistake. It seems strange that they would restore claims from an MRA book that doesn't mention the article subject but delete a feminist study that does. Tutelary has made valuable contributions in other areas (e.g., fighting vandalism) but I don't think that their involvement in the GamerGate/men's rights topic area is helping the project. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seeking administrative intervention for disruptive editors is not in and of itself disruptive. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If it all this belongs to WP:GGE Avono (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

When general sanctions are steamrolled in without community support, and then only used on one side of the issue, you can't then complain that they're not working. You should have thought of that before proposing them to begin with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support Cullen calls it right. Except that Topic Banning Tutelary will only ease the drama, because the editor will find other means to disrupt the project. Topic Banning from all GG articles broadly construed should help though. Dave Dial (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

trolling account[edit]

Eating Glass Is Bad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) NE Ent 02:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) @NE Ent: Can you provide reason to why you think this is a account just for trolling? LorChat 02:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hehe, you didn't think just listing the account was enough? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking through the contribs does not bring anything up that may be troll'y in my eyes LorChat 02:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I was kidding/sarcastic. Of course, NE Ent has to provide evidence. He raises brevity to an unheard of level.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
AN/I is for Serious Buisness....Not Monkey Buisness! But in seriousness, he does need proof yes. LorChat 02:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, here's the proof: told Secret that his/her sig was inappropriate because of "account" here (Newyorkbrad warned him to stop it with this edit), then went to Ohnoitsjamie's tp and compared Secret to Vladimir Putin here (violated WP:NPA). --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I blocked him for a not insubstantial period of time; if he puts together an unblock request that makes significant sense, I'll lower it quite a bit. His contribs give me the distinct feeling he's either not here to build an encyclopedia, or has WP:CIR issues. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Also note the original username. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

  • As far as I can see, this is a sophisticated troll. They make just enough legit edits to argue that they are a constructive editor, meanwhile making edits like this. Note also, like Newyorkbrad already signaled, the pre-adolescent original user name. Editor seems to have a hangup about WP admins and given their knowledge of procedures and the above described behavior, I strongly suspect that this is not the first account of this person. Kevin Gorman's actions seem perfectly justified to me. --Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

IP User changing PROD page to AFD without starting an AFD discussion.[edit]

IP User edited a WP:PROD template, [diff 635480403], I put on the Dancing with the Stars (Australian season 15) article and turned it into an WP:AFD page instead, [diff 635592756], and from what I can see did not start an AFD discussion. Subsequent changes by the same user resulted in the page being redirected to the main Dancing with the Stars (Australian TV series) page, [diff 635595484], and the AFD template was removed against policy.

Even if the article is better justified by an AFD proposal rather than a PROD proposal, the AFD entry needs to be made and the AFD discussion needs to be allowed to run its course per policy. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 03:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe because IP user can't create a new page (and thus can't start the AfD page)? OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • IP has done nothing but wackadoodle edits on Wikipedia. Needs to be warned and then blocked if it continues. Softlavender (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Terry Benedict - Bleen Scammer[edit]

Seems like this user Terry_Benedict has been adding fake content since April 28 this year. All his edits since then have been to try to make it appear that Vladimir Titar, Oleg Kokhan, and other people that work for this fake Bleen company are real and have credible credentials. The Vladimir Titar and Oleg Kokhan were both already deleted but it appears that Oleg Kokhan is back.

Bleen is a Indigogo scam trying to collect $250K for an impossible 3d projector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) As I am not able to follow through this this myself, could we please get an admit over to Oleg Kokhan? It's 100% fabricated nonsense. As in literally 100%. None of the claims made or citations mentioned match what's in the article. What CSD category do hoaxes and invented BLP fall under, anyway? Additionally to the IP user posting this, it's not our business here to make ethical decisions about someone and that cannot directly impact how we treat articles. Your main point is taken, however. Tstorm(talk) 08:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm that Oleg Kokhan was previously deleted and why?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok yes it was for being an unsourced BLP it seems.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
This individual seems to be real. The editor contacted the individual who deleted to discuss it before they recreated it. They just created it. It needs sourcing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Anthony Appleyard has now deleted the article as a hoax. De728631 (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick note, Serialjoepsycho — it's easy to find out whether an existing title has been deleted before. Go to the page's history tab and click "View logs for this page"; this will show you deletions, protections, pagemoves, and plenty of other things, or you can simply tell the dropdown to give you deletions only. Please note that this reflects the pagename, not necessarily the current page: it returns results for unrelated pages at the same title, and if the current page has been moved, it won't return any results for the current page pre-move. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

copyright allegations[edit]

Can someone please have a look at this: - clear allegations, no refs, may need oversight etc. Sorry I can't do more than a quick ANI as I am at work. Thanks DBaK (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


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

  • I agree with J. Milburn's assessment of the situation. The situation at the WikiCup talk page has been quite heated, but Bloom's gone a bit too far. Will block if consensus is for it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This editor looks like the whole package of problems. Support long block. SPACKlick (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Bloom6132 notified here The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support block This will be imputed as harassment and dealt with accordingly feels like its designed to have a chilling effect either at an individual or a wider range of editors. Personal attacks and accusations of breeching NLT seem to be at best unconstructive and at worst intentionally disruptive. Amortias (T)(C) 13:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You've been here for six months, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what an WP:IBAN is. It's a two-way street BTW, so I'm not giving a "chilling effect either at an individual or a wider range of editors" as you had implicitly accused me of doing. For example, the first person banned on my TP hasn't talked to me since October 22, and neither have I. Unfortunately, this IBAN had to be violated just 1h38m after I issued it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Except, Bloom, that you can't unilaterally "issue" interaction bans. Take another look at the banning policy. "Bans are a possible outcome of dispute resolution. They may be imposed by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee or, in certain topic areas, by administrators." There is no interaction ban, here- there is you telling me that I'm not welcome on your talk page. J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of what an WP:IBAN is and aware of how it works. I am also aware that you can request users not to post on your talk page. Nowhere have I implicitley accused you of anthing (and if I gave that impression it was in error) I gave my opinion on the matter as how the statements read to me. Could you provide an answer or explanation of the other points metioned above such as the accusation of fascism. Amortias (T)(C) 14:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with this 100%. He has a battleground mentality as you can see in the discussions here. We (Me, Ritchie333, FreeRangeFrog, Secret, and others) were trying to have a civilized discussion, while Bloom was throwing accusations of "bagdering" and "abuse" at us. We were calm while he was getting worked up. --AmaryllisGardener talk 13:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course you were all "calm" when implicitly impugning my integrity, accusing me of "twist[ing] things around", and calling me the reason "why RfA is failing" (same diff). And it's not just me, it's the same treatment you guys gave to anyone who opposed. Chris troutman was also blamed for being "reason why RFA is broken", as well as for stack voting. Even supporters of Czar were reminded you guys not to corner those who voted to oppose. And yet you call this a "civilized discussion". More like baiting. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Those diffs don't make you look better Bloom, they show you over-reacting to civil discourse. SPACKlick (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, "civil discourse" made hand-in-hand with passive-aggressive behavior. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a shame, as I have evidence (from his GA and DYK contributions) that he's a good editor, but he hasn't assumed as much good faith as I would have liked in discussions, his beef with Czar over the WikiCup sounds like a grudge (and when I said I agreed I thought the WikiCup had problems it was ignored), and his talk page brings to mind WP:OWB #48 : "People who put lists of users they don't like on their user pages won't be around for long" I've got a nasty feeling as soon as he joins this thread he's going to run out of WP:ROPE, which is a shame. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support block Whilst I agree with Richie333 that his content work is generally a positive, Bloom6132 really doesn't seem capable of conforming to community standards of behaviour - his inability to drop the stick in disputes and his apparent blindness to his own personal attacks on other editors (cf. this unblock appeal and my response) seems to generate conflict whenever he's required to interact with others. I don't see that positive content contributions balance out this kind of confrontational editing. (Caveat: it should be noted that I too am "banned" from Bloom6123's talkpage, for making attempts ([164],[165]) to curb his behaviour.) Yunshui  14:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
"For making attempts to curb his behaviour" – first off, enough with the patronizing paternalistic tone. Secondly, you were banned for gravedancing during and after my block and rubbing it into my face. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "you were banned for gravedancing during and after my block and rubbing it into my face" Banned? Gravedancing? Rubbing it into my face? What? Not what I'm seeing. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "What? Not what I'm seeing" – says the person who has been baiting me non-stop over the past 2 days. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)