Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Topic ban for UrbanVillager

Based on this discussion, I'd like to propose a topic ban for User:UrbanVillager on all Boris Malagurski-related articles. The editor is largely a huge SPA who only promotes the filmmaker Malagurski. Beyond edit warring, there has been a recent rise in attacks via complaints to ANI (and now SPI complaints). See Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains#Pincrete_behaving_like_he.2Fshe_owns_this_page for further conduct since the last ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. After the earlier ANI report, I watchlisted a few Malagurski-related articles to keep up with what was going on and, hopefully, offer a neutral opinion on what I expected to be the occasional content dispute. I quickly removed them all, as I couldn't handle the endless drama and pointless edit wars. In the above-linked talk page discussion, UrbanVillager threatens to disrupt the article to make a point. I think it's time to say "enough is enough". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban; the ownership and promotional editing have continued despite all attempts by other editors to intervene. I have long since given up trying to improve those articles. bobrayner (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Sadly, I can simply copy&paste my previous response: I remain utterly unconvinced that the account UrbanVillager is anything other than an egregious WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT violation, per evidence collected in 2012, but discarded on a number of technicalities. Even if others aren't convinced about all that WP:DUCK material, it still doesn't take a lot of effort to conclude that this account by itself is a single-purpose account that is not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to engage in a shameless promotion of Boris Malagurski, which in turn is a slippery slope into advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle. The entire thing has been a humongous waste of time, and this iteration is no different. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Clearly a tendentious and promotional single-purpose account with a massive conflict of interest. We don't need to tolerate such editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have not decided on this issue yet but an editor from 2010 who had contributed to a variety of topics does not seem to indicate a SPA to me. Chillum 00:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The topics edited on all relate either to the filmmaker, to the documentaries themselves or to the people interviewed in the documentaries. I'm not seeing a large variety unless you're including some edits years ago related to Serbia generally. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE 5th November, UrbanVillager, today made 7 edits on subjects not related to Malagurski, these are almost the only non-Malagurski edits in the last 3 years, even edits on subjects such as Serbian Canadians, or on talk-pages are almost ALWAYS directly connected to Malagurski (see also global edit histories below). Pincrete (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A few very close calls. Most recent edits are mostly in the topic area of Boris Malagurski, however there are enough old edits in other areas that I am not willing to push too hard on the SPA side of things to a topic ban (I would need more evidence of actual promotion/advocacy that I haven't seen yet). [1] gets very, close to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, HOWEVER he doesn't ACTUALLY disrupt Wikipedia as he suggests, and as the WP:NOTPOINTy says "just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point." Which I think applies in this case. --Obsidi (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The two ANI's referred to by Ricky81682 above are examples of ACTUAL disruption. Having made these accusations, UrbanVillager, offered no further evidence, (but still repeats the accusations in his response below). Every editor substantially involved in the WoC over the last two years has been a target of UrbanVillager's specious accusations. I have created a section below detailing disruption[2]. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment User:Ankit Maity made a relevant comment in the discussion further down this page, which I'm going to go ahead and quote:

I don't get this All SPAs are bad concept. Come on, this is not some satanic cult promoting their ancient religion of Sabbatic craft. It's simply a user who is interested in editing a specific topic. Unless the user displays really poor knowledge of policies, has COI or fails to maintain NPOV, he shouldn't be classified as a bad SPA. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 13:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

--Richard Yin (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, it needs a showing of "has COI or fails to maintain NPOV", although if it is a SPA that suggests that such a NPOV/COI argument is going to be stronger, but it needs to actually be made. --Obsidi (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Plenty of evidence has been given about the tendentious and promotional nature of UrbanVillager's editing. Given the previous history of disruption and self-promotion by Bormalagurski (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppets, we shouldn't tolerate very similar behavior by UrbanVillager, even if he's not Malagurski himself. (And why should we care?) No such user (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban per Obsidi, Ankit Maity, and Richard Yin's comments. Yes, there are some tendentious edits here but it is not all UrbanVillager's doing. As an example, see this recent revert war between UV and Pincrete: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] It looks to me like no editor has bothered to try to explain to UrbanVillager why his edits are unduly promotional, citing actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and why calling good-faith editors "vandals" is unacceptable. Instead, it does seem very much to me as though a small group of editors including Pincrete, Ricky81682, Joy, bobrayner and NinjaRobotPirate simply assumed that UrbanVillager is Boris Malagurski (Joy has said so outright a number of times) despite multiple investigations they opened being shut down for lack of evidence or concluding in the contrary, and have simply treated this editor in bad faith anyway. There is clear POV-pushing here from both sides. Warnings are deserved all around but a one-sided topic ban does the encyclopedia no service. Ivanvector (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector, names 5 editors above, one of them (NinjaRobotPirate) has never edited on Malagurski pages, nor (as far as I know), inter-acted with any 'key' editors, it is therefore unfair to make NRP in any way responsible for what has or should have happened or not happened. I will reply to IV's comments about me if he wishes. Pincrete (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary, Pincrete, my point is that I don't think there's anything actionable here. My apologies to NinjaRobotPirate, I thought I saw a comment from you in one of the sockpuppet investigations but I was mistaken, and it was sloppy of me to have named you in my comment. Ivanvector (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's alright. No harm done. Like I mentioned earlier, I came into this long-running dispute rather late. I think that I did post to a talk page once or twice, but I quickly gave up. I'm not especially concerned with whether anyone here is a sock puppet or SPA; instead, my concerns are the unending drama, edit wars, and POV-pushing. While it's true that neither side has been purity itself, only one editor has threatened to disrupt the article. I understand why some people are opposing, but it's just going to drag this drama out even longer, and we'll be back here again in a few weeks. I think it's better to resolve it now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per User:Ivanvector and because I believe that Ricky abused the tools. Caden ^cool 20:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As editors have asked for evidence of 'disruptive behaviour', I have created a section below [15], I will attempt later to include evidence of NPOV editing. The two together, combined with edit history, constitute a WP:DUCK argument for a COI. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'd only like to note that most of the editors requesting the topic ban (including Ricky, who initiated the ban and was given the "Official Frown of Disapproval for imposing a ban in a matter upon which they also expressed a deliberative view and been an active editor") are involved in the matter at hand. I came here to edit, not to fight with anyone. And anyone who checks my earlier editing work will see how much I contributed to Malagurski-related articles. He or she will also see how much I am unable to do so anymore because of constant obstructions by editors who would rather have no Malagurski-related articles on Wikipedia whatsoever. So, if the Wikipedia community wants to ban someone who is genuinely interested in this topic and has contributed to the best of my ability, I will respect that decision. It would've helped if there was at least one friendly editor working on Malagurski-related articles who didn't immediately jump on me, accusing me of being Malagurski or promoting him, just because I wouldn't join the anti-Malagurski band wagon. I tried to be neutral and anyone who invests more time into my edit history will see how much criticism towards Malagurski and his work I agreed to be added to the article, how much I brought up myself (sourced, of course). But it wasn't enough. If the decision here is that a ban on my contributions towards Malagurski-related articles should not be placed, any edit I make to those articles will be reverted, by Pincrete, Bobrayner, citing "consensus" they create through mere plurality. I am effectively already banned, so make it official, if you please. Or, instead of just discussing the matter here, have a look at the Malagurski-related articles, edit them, contribute to their quality. Help create real consensus, that's what Wikipedia is all about, isn't it? Anybody can open cases here, write "Support" or "Oppose", briefly divulge why, and leave. If you wrote here, show interest and help make these articles better. Banning or not banning me won't make them better. And I came here to make them better. Since I can't do that anymore, it's up to you. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply to comment, Ricky81682 has been involved in the articles for approx. 1 month, bobrayner loosely involved for 3 years. How does 2 editors become UrbanVillager's MOST of the editors requesting the topic ban … are involved in the matter at hand? UrbanVillager says how much criticism towards Malagurski and his work I agreed to be added to the article, how much I brought up myself. I know of only one (very mild) criticism supplied by UrbanVillager (that the films are controversial, from a javno interview), correct me please if I am wrong.

I know of no anti-Malagurski band wagon, and when asked by myself and Euryalus, to prove "conspiracies", "editors that openly despise the work" and "canvassing' that UrbanVillager accuses other editors of (in 'response' below), UrbanVillager relied on a single remark from an editor retired two years ago, and (out of context) talk page comments from me on my first day as an editor also over 2 years ago. I'm afraid that the history shows that UrbanVillager HAS fought with every editor in the last two years, and HAS fought to keep article pages as promotional as possible, using disruption, personal abuse, misrepresenting sources, ignoring copyvio and pursuing spurious ANI's in order to do so. Pincrete (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete, you're forgetting Joy, who has been involved in the issue since as early as 2012 ([16]). You're forgetting NinjaRobotPirate as well, who is also involved [17], so the only uninvolved editors supporting the ban are No such user and Future Perfect at Sunrise, both, however, very involved in Balkans-related topics, such as the ones Malagurski discusses in his films. When it comes to editors uninvolved with Malagurski-related articles, 2 are for the ban, 3 are against. That isn't much of a consensus for a ban. Nevertheless, I have already explained why with the help of you, Pincrete, and your friend Bobrayner, I am already effectively banned from Malagurski-related articles as every edit I make is disputed and essentially blocked by you two, so any decision made here makes no difference. It's sad that Malagurski-related articles attract more editors who are against his work than those who are genuinely interested in making the articles neutral and of a good quality, but if that's the way Wikipedia is heading, I refuse to be a part of it. That's why any decision made here makes no difference, and I call on other editors who don't have a personal view regarding Malagurski and his work to join the editing process and help make those articles better. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, NinjaRobotPirate's 'involvement', extends to a single response on talk, to a RSN posting. Joy, has (I believe), not edited on any of these articles for 2-3 years, (though yes, Joy was involved in previous ANIs). You repeatedly allude to 'conspiracies', 'band wagons', 'canvassing' (in the above comment and in 'response' below), you contrast your own 'neutrality' with others (ALL others it seems) POV. I and others have asked for proofs, where are they? Pincrete (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC) … … ps I AGREE that involving new editors would benefit the neutrality of the articles and have posted a request in the past on the film noticeboard. Pincrete (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone should be banned it should be Ricky. Caden ^cool 17:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, why is that? It's not like I actually used any tools here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Response

So, a ban on a topic because I'm interested in it? Well, alright, makes sense. However, Pincrete and some other editors have openly said that they despise Malagurski and his work, openly allowing their POV to affect their editing on Wikipedia, but nobody cares about that because they edit other articles as well, while it's apparently punishable to edit only one topic area on Wikipedia. So far, I've been accused of being Boris Malagurski, twice, of being paid by him, being his friend or whatever, when in essence, all I'd really like is to contribute to the area of interest, presenting well-sourced material, regardless of whether it's positive or negative towards Malagurski and his films (for those who have the time or interest to look into it, they'll notice I myself put forward sources that were critical towards Malagurski, so this notion that I "promote the filmmaker Malagurski" is pure nonsense.

Basically, a couple of editors who despise Malagurski and his work (and have openly said that) flared up the topic area by manipulating editors who don't have the time to look into the issue deeper and presenting me as Malagurski, on his payroll or whatever, saying that I must be removed so that they can continue editing the article in a way that makes Malagurski look as bad as possible. I hope that this won't happen, but everything Pincrete and some other editors have done to Malagurski-related articles had the goal of making Malagurski look bad, while everything I've done is to contribute to the neutrality of the article, not really wanting to make Malagurski look good or bad, but so simply present what he does and what other sources write about him and his work. That's all. I follow his work and if it's a punishable offence to edit articles that interest me and discuss them on the article talk pages, sure, ban me. It's easier to ban one person and let the others do what they want to the article, as they've attempted before through canvassing, so I understand it's the easy way out. I've spent a lot of time on Wikipedia editing Malagurski-related articles and I think I made an honest contribution. If a ban is my prize, so be it, though I'm still proud of defending neutrality on Wikipedia, despite some editors manipulating the system to get rid of me. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop lying about other editors. bobrayner (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment on response, apart from myself, and UrbanVillager the editors who have contributed to the Boris Malagurski pages are Somedifferentstuff, Bobrayner, and … … Recent minor edits 23 editor, Tiptoethrutheminefield . So, it is difficult to understand who UrbanVillager's 'some other editors' could be. … … (I've discounted, bots, editors involved for 'Admin' reasons:- Ricky81682, Diannaa, Dougweller, Dennis Brown … … Retired editors Producer (Retired May 2014 ) … Opbeith (last BM edit 16/10/2012 [18]) … … Banned editors Kepkke, Staro Gusle … … I've also discounted any 'one-off' editors especially if edits were more than 2 years ago.) Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC) … … Further comment on response, UrbanVillager, above refers repeatedly to 'a few other editors', but (apart from me), does not name them (he cannot, there ARE only a few others). He repeatedly says that I and other editors have openly said we 'despise Malagurski and his work'. He accuses editors of canvassing. Pincrete (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Two quick questions - Chillum, are you still considering this? And UrbanVillager, can you please provide diffs supporting your statement that other relevant editors said they despise Malagurski and his work. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No I have not considered this further. Chillum 17:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It would take a while to gather all the diffs, but here are a few: Opbeith saying "'Malagurski's work is crap ... and it's knowingly deceitful crap" [19] (Note: Opbeith stopped editing Wikipedia November 2012, but Pincrete continued Opbeith's mission and gave the following thoughts about "The Weight of Chains", Malagurski's film:

"I'm personally thinking of making an alternative view of the Second World War, I'll start off with some cute film of some Jewish people telling the world how nice the Germans families always were to them, I'll have lots of stories of the rape and slaughter of Germans as the Russians advanced and as the Western Allies bombed .... I'll of course devote much time to the terrible conditions imposed on Germany by the 1919 Armistice ... I can probably find many individual Germans who did - throughout - act heroically and humanely. This won't be a difficult film to make, since all these things are true. I won't of course bother to mention Auschwitz, the invasion of 20 countries, the suppression of any dissenting views within Germany .... Why should I? "It's a movie .... It's an alternative view" ... put your feet up, get some popcorn watch my movie." [20]

Pincrete also presents his POV of Malagurski's film, instead of discussing the quality of the article, not the content itself: "Anyhow, many of the claims made in the film are NOT from verifiable sources ... or are from sources that a MASSIVE weight of evidence contradicts." [21], Also, he said: "those who made, watch and attempt to whitewash this film are painting themselves into an intellectual and moral corner." [22]

Bobrayner calls Malagurski a "minor film-maker" here: [23], and discusses "Malagurski-spam" here: [24]. That's only a part of it, unfortunately I don't have time right now to look for more. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager's quotes are ALL from remarks I made on the talk page on my FIRST and SECOND DAY as an editor in late 2012, I plead guilty to becoming involved (with UrbanVillager and Opbeith) in a somewhat esoteric discussion about intellectual honesty in documentaries, which - green though I was - I quickly realised was going nowhere. Even then UrbanVillager robs my quote of context as much of what I wrote that day was a direct response to HIS remarks earlier in the page. The more substantive point underlying that discussion, was HOW to represent the many controversial claims in this film, since Opbeith's and my complaint in 2012 was that the article was simply a copy/paste of the film's own website and press releases, and remained so till very recently (I didn't know about copyvio at that time, nor how to report it).

The fact that UrbanVillager needs to drag Opbeith into this (who made few article edits during 2011 and RETIRED in 2012), advertises the poverty of UrbanVillager's 'conspiracy theories'. Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Requests for further information

Obsidi, User:Ankit Maity, Ivanvector,Richard Yin have, variously, left comments or requested further information above. The subjects of there requests are (again variously), lack of evidence of ACTUAL disruptive behaviour, or of NPOV editing. This section is a response to those requests. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

The two ANI's UrbanVillager recently initiated are examples of ACTUAL disruptive behaviour. In the case of the SPI, brought against me :[25], about which the 'closing clerk' JamesBWatson, later modified his comments :[26]. This SPI is especially absurd, since even if I WERE Opbeith (or his pet monkey), not a single comma was changed in any article as a result of the 3-4 weeks (two years ago) during which we overlapped as editors. Opbeith was not banned nor censured and if Opbeith had chosen to retire and re-appear as Pincrete, no WP rule would have been broken. UrbanVillager has himself been involved in enough SPI's to know that a check-user would be so stale as to be pointless. UrbanVillager initiated this SPI because he had, been warned about clogging the talk page with accusations and disruptive comments . Thus in this SPI there was no suspicion of any 'crime' having occurred.

The earlier ANI (against myself and bobrayner) was almost equally spurious.[27] While the matter was on the ANI, UrbanVillager made this edit on 17th Sept :-[28]. The first review he inserted,(VICE) was already the subject of a RSN here:[29], where it was rejected (editors concluding that this was an advert, not a review). The second 'review' (Elich), was actually from an interview between the director and one of the people in the film. The third review's intro is altered by describing the reviewer ('teaching assistant'), and source ('blog') in a way which UrbanVillager KNEW to be incorrect. The fourth 'review' (Pečat) has ultimately been accepted in the article. That UrbanVillager's changes did not have consensus, is shown by going to the 'next' edit. This happened at a time that UrbanVillager had recently been warned about making non-consensus changes to this section. All of the objections to the reviews (except Pečat), had already been made clear, including here[30], where a threat is made, which is executed the next day. [31]

UrbanVillager's edit reason on 17th Sept, is itself perverse ("re-adding valid response, as per User:Tiptoethrutheminefield's explanations of Wikipedia policy:[32]"), a relatively novice editor had left a comment on the ANI, which UrbanVillager chose to interprete as a statement of WP policy. Having not 'got away with' this edit, UrbanVillager then offered no further evidence on that ANI, replied to no questions, but 'disappeared' for several weeks, having wasted an enormous amount of my, bobrayner's and Admin time and goodwill.

Ivanvector, refers to an edit war between UrbanVillager and (chiefly) myself during the summer (In my own defence I say this, I have NEVER previously been involved in an edit war, I was defending a majority viewpoint, I repeatedly offered compromises which were consistent with what RSs said (which were not even discussable to UV), and I ultimately called a 'truce' voluntarily BEFORE we were both reported and censured). Whereas I attempted to de-escalate matters, UrbanVillager escalated the edit-war by removing/re-writing the entire 'criticism' section. Whereas I have since then been extremely cautious about modifying this section, UrbanVillager has continued to attempt to insert dubiously sourced and misrepresented 'reviews'.[33] [34][35]

The first of these two 'reviews', turns out to be an artist's private website, the second (when a source was found, the given ref is simply a mirror), turns out to be a very brief account of a 'panel discussion', written by a student, and Markovic is not a 'Professor', (the word means teacher in many European languages). However despite reservations, neither I nor other editors have ruled out using the quote, as long as it is not given undue weight. UrbanVillager, when reverted by another editor, then attempts to appeal directly to Ricky81682 [36], again misrepresenting both Markovic and Kilibarda(Markovic = "Prof. dr Predrag J. Markovic is, indeed, very notable and perhaps the most important professional response this film has received". Kilibarda = "teaching assistants at a Hamilton university"). UrbanVillager characterises me as 'His Royal Highness Pincrete', (because I have asked for a source/author), accuses Somedifferentstuff of disruptive behaviour, and signs off "Now go ahead and let your friends Bob Rayner and Somedifferentstuff know that they should jump in and back you up", a remark presumably directed at me.

I have strayed from 'disruptive behaviour' into NPOV editing, however the two are connected, the behaviour appears intended to retain WP:ownership. I finish this section by referring to interaction with other editors. During the 2+ years I have been (on and off) involved with The Weight of Chains, there have been about 8 editors who have been involved for more than a few weeks, '(additionally a few only on the talk page 'inc.Whitewriter), every one of them has at some point been accused of collaborating/conspiring etc. with the purpose of degrading the article (except recent editor Ricky81682 and Whitewriter), several of them repeatedly accused on ANIs.

Recently I am the one who has received the 'lion's share' of PERSONAL abuse (I don't have a brain, can't speak English, can't read, know nothing about film's or festivals, don't know what a film credit or synopsis is, and shouldn't be allowed to edit these articles since I don't know Serbian sufficiently fluently, ought to tell UrbanVillager WHO I am to show my competence to edit … as well, of course, as being 'His Royal Highness Pincrete' and various other things … does anyone actually want the diffs?). Enduring this stuff is mostly tiresome, however it does create a toxic atmosphere, which in itself is 'actual disruption'.

I intend to add the case for NPOV editing, when I have time. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Note I have not had time, but will do so of requested. Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Yes, every time you make a claim about another editor attacking you, you need to provide proof in the form of diffs. I see in one of the discussions you linked to that other editors have pointed that out to you before, as well as advised you not to put up walls of text like what you wrote above. You could summarize: "here's UV re-adding sources [diffs] that were rejected by consensus at RSN [diffs]. Here's UV throwing personal attacks: [diffs] Here's where 700 editors have tried to reason with policy arguments [diffs] but UV reinserted material anyway [diffs]."

We've discussed above and elsewhere how being a SPA is not forbidden, if editors are not disruptive. UrbanVillager is a disruptive SPA, based on what diffs Pincrete did provide, but not the only editor misbehaving in this topic area. However, the extended detail of UV insisting on using sources deemed unacceptable by RSN and repeatedly reinserting material against consensus are more problematic. But is this enough to support a topic ban for a user who only wishes to edit that topic (effectively a community ban) when they have never been sanctioned previously? (except once for editing against an inappropriately applied topic ban - quickly reversed)

I'm not an admin here and I may be punching above my weight, but I would like to propose we try a block, for edit warring against consensus and (if diffs are provided) personal attacks. UrbanVillager will be free to edit when the block expires but if they continue the same behaviour that led to the block, it will be very easy to support a WP:NOTHERE ban as the next step. Thoughts? Ivanvector (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, the paragraph above, beginning: "Recently I am the one who has received the 'lion's share' of PERSONAL abuse", do you dispute that my record is accurate regarding remarks directed by you against me since approx. April 2014? Can you cite any abuse or accusations made by me against you that might have justified your remarks, EXCEPT my saying that you seem to look upon the film maker himself as the only reliable source of information? (which I don't believe was ever phrased abusively). Do you also dispute that I, and others, have several times asked you to stop making such abusive remarks?

Ivanvector, I really don't have time to assemble diffs for personal abuse and consider NPOV editing more important, however the above para gives UrbanVillager the opportunity to contradict me. Should it prove important, I will assemble such diffs. Regarding bans, I have no opinion, except that those extolling 'assume good faith' should be willing to get their hands dirty by staying involved with the pages, because those who HAVE been involved, even briefly, have all had their patience exhausted. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, there are no such requirements for assuming good faith - we expect it of everyone. You've made some serious accusations of wrongdoing above with your "lion's share" comment, but I'm not going to just take your word for it - show your work. Or be prepared to retract. I could go look myself but we're talking about an alleged pattern of abuse going back years over dozens of pages. I don't have time either, but I'm also not the one making accusations. I'll suggest to you that if maintaining NPOV is your primary concern (which is good) and you see UrbanVillager as the primary impediment to that, then you should make time to find those diffs. Ivanvector (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector, in respect of personal abuse against me, it has taken place since June this year. I have assembled the proofs below, but still regard other matters as more important. I have struck through my earlier remark about 'good faith', which was born out of exasperation. I have wasted an inordinate amount of time in the last 2 months defending myself against accusations which were wholly spurious. Pincrete (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I have collapsed the proofs section below, as I do not wish it to distract this ANI. Belligerent behaviour is unpleasant, however, it is less serious than the purpose for which it is employed, which is to retain ownership in order that the article continues to be little better than a promotional outpost of the film maker's own publicity machine, which I contend it has hitherto been. Pincrete (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal abuse

Evidence of personal abuse requested by Ivanvector

I have been asked by Ivanvector, to provide proofs for my 'lion's share' para above concerning personal abuse. Below are the proofs, italics (except in brackets), are direct quotes from UrbanVillager, plain text (and bracketed italics) are used to clarify context. Do you speak English? [37] ... This was a response to my observation that WP should not be using the peacocky description "Official selection for XYZ festival", where "Official selection" was not used by XYZ festival itself. In previous discussions, you've shown that you don't know what are film credits, that you don't know how festivals work, and now you're showing that you don't understand the definition of a synopsis[38] ... This remark was a reply to my observation that the synopsis needed re-writing, from ==synopsis==:-[39] My reply to UrbanVillager's post is Synopsis: I agree[40]. (large sections of the article were removed shortly therafter for copyvio of the film maker's website) Edit reason here: can't you read? It was here before you started editing the article [41]. The film is Canadian, it says so in the film credits. Either you can't read or have a POV agenda.[42] ... This last was a response to a compromise I had proposed over the film's 'nationality',(during the edit war referred to by IvanVector above) my response is in the 'next' edit. your anti-Malagurski, anti-Yugoslav agenda.[43] ... This was a response to my querying whether, what appeared to be an interview given by the film maker in a Balkan paper (ie self-sourced), was a sufficiently RS for the film maker having given a presentation at Google headquarters in USA shortly before (the only source to report the event but phrased in 'our voice'). No, see, this is where a human brain comes in and says "It's Malagurski's film, the credits are there to give details about the film" ... I'd like to ask you one more time to stop trolling and find some constructive way to contribute to Wikipedia. Stop pushing your anti-Malagurski, anti-Serbian and anti-Yugoslav POV. [44] ... Once again my response is in the 'next' edit. His Royal Highness Pincrete[45] ... As referred to above, this also accuses two other editors and misrepresents the 'reviews'. Pincrete is canvassing in desperate attempt to fabricate consensus[46] ... I claim that I was informing, since the editor had made edits and comments only 3 days before. The incident referred to by UrbanVillager is here:-[47] "I shouldn't be allowed to edit these articles since I don't know Serbian sufficiently fluently, and ought to tell UrbanVillager WHO I am to show my competence to edit", this sentence is my summary of the discussion here.[48] ... The context is that I mis-read an ENGLISH translation, while doing article tidying, apologised and remedied the error. On this occasion I retaliated by pointing out that UrbanVillager's English isn't perfect (I believe this is the only time I have done so). The entire article (created by UrbanVillager) has since been deleted for copyvio.

Additionally UrbanVillager has 'outed' another editor on that editor's talk page, which I am willing to provide proofs of 'off-wiki', do so here would compound the 'outing'.Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

ps UrbanVillager has never apologised to any editor, (to the best of my knowledge), certainly not to me. Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Global edit histories

These diffs show the edit histories of UrbanVillager: … … Commons [49] … … German [50] nb Das Gewicht der Ketten = The Weight of Chains … … Greek [51] nb Το Βάρος των Αλυσίδων = The Weight of Chains ‎ … … Spanish [52] … … Italian [53] nb Il peso delle catene = The Weight of Chains … … Meta [54] nb complaints about block [55]and about removal of Malagurski page on Croatian WP [56] … … Romanian [57] nb Тяжесть цепей ‎= The Weight of Chains … … Russian [58] nb Тяжесть цепей = The Weight of Chains ‎… … Sh (Serbo-Croatian?) [59] … … Serbian [60] nb Борис Малагурски = Boris Malagurski Косово: Можете ли замислити? = Kosovo Can You Imagine ‎ Тежина ланаца = The Weight of Chains … …Global[61] … … nb additionally, Hr(Croatian) 17 edits Don't show … 4 French edits which don't show … Bs (Bosnian) 1 doesn't show … Arabic there are 2 which I don't understand.

In every instance, the Weight of Chains article differs little from the 'about' page of the Malagurski website or press pack, as was the case with the English WofC page until very recently (which caused it to be in breach of copyvio, nearly 4 years after its first warning). Approx. 99% of UrbanVillager's edits on English Wikipedia relate directly to Malagurski, English 500 [62]. WP is being used internationally as little more than a shop window for an otherwise obscure and highly politically contentious film maker. Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Weight of Chains: discretionary sanctions

There is probably enough of a consensus above to (re-)implement this topic ban, but as I said (comment buried in discussion) I think that is unduly harsh for an editor with a declared interest in only that topic - we are effectively community banning UrbanVillager by doing so. I suggested a block but that would be against WP:NOTPUNISHMENT at this point. And I also think that this discussion has tired everyone here out already, let alone the multiple other discussions that have happened recently. So I'd like to propose a different avenue of resolution:

The Weight of Chains is subject to discretionary sanctions in the Balkans subject area - the tag was posted by Ricky81682 on October 1, 2014, but all Malagurski-related articles could be tagged for discretionary sanctions for the same reason. I don't see that any of the editors involved in this discussion have been properly alerted (per ArbCom's guidance). There has been enough misbehaviour at that article alone that several of the editors commenting here could be currently waiting out their initial one-month blocks for disruption, had they been properly alerted. I propose alerting those users now with {{Ds/alert}}, and taking no further action at this time. If the users continue to be disruptive, they can be dealt with quickly under WP:AC/DS. Ivanvector (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I think a topic ban may be harsh but the editor is taking on a topic (not just the filmmaker but the theory itself) that falls under ARCOM sanctions for a reason and it's being that there's a lot of nasty arguments from people who aren't here with the right mindset. Four years of warnings about editing on either that filmmaker, his films or other things in the same sphere seems like enough time with enough warnings about tenacious editing to say 'go work on something that isn't subject to these Eastern European arguments so we can see if it's you or the topic that's the problem.' Would this warning about Malagurski specifically be notice? (Based on this discussion it seems). I'm putting it out there, I don't think any editor would understand that the entirety of his works is within the sanctions but I can live with just warnings if everything gets tagged and all the editors all around are warned about it. The talk pages have been nothing but sockpuppetry accusations and other comments that really are poisoning the well all around but that likely comes with the subject matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That definitely counts as alerting under the WP:AC/DS guidance, but that is from 2012, and users are supposed to have been alerted within the past twelve months for discretionary sanction actions to be valid. The template is also supposed to be applied to the user's talk page, so the advisory on the Weight of Chains talk doesn't count for this purpose. My impression is that Malagurski is notable because of his controversial views, so it does make sense to me that the entirety of our writing about him falls under the ArbCom decision. We could request an interpretation, but I see no harm in delivering the warnings anyway - they are not meant to imply wrongdoing (the alert template says so). Ivanvector (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Also: this proposal is not intended to be mutually exclusive to the topic ban above. We could block/ban UrbanVillager and warn everyone else, if that is what the consensus dictates (although I remain opposed to the topic ban myself). Ivanvector (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Procedurally, the old warning on user talk is still valid; last time I looked, warnings under the old pre-2014 system were grandfathered in and are to lose their validity only 12 months after the coming into force of the new procedures, which was around May 2014 if I'm not mistaken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, bureaucracy! Well if that old warning can be considered valid, then the topic ban that Ricky applied is valid, although he did so under the auspices of community consensus and not under the authority of discretionary sanctions, and he may be involved. There's a weak consensus above; if the ban is restored and UrbanVillager appeals to ArbCom, citing procedural nonsense here or not being aware of the old warning, we're likely to end up right back here again. And it's possible that they will get the message from how thoroughly their behaviour is being criticized here that they'll shape up. And if not, then a long block supported by a fresh warning will be very difficult to appeal. Ivanvector (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Question. Is it the case that the proposed discretionary sanctions would automatically apply to ANY editors, (including new editors) editing these pages? If so, I think them a very good idea, since whilst I have argued elsewhere that the problems of these pages are NOT classic 'Balkan problems', the imposition of greater regulation would benefit ANYONE coming to these pages for the 'right' reasons. I would hold this point of view regardless of the outcome of this ANI. Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Balkans discretionary sanctions apply to the topic, not the editor or the page. While the sanction is in effect, any editor who disrupts can be warned by any user, and then blocked by any admin if they continue. (This is not my idea, it's from WP:AC/DS) It was determined elsewhere that WoC falls under the sanction due to the film's content, but other pages we're talking about would be open to debate. Ivanvector (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So, it doesn't look like the ARBCOM sanctions are the way to go. Anyone want to close this? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret

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

• The WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless.
• And we all [k]now that you Qack, are the master of ridiculous.
• They have also been involved in a fair bit of WP:CANVASSING. For example he recently put these notes on a couple of users talk pages requesting their participation [63] and [64] and others. They earlier requested the support of one of these users after having made some controversial changes [65]

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[66]? This seems more like a play to remove editors that you disagree with, than a true complaint, sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure that what is described here is canvassing. AlbinoFerret neutrally notified seven different editors, each of whom had previously edited the page or engaged in Talk discussions and had expressed different views, of an RFC occurring on the page: the two above plus [67][68][69][70][71] 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.[72][73] 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."[74] 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.[75] 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 [76] 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)

• 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."[77] 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."[78] Lots of sourced text was removed from the article[79][80] 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.[81] 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 [82], 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.[83] 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)

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

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

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

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

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

  For the game-playing, one example: AF was involved in this Talk page discussion regarding one source, it concluded with no consensus to include the source because it didn't meet the WP:MEDRS standards. It was added back anyway by another editor, which led to this DRN discussion that AF was involved it. It was closed as successful by the DRN volunteer against AF's position, with "no consensus to include". AF appears to have taken this as a license to open up RFCs at the article Talk page over content he doesn't like, and then use that as an excuse to removed lots of well-sourced content while stating "no consensus to include". For example, review this RFC AF started: Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Unknown.2C_Concerns.2C_Unclear.2C_Uncertain.2C_and_Possibilities_RFC, which asks "Should more claims of the Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, Uncertain, and Possibilities type be added to the e-cigarette article?" Several experienced editors pointed out that this is a flawed RFC from the get-go. Formerly 98, QuackGuru, Doc James, Cloudjpk, Johnuniq, FloNight, Alexbrn and myself have all stated that the RFC itself is at best unclear and at worst impossibly out of line with policy, particularly WP:NPOV; only EllenCT has responded in support. This didn't prevent AF from going ahead and removing a ton of well-sourced content with edit summaries like "remove non consensus edits": [84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91]

  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. Formerly 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)

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

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

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

• Support topic ban - this is just too disruptive. AlbinoFerret thinks he did done nothing to warrant a topic ban. Originally AlbinoFerret said I dont see a word about deleting anything in the RFC. but later he misused the RFC to remove text he does not like with edit summary "remove speculative statement added while RFC on topic is ongoing".[92] He wrote in his edit summary remove older study that newer ones find answers to. It was not a study. It is a WP:MEDRS compliant review. He has a pattern of deleting well sourced text he does not like. QuackGuru (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It was previously explained on the talk page that the text and sources describe the particles in the ultrafine range. User:Formerly 98 wrote: "I don't understand the OR tag on the Ultrafine particles section. The cited references clearly describe these particles as being in the nanometer size range, which is on the order of a couple of thousand molecules. Doesn't get much finer than that. What exactly is the OR being referred to here?"[93]

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[94], 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. [95][96], [97], [98] [99], and here where you accused me of filing a fake 3rr report You insist on inserting WP:OR [100][101][102]. You argue over small words that have the same meaning and dont pahaphrase[103][104][105]. You insert non MEDRS to make medical claims [106]. You insist on placing one review out of order to serve your pov [107] and refuse any order but the one you want. After dating the citation names in the source to keep them in order[108][109] you changed them back to disguise your actions and edited the section to place your subjective order in place[110]. 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)
• 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.[111]. 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)
• Support topic ban The record is clear: endless WP:IDHT, WP:TENDENTIOUS and just plain disruptive editing. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Disruption by Djcheburashka, proposed ban(s?)

This user has been here since April 13, 2014 and has already racked up quite a few warnings (see User talk:Djcheburashka (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)). As of recent, they've been generally disruptive. Actions include:

• Bad faith AfDs on Feminist school of criminology and Dark figure of crime. (See this, and this)
• Removal of comments from AfDs ([112], [113])
• Template regulars or sending them nasty messages when they revert their edits (e.g., [114], [115], [116])
• Assuming bad faith and accusing editors ([117], [118])
• Edit war on Dasha Zhukova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Roscelese's own talk page User talk:Roscelese (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hounding/following Roscelese ([119], [120], [121], started section on Talk:War on Women soon after Roscelese edited)

User appears to have a bone to pick related to sexual assault (see this edit, edit, this edit, this edit, this whole NPOVN mess, edits on False accusation of rape, edits on David Lisak) as well as financial crimes (e.g., this BLP proposal, edits on Stratton Oakmont, Enron scandal, Donald Trump, Jordan Belfort, Joseph Borg (regulator), Ray Nagin).

I won't say they haven't made constructive edits, but their recent actions have garnered the attention of a number of editors. But the editor history on their talk page speaks volumes. I would at the very least suggest an IBAN with Roscelese and a TBAN on all things sexual crime related (as that's where the most disruptive behavior has occurred). But honestly I get a big WP:NOTHERE feeling and think a site ban might be in order. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 09:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

They seem to have a desire to drag uninvolved parties into this dispute that specifically don't like Roscelese[122]-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Some more reading, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#User:Djcheburashka, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Page protection... and User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Harassment. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support siteban. The disruption in areas related to women is self-evident, but the user's behavior at Dark figure of crime is also illustrative, and additionally, his harassment of various users (including stalking and canvassing) is something that there's no reason to think will not happen again in other topic areas. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support siteban. I too thought an iBan would be enough, but I no longer think so. Only a community imposed siteban will do. They lack the ability to see that their behavior is the problem. They lack "behavioral competence". Their behavior is very much like the blocked User:Worldedixor. They could be twins. A huge timesink, with denial and lots of blaming of others. This comment of mine, while written to Worldedixor, applies here too. I'm really tired of newbies coming here and thinking they know better than every experienced editor. The inability to process and accept advice creates huge problems. Both of them need to be sitebanned. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Response This is a bad-faith request by a pair of editors who engage in improper tag-team editing with a third, User:Roscelese. After I found serious sourcing problems with a page and tried to discuss them on the talk page, and R refused to do so or allow editing, I started a POV discussion (properly). R then reverted the POV page repeatedly, causing me to ask for protection and administrator intervention. In fact, it was me who requested the protection on those pages so the "edit war" would stop and the dispute resolution process could proceed. The retaliation for that is what brought us here.

There are a lot of accusations here, which should be addressed, and I apologize in advance that because of the shotgun approach above I need a bit of length to respond:

I do not have a "bone to pick" regarding sexual assault. It is true that after a decade practicing law, when I see someone say that the false-reporting rate for 'any' crime is 6%, it makes me laugh my coffee out my nose. We're discussing this about sexual assault only because that crime has political implications, and wherever there's politics there are extremist academic claims alongside the mainstream discussion. (To preempt the inevitable misogyny allegations: My view is that rape is probably underreported more than most other crimes, but also probably falsely reported more than most other crimes. One reason is that rape laws are very complex, and people often believe they've been raped when, under the law of the jurisdiction, they have not.) Anyway, when I saw stuff on the page that didn't make sense to me, my response was to go into detail, read the sources, and try to improve the page. I thought my edits and proposals should have been relatively uncontroversial since they were quite moderate -- expanding the discussion of sources, putting things in chronological order. The vehemence and nastiness that followed is part of why I suspect bad faith -- something I did not raise until the nastiness had gone on for an extended period of time and involved multiple personal attacks.

EvergreenFir became involved then. She and R use tag-team editing that page and a number of other pages.

There was no edit war on Dasha Zhukova. I and others revised the page over a period of time after opening discussion on the talk page and soliciting comment. The page has had a not-very-often vandalism issue where periodically someone will drive-by and without comment try to revert the page to the preceding form. A few nights ago an editor (one not otherwise involved here), claiming to be fixing honorifics, brought the page to the preceding form. (I find behavior like that to be curious, but that's a topic for another day.) I reverted the changes and asked the user to open discussion on the talk page and seek consensus if he wanted to change the article. That's when Calton, who had no prior involvement with the page but had made a series of nasty comments on the discussions about the Rosceles issue, showed up to unrevert my revert. That's straightforward disruptive editing, and I left the template along with an explanation of the page's history. I invited Calton, if he cares about the page, to raise the issue on the article talk page. He declined. I also invited him to explain to me why he felt my disruption template was improper, and offered to self-revert if he had a good explanation. He declined again.

Regarding whether I have a "bone to pick" with financial crimes - well, I suppose that is true in a sense, I consider myself something of an expert on the subject of financial frauds. My edits to these pages Stratton Oakmont, Enron scandal, Donald Trump, Jordan Belfort, Joseph Borg (regulator), Ray Nagin, were generally adopted, usually after raising the issues for consensus and discussion on the talk pages. Early on I wasn't as good about that, but I've gotten better. I've also made a proposal regarding WP:BLP and convicted felony fraudsters, because I think there are special issues that arise in fact-checking fraudster biography claims. Many of my other edits on these pages involved removing pointless cutesy biographical detail sourced only to the subjects' memoirs.

The actual edits that this is about concern pages where sources have been misrepresented in favor of a study by David Lisak. Lisak, during his now-over career as an academic researcher, published studies claiming, among other things, that 16% of men are confessed rapists, 9% of the men on college campuses are "serial rapists," and 8% are child molesters. The edit to David Lisak that they object to, is that for the lede I want to use Lisak's own description of his occupation from his website of his occupation. Described on this site as a "leading researcher" in his field and expert who helps prosecutors, in fact Liskan has no affiliation with any research institution -- he was rejected by the academy and the courts a decade or so ago. He is now a consultant who gives speeches on sexual assault. A political sector continues to promote his work, and they're large enough for it to not be WP:FRINGE (barely), and that's fine. I don't think it should be marginalized. But neither should Lisak be lionized, nor should the wiki declare that any disagreement with him has been "discredited," as though opposing work, which is the majority of the field, were the intellectual equivalent of holocaust deniers. I think the pages should simply relate the facts, saying what the studies say, what Lisak actually did, and what he actually does. They don't need to take a side.

I understand that B, E and R disagree with me about Lisak's views. This does not make my participation "disruptive" -- it means issues should be resolved through the talk pages, and if necessary the POV dispute and other dispute resolution mechanisms. I have tried to do that. This is the retaliation.

Regarding Brangifer: He claims to be a neutral, said any pages where he and R both edited must be incidental and he doesn't know about it, etc. But, see here: Talk:War_on_Women. The substantive issue with that page concerns one half of a single sentence. Another editor tried to take it out as unsourced and wrong. R objected, and bullied him off. I took a look at the sources and realized he was right. I therefore opened a talk page discussion on the subject. (To preempt the bias accusation, my view is that what Republicans were doing on womens' rights issues, which they never really stopped, are bad enough to speak for themselves, but are exaggerated and distorted in the page.) There is a pattern here: editor find a problem with a page and attempt to help. The response (most vehemently from R, usually with support from B or E or both, sometimes others) is a refusal to discuss substantive issues and torrent of accusations of bias and incompetence, threats, disruption templates, etc. Going through some of these, I realized that in some cases, I agreed with the editors who had been bullied-off (in most cases I did not). I therefore have started to re-raise those issues. An interaction or site ban would, of course, allow them to (falsely) maintain that there's a consensus in favor of their version of the pages, again without having to address the issues that led multiple editors to object. Similarly, an interaction ban, where the other editor has touched a slew of pages on topics in connection with their own agenda, would simply prevent someone they disagree with from joining the discussion, allowing the continued claim of a consensus that doesn't really exist.

If you think I may have been harassive or abusive, I refer you to the comments that Brangifer and Calton have been leaving on my talk page. Nasty, personal, aggressive, pointless --- and neither of them has said a thing about the underlying issues that led to this, which have to do with improper sourcing, POV issues, and a refusal to participate in either the consensus-building or POV dispute resolution process.

Regarding templates, I stand by every template I applied. Regarding templates for "regulars" -- is that a joke? Even if it mattered whether the person was a "regular," the templates were proper. R has received similar warnings and block threats from numerous editors and several admins for what has been a multi-year career of abusive behavior, bullying, improperly using templates herself to bully and harass other users, violating blocks, and so forth. Mine were comparatively mild. Calton, I haven't checked whether he has, but I'd be shocked if he hasn't considering his self-proclaimed role as Batman-of-the-wiki.

Regarding the afd for two pages: I realize now that I made technical errors when I nominated those pages and in response to a vote from R that I'd misinterpreted as another improper reversion attempt. Those were my mistakes, and I take responsibility for them, but they were technical in nature, not bad faith. There was a substantive error in one of the requests, though. Because of that and all of the static, I have not re-nominated either page. I do intend to return to them once the rest of this has calmed down and they can be discussed (unless they are improved in the meantime) without all the strum und drang. Both pages have serious writing and lack-of-source problems for years that no-one's bothered to fix. Why did R get involved in this so quickly? Either because she was tracking what I was doing, or because of tag-teaming with evergreenfir; the pages seem to be linked to her forthcoming PhD dissertation.

Regarding this 'I'm really tired of newbies coming here and thinking they know better than every experienced editor.' from B, I thought we didn't have a hierarchy on wikipedia? We have editors, we have administrators, and we have ArbCom, but that's really it. Editors' work is supposed to be evaluated based on the quality of the work, not the tenure of the editor. Doesn't B's comment really say it all?

Regarding "hounding" and bringing in others, I have gone through many of R's edits after seeing how she dealt with mine and problems on a few other pages. Most of the edits I looked at seem to be perfectly good. Some of them, on women's rights issues in particular, seem to have real issues. R has had run-ins with a number of people on those issues over the years. Each time, there's a core group (e.g., E, R, sometimes B) who seem to track each other and show up quickly so they can declare consensus. WP:CIRCUS. Editors are not just disagreed with, they're driven off with threats, disruption templates, and accusations. If those editors' views were cumulated, 'they' would be the consensus. It's also true that, where R received certain block warnings from administrators, where those warnings involved conduct similar to what I saw here, I reached out to the admins to ask them to get involved.

I think that covers it. If there are additional accusations I may pop back in to respond, and if anyone reading this wants sources or links to examples, please let me know.

Best, Djcheburashka (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read - When you reply to a post with an absurdly long reply containing personal attacks, remember that you might be throwing a returning boomerang. What the subject has proved with this reply is that he is a combative editor. I don't have an opinion on the original merits yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. Your comment says a lot about you, too, actually. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. I have been watching this editor since they first started editing. I have also been watching subsequent events with some dismay. The only reason I haven't taken administrative action is because I am WP:INVOLVED, having gotten into a content dispute with the editor on two articles from the get-go. I noted early, though, the obvious aggression and distortion of facts. I also believed the editor was on a crusade, although, frankly, I wasn' sure what it was. Others may have a better handle on that based on his more recent substantive edits. In the beginning, he had a problem with an Alabama regulator, Joseph Borg (regulator). Because Borg was mentioned in the Jordan Belfort article, he attacked both articles because he believed too much credit was being given to Borg. As a consequence we had a lovely exchange on the Belfort Talk page here. One of Dj's more choice comments was "I'm taking this out. If I see it inserted here again, I'll give the journalists who cover him a nice complete dossier on the Alabama politician's apparently 5-year-long history of making false claims about the case. Try me." His subsequent behavior has been just if not more intemperate. That said, I wouldn't move directly to a site ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. The diffs above paint a picture of someone who has the rather impressive ability to repeatedly deny the obvious and extensively argue indefensible positions. If this isn't trolling, then it's essentially indistinguishable. Editors should not have to waste time arguing with someone who insists that a sourced article has no citations. The characterization of removing multiple valid votes at AfD as a "technical error" is equally perplexing. I wanted to wait until Djcheburashka had a chance to reply, but apparently, the editor in question still sees nothing wrong with these actions. A topic ban or interaction ban could work, I suppose, but the problematic behavior would probably just continue in other areas. An indef siteban seems a bit over-the-top with no evidence of blatant trolling or sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• I don't know who all was responsible for Dasha Zhukova, but I removed three four completely unacceptable sections from that article. BLPlease, people. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• It looks to me like one of the sections you removed was also removed by Dj.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually all of them -- I hadn't noticed, but Calton had re-re-reverted it again. The edits by DRmies put it in approximately a similar position to what I and others had done -- actually he took out a bunch of stuff that I had wanted to take out, but I didn't want to go further than we had without more involvement from others. So I'm happy to see the edits. Djcheburashka (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not accurate. You removed one piece recently and did some other editing much earlier. Drmies removed considerably more. Regardless, this does not change my recommendation that you be indefinitely blocked. As someone said somewhere above, not all your edits have been destructive. However, many have, and equally important, your attitude is not suitable for collaborating on this project.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw that Djetc. removed one of the things which were later restored and then removed by me. I went to that article to see what was up with this editor and saw that the blind were leading the blind, at least there. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment "User appears to have a bone to pick related to sexual assault", EvergreenFir, you identify with the feminist school of criminology on your user page and that school has very distinct views about false rape accusations in comparision with some other criminologists (Djcheburashka apparently was pushing for another POV). Are you honestly concerned about the user conduct, not ideological differences? It would be bad if it seemed like ideological sniping. To be honest, all the "violations" here are mild except for the two AfDs. Templating regulars or hounding Roscelese to vote keep just like she did on Palestinian stone-throwing are not a reason for indef block. --Pudeo' 20:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Pudeo: he edits on those pages are what brought this user to my attention a few days ago. After the bad faith AfDs, they've moved on to other areas... kinda. I don't mind people with other POVs discussing a page's content. But I think I've shown in the edit diffs that this was much more than that (edit warring, hounding someone related to that page and feminist topics in general, bad faith AfDs, etc.) While I understand your concern, I am perfectly capable of getting along with people that don't share my views (just ask Two kinds of pork). This user is not just someone who disagrees with me. They are disruptive to the point of being WP:NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I accept your clarification and believe it. Although I still think those offences are rather mild given the editor apparently does not have any previous sanction log. If the editor does not engage anymore in what can be seen as hounding or POINTy behaviour, I think indef block is too harsh. --Pudeo' 21:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose siteban - the evidence provided is weak. A lot of it is legitimate consensus-seeking discussion in a contentious topic area, which is very difficult, but in which the user has mostly kept civil even when other editors haven't. Indeed, Calton and BullRangifer made inappropriately angry, aggressive posts on Djcheburashka's talk (e.g. [123], [124], [125]) and the user did not respond in kind. Their comments, while much too long, show an understanding of neutrality and verifiability policies we don't normally see from newbies. I share some concern that the user is here to right great wrongs - I accept that the user did not understand how to complete the AfD process but a more serious issue is that they felt those articles should be deleted in the first place. I am similarly concerned that they may be wikilawyering our policies to push an agenda, but they have edited in several disparate topic areas and it's not clear what that agenda would be, and we are required to assume good faith unless there is strong evidence otherwise. For the procedural issues they have apologized, repeatedly. They and the other editors involved should be warned to actually discuss their issues politely rather than disruptively and repeatedly templating each other and calling each other names, and Brangifer should be cluebatted for claiming a privilege of authority based on their edit count. Ivanvector (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban based on the fact that this user only has an edit count within the hundreds, and Wikipedia in itself is a rather convoluted and complicated mess of policies. The afd thing is unambiguous that he removed people's comments, but when you are a new person to the topic area of afd, you're probably unsure of how things worked. I believe that he used WP:IAR approach to justify deleting the comments--as he mentioned, he was trying to evade the keeping of a problem page with overt problems. I can absolutely see why he would have that POV. I also believe that in spite of the OP removing comments, the afds were closed out of practice as 'speedy keep' and assumed bad faith on the OP, when that wasn't warranted. The other 'templating the regulars' and supposedly combative edit summaries; I've seen more established editors talk to me in a much more combative way in open view, with no repercussions at all. I see no swearing, I see no outright anger, I see maybe a misunderstanding of what a 'disruptive' editor is and what a 'SPA' is. But I don't believe the evidence waivered deserves anything but maybe a mandated tutor on exactly which policies and guidelines to follow and whether he has a skewed outlook of them. Blocking somebody indefinitely because they didn't know all the wiki syntax and etiquette is kind of harsh, however maybe a 1 month topic ban (and then a block if it continues into other areas during that time) would be warranted. At this time, however, it doesn't seem so much to warrant an indefinite block--which is the last resort in any sort of conduct issues. This is attempting to shotgun a fly instead of using a fly swatter instead. Tutelary (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support IBAN with Roscelese I think there is a call for this but it would be in excess to indef them. They are a new user. Perhaps a warning could suffice and we could point out to them where they can recieve help such as the Wikipedia:Teahouse and Wikipedia:Adopt a user.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• The evidence of hounding provided here is extremely weak. However if Roscelese believes that an interaction ban will improve the situation, I will support it. Ivanvector (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I weigh the weak evidence against DJ with them trying to draw a user that doesn't like roscelese into this dispute. If this isn't canvassing itself it certainly seems to me to violate the spirit of the Canvassing rules. But yes I agree that would be a good idea to see what Roscelese views on this are.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I mean, I wouldn't object to an IBAN if that's all we can get out of this discussion. But my first interaction with this user was a week ago and since then he's stalked me to various places in the encyclopedia, harassed me on my talk page, blanked my discussion comments, and canvassed other users against me. That's not evidence of a problem he has with me, that's a behavioral problem. Do you really think that that won't just happen to the next user who disagrees with him, and the next? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I do object to an iban if the effect of it would be to confer ownership over the pages at issue, which I think is what is being sought. I have not "stalked" or "harassed" Roscelese; in fact, I think the record of our talk page diffs shows the opposite. All of this arose when R refused to abide by the consensus or POV dispute process, then (with evergreenfir) commenced an edit war over it, and so on, which are issues R has had in the past. A lot. EvergreenFir participated with her in that initial edit war. WP:INVOLVED I followed dispute resolution and consensus procedures and sought community and admin assistance when I saw the edit war brewing, and tried to freeze things so that the process could proceed. The POV dispute resolution process should have been, and still should be, allowed to play-out without interference, harassment, retaliation, canvassing, tag-teaming, abusive template-adding, bullying, threatening, retaliation, or disruption. That's it! Djcheburashka (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The power not to interfere, harass, retaliate, canvass, tag-team, abusively template, bully, threaten, retaliate (more), or disrupt, was always inside you. We all would have loved if discussions could have proceeded and consensus could have been built without any of this, but it was your own choice to behave poorly that prevented that. I recommend that you recognize what you've done, decide not to do it again, and possibly even apologize. (Although I'll note for the benefit of other readers that Dj evidently considers his own opinion, opposed by 4+ other users, a "consensus.") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, I tried to discuss these matters with you reasonably on your talk page, on mine, and on the POV dispute page. You reverted, deleted or ignored at least 5 of my attempts before this became an "edit war." Can you point to any diff, anywhere, where you attempted to engage me in any conversation or discussion about this, or responded to anything I said other than to declare whatever matter closed and threaten me?

By the way -- if you now agree that there is no consensus regarding the original pages (even if you're miscounting), then we're done here. Because you're then admitting that the POV template should be on the pages in question; that your conduct regarding the "edit war," the POV dispute, the "warning templates" left on my page, and so on, on your part and EvergreenFir's, were all violations; and that the conduct you claim was harassive on my part (i.e., complaining that the repeated reverts and threats were disruptive) was actually proper.

This ban proposal will be over soon, and we will then move forward. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the extreme projection in this comment is useful to note. If any constructive users are interested in talking to me about this issue, I'm reachable, but I don't see a point in continuing to coddle this person when he continues to deny and defend his misbehavior and show every intent to continue it. Hit me up if you need me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED does not apply. Evergreenfir is not acting as an admin here but as an editor, further is evergreenfir an admin? If the record shows the opposite surely you can show how the record shows the opposite. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Not admin, just reviewer. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You are reviewer of course of wikipedia per WP:RVW, but right now and during this dispute where you have taken part have you acted in your capacity as a reviewer or have you acted in your capacity as an editor?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not mean "involved" in a technical sense -- I just meant, she's involved in the underlying dispute. This did not, as she claims, "come to her attention" looking at pages. In fact, as I recall she fired several of the first edit-war salvos. Sorry if my use of the link was confusing as to my intent. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So you didn't mean involved by the in the wikipedia definition of the word involved that you linked to but you mean the general definition. Well that's great. The fact the they made edits or fired salvos or what ever doesn't disprove that they were looking at pages that they were looking at pages before they stumbled across your disruption.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

She didn't "stumble across it" -- she was one of the people who started the edit war. She went into the background after Roscelese got very aggressive about it. Djcheburashka (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• OPPOSE for many of the same reasons stated by Tutelary. Experienced editors are supposed to be patient with new editors, but that certainly isn't evident in some of the comments I've been reading. I recommend mentoring. Atsme☯^Consult 18:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just point this out, Atsme is the user that Djcheburashka attempted to bring into this conflict[126].-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologize to the editors participating in this discussion for the pointless comment made by Serialjoepsycho who has relentlessly been WP:Hounding me for nearly 8 months now. Following are the diffs showing the question asked by Djcheburashka on my Talk page regarding Roscelese's abuse of warning templates. [127] And my response to her question. [128] I suppose it's just coincidence that Serialjoepsycho supports the same POV as Roscelese, who - purely by coincidence, I'm sure - happens to be one of the certifiers in the RFC/U Serialjoepsycho initiated against me after a recent BLPN consensus determined the Islamophobia template on IPT was a BLP violation. It doesn't surprise me that he attempted to distract the focus of this discussion away from his own actions, but then, that's how he operates. At least he's consistent, right? I'm not here to pass judgement on who is right or wrong - I'm just recommending leniency toward the new editor, Djcheburashka, and suggested mentoring. Atsme☯^Consult 20:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is very logical. Djcheburashka canvasses Atsme and my responding to this fact for a second time here is me hounding atsme. I supposedly support Roscelese 'POV' here and yet Atsme is not actually going to be able to point out which POV of Roscelese I support. Now if you review the above you will see that I support one of multiple POV's that Evergreenfir has brought forth. The IBAN. Atsme is not here to pass judgement, She is here to help a user that has canvassed her to go against a user that she does not like because of among other things this user had opened an RFC/U against her.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your hounding and false accusations have been duly noted, Serialjoepyscho. Atsme☯^Consult 07:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Atsme had left a warning on User:Roscelese's talk page. It seemed to involve some of the same stuff as I'd been concerned about, and it seemed more authoritative than most of the warnings -- I'm really still getting the hang of the way all this hierarchy and dispute resolution stuff works. Apart from the warning I saw, I had no knowledge at all of who Atsme is or any prior relationship or interaction with Roscelese, RFC/U (whatever that is) or anything else. Honestly, I really still don't.

That night, I made a series of requests to Roscelese to discuss and resolve things. I then tried to seek dispute resolution help when it became clear that she would not discuss the matter --- using the POV disputes page, and the page protection request page, etc. My post to Atsme -- which asked him/her if s/he would take a look at things, was part of my attempts to seek dispute resolution through the community process. Is that canvassing? I thought I was seeking community dispute resolution assistance. Pls compare my comment to Atsme with this: [[129]] Djcheburashka (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Djcheburashka, asking questions is not WP:Canvassing, however, the behavior exhibited by your accuser is typical of troll behavior, but more specifically of his very skewed interpretation of policy. Ignore his rhetoric, or he will continue until it consumes you. The post by Robert McClenon at (20:23, 11 November 2014) is excellent advice. Atsme☯^Consult 07:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are absolutely right. Asking a question is not canvassing. For example if they asked you what color is the sky that wouldn't be canvassing. Asking a question to someone solicit their involvement in a dispute because that individual may specifically not like the editor in question is canvassing. Robert McClenon offers great advice, If you can notice it you should keep it in mind.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent examples of classic canvassing can be seen in your talk page discussion with Roscelese regarding this dispute, [130], and again in the recent past when you drug her into your obsessive attempts to get me topic banned because I corrected a BLP violation you ignored, [131], [132], and in the not so distant past when you contacted a banned user who supported your POV during a BLPN and a merge-delete discussion for IPT: [133], and again here regarding a pending edit war on another article: [134]. I consult you to stop making false accusations in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to get a new user blocked or banned for making inconsequential newbie mistakes. Your pattern of behavior is one I am quite familiar with as the target of your relentless hounding and recent attempts to get me blocked or topic banned because of your skewed interpretation of policy as you have demonstrated here. Atsme☯^Consult 15:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This whole unrelated argument is, I believe, showing exactly why it was wildly inappropriate for Dj to contact Atsme for support. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What that is a classic example of is you simply not knowing what the hell you talking about Atsme. But there are plenty examples of that. Contacting Roscelese to tell her that I wasn't going to ask any more questions to an evasive editor in the RFCU that she was involved in is not canvassing. Contacting Sepsis II to about the discussion on the BLPN that you mentioned them multiple times in is not canvassing. Contacting Sepsis II about an editwar they were involved in at to try to get them to discuss it on the talk page is not canvassing. Contacting Roscelese that a user is is trying to canvass you into their dispute is not canvassing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, "wildly inappropriate" is the fact that Serialjoepsycho drug me into this ANI because he has been trolling my edits and talk page for the past 8 months, and has relentlessly posted disparaging comments about me almost everywhere I go, which equates into WP:Hounding. In the interim, I believe it is wrong to hang a canvasing tag on Djcheburashka because she is innocent, not to mention a new editor. Serialjoe clearly doesn't understand WP:Canvas or WP:Tag team if he doesn't think his call-to-arms-communication to you is acceptable behavior, as are his past canvassing activities which demonstrate WP:DONTGETIT. I suppose he doesn't see his current activities as WP:Hounding, either. Sad. I hope that, at the very least, you understand why the comment he made in his initial post is ludicrous by alleging that Dj was dragging uninvolved parties into this dispute that specifically don't like Roscelese. It is a lie to suggest that I "specifically don't like Roscelese", when in fact (and evidence will prove) that it is the other way around. It is long past due the time to make peace, and stop edit warring. Atsme☯^Consult 18:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Roscelese I think your last comment demonstrates pretty clearly that you either haven't been reading what other people say, are assuming that we're lying, or just don't care. I think this entire ban request was bad faith from the start, and at this point the question is how to move forward.

Right now, if there was a vote on the POV discussion, it would be 4:2, which is no consensus anyway; 3 on the "4 side" are strongly affiliated with what some have called "radical feminism," and I will decline to try to name because any name will be deemed offensive by someone; and none of the four have identified any WP:RS in support of their position, or offered anything but a conclusory statement that "the literature" says something (which it plainly does not). Meanwhile, no-one has offered a defense of the current form of the David Lisak page in any respect.

User:CambridgeBayWeather suggested we take this back to the article talk pages. Are you willing to do that and to work with me in a constructive, non-warfare way to try and get the articles to simply note what is noteable, express the key points from the key sources, and not take a view on controversial matters or marginalize legitimate and widely-held views? If so, I am willing to put all the noise behind us and let's get back to work. Djcheburashka (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The question he had asked me,[135] it speaks for itself. I would consider Djcheburashka to be fairly new as he don't know how en.wiki works. It is better to give him a chance to be good. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block While I was initially swayed by the arguments that this is a relatively new user, the continued disruption since this ANI was filed suggests this problem seems unlikely to resolve with time. Dj’s BLP activities are particularly alarming and are basically what convinced me a block seems reasonable here. To illustrate the BLP editing concerns regarding Dj, today Dj has been edit warring to remove the “Career” subheading from the Dasha Zhukova article [136] [137] with talk page explanation: “I removed the career subheading, since she doesn't have a "career." She's a socialite.” Earlier Dj deleted the New York Times reference which described Zhukava‘s career, while doing so he also changed the lead from:

Darya "Dasha" Alexandrovna Zhukova (Russian: Дарья Александровна Жукова; born 8 June 1981) is a Russian philanthropist, businesswoman, fashion designer and magazine editor. She is the editor-in-chief of bi-annual art and fashion magazine GARAGE.[1]

To:

Darya "Dasha" Alexandrovna Zhukova (Russian: Дарья Александровна Жукова; born 8 June 1981) is the girlfriend of billionaire Roman Abramovich.

Ms. Zhukova is affiliated with a number of organizations based on which she has been described as a "philanthropist, entrepreneur, fashion designer" and magazine editor. However, with the exception of a three-month period with one magazine, none of Ms. Zhukova's organizations appear to have any existence independent of her or Mr. Abramovich.

Dj added no reference for his edits criticizing the legitimacy of Zhukova’s career. [138]

--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm almost amused... I've been trying to edit that page for some time, including with participation from other people on this thread. One of those people proposed to delete a bunch of stuff from the page that I have wanted to remove for a while, and I did so. BoboMeowCat then reverted the page without looking at or joining the talk page discussion. I reverted his edit and asked him to join the talk page discussion before editing the article.

One of the changes I had made was to remove the subheading for "Career," collapsing that content into the rest of the article, since after a series of edits there was very little left in the section and "Career" seems to have been a misnomer anyway. Neither the page nor any secondary source says that Zhukova has ever been employed in any profession or job at any time. Well, perhaps her brief three-issue stint as an editor of an arts magazine from which she was removed counts, but if so its a very short section.

BoboMeowCat's principal concern is that he does not want any mention of the incident in which a photograph of Zhukova sitting on a chair made to look like a mostly-naked, highly sexualized black woman, was published on MKL Jr's birthday. This led to something of a controversy, and twitter campaign, and articles in the Guardian and Independent UK, and Time, etc. With more than 8000 google hits it would be notable on its own. See http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/23/apology-for-black-woman-chair-photo/ BoboMeowCat, however, feels that its derogatory. My view is that whether it creates a negative impression of her or not, it happened, and it was notable -- in fact, I believe its the central thing for which Zhukova is known.

I added the "none of the organizations..." sentence after researching them and finding no indication of them anywhere except for on each others' bare websites and the wiki page. I wanted to just delete the references, but did not think deleting the organizations entirely would fly. But, that is what came out of the talk page, and so the sentence Bobo doesn't like has been taken out along with the material that it addressed.

Why is this here? Why is BoboMeowCat suddenly drive-by editing an article that doesn't intersect any subject matter in which s/he expressed any interest whatsoever in the past? Notably, shortly before s/he began to look at the Zhukova page, I took a position opposite BoboMeowCat in a POV dispute he raised, about which he apparently feels very, very, very strongly. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Dj, this response in many ways actually illustrates the disruption that I've noticed to be part of your talk page style (here and elsewhere including the NPOV noticeboard discussion you referenced [139]). I notice you seem to repeatedly misrepresent occurrences. I'm not sure if by accident or what could be going on. Anyone interested in the occurrences of the Zhukova article should refer to [140] As is clear from talk:Dasha Zhukova, my principal concern has nothing to do with omitting info from the chair photo incident. I specifically said, "Huff Post is a RS, so this info might be able to be incorporated if we do so neutrally and cautiously". [141] I went on to actually add it. [142]. My principal concern involves your apparent attempts to turn this biography into an attack or smear piece. I was actually alerted to the Zhukova article via this ANI listing. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious to me, and I think it will be pretty obvious to you if you look at the Zhukova talk page, that the subject of this BLP is known for more than those chairs. Whether you like her or not, whether you consider her a socialite or not, it cannot be denied that this person is notable, and for more than (and long before) sitting on a chair, and I am surprised that this was maintained for so long, and maybe still is. Saying that Bobo's only interest is keeping the chair out is simply not true: the chair is in. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions whatever against Djcheburashka. Dj has behaved just fine, for a newbie. He/she is arguing, reasonably, and occasionally boldly editing. It's what we do. Please don't hesitate to ping me if you get any more harassment like this, Dj. Carry on. (If a good case is made to support Dj's description of bullying on Talk:War on Women and other pages, I would support strong sanctions against those involved.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban. I would support a topic ban on Dasha Zhukova and an IBan with Roscelese. Seems like a fairly new editor who wasn't trying to cause harm. That said some of the comments as to why he was edit warring stuff on Dasha Zhukova's page and the responses to Roscelese are very inappropriate and should not continue. --Obsidi (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

At a minimum, a topic ban on Dasha Zhukova seems needed because Djcheburashka has made clear he has no intention to stop disruptively editing page. In fact, after myself and Drmies recently reverted his lack of consensus edits, Dj said on talk he'll just wait until we are no longer watching and "fix it" [143]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

That's wrong. After drmies edited the page he and I began discussing changes. Bobo then jumped in, apparently in retaliation when I objected to his position in an NPOV dispute he'd raised concerning another page. Bobo then, interfered with the consensus, and repeatedly implemented the same against-consensus changes, while every time misrepresenting what he had done. After Bobo abandoned most of what he'd done (following several reverts for me as his changes were against consensus), DrMies shifted -- consensus having moved, I did not revert and have said I will hold-off and deal with the page at a later day.

That this is even here is an abuse of the process Djcheburashka (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Dasha Zhukova based on the diff cited by BoboMeowCat above. I won't support a full site ban or indefinite block at this point, but Djcheburashka, you really should stop edit warring and editing against consensus, no matter how strongly you believe your version is the right one. Nobody owns an article, so try to co-operate with fellow editors, even those who hold opposing points of view.
  I would suggest you step away from controversial articles for a while and help build an encyclopedia elsewhere, even if it means that the Wrong Version of some or other article will remain unchallenged for now. But if you find that unacceptable, keep making policy-based arguments on talk pages, keep attempting to build consensus, leave out the revert-warring and accept you won't get your way every time. Sideways713 (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sideways713 -- I don't think I've seen your username before, so you may not be fully aware of what this is. Suffice it to say, I think Bobo is seriously misrepresenting what's taken place, what I've said, what I've done, and his own involvement. If you're genuinely interested in the issue, let me know on my talk page and I will provide you with diffs. Djcheburashka (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong, cannot be stopped breaking rules

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

---

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

You cannot delete my valid talk page entries without signs of abuse. User:Ryulong has done this to me three or more times and is and has been doing it regularly to others with dozens of examples including the most recent [144][145] (this has happened several times in several places [146][147], with other forms of invalid interference with my comments [148][149]), but as regards their interaction with others, there are literally dozens if not hundreds of related diffs, to which blocks and warnings bring not even admission of wrong doing let alone any assurance that they are taking the rules of the site as meaningful.

• As a sign of context, one editor has currently dedicated themselves to quietly reporting Ryulongs continuous 3RR immunity.
• I have also seen regular interference with others comments for purposes other than to revert blatant vandalism, nonsense or other valid comment deletion. Ryulong deletes talk page comments they consider invalid. Many diffs can be provided to that.
• And there is repeated incivility, particularly with those who Ryulong considers *condemned or insignificant*.
• I myself have encountered and confronted User:Ryulong for focusing on an actual genuine contributor of long term good standing and zero apparent conduct or content issues, for having the supposed gall to admit they saw a dispute on a non-WM site, before they gave an opinion here. Try some of the commentary, she only made one or two edits to the dispute but... "contributed so much to the point that it's daunting to even try to read it all because you feel that you do not meet the definition of meatpuppet. You can complain to the audit subcom all you want..." And you can, because User:Ryulong has immunity. Needless to say, User:Leeyc0 has left the site for the longest period and blanked their userpage. This is a contributor in good standing on another site. Is there no knock on effect from this behaviour? Does User:Leeyc0 not go back to the site they came from and spread more antipathy for us on this site? And do we tolerate that? ~ R.T.G 16:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

None of the below response is directed at this report

---

Could you explain why you've dismissed a big chunk of discussion like this? Personally I think it's quite relevant. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Richard Yin: Yes Richard. This paragraph reports User Ryulong for interfering with other editors comments. The below discussion is not about that. ~ R.T.G 14:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@RTG:WP:BOOMERANG, while not official policy, seems to more-or-less represent consensus, at least from what I've seen. One section reads:

There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny.

I think that section in particular is important to note here. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That says "perceived" misbehaviour. I thought you were interested in why I had broken this paragraph from the other discussion. It seems you are propagating the other discussion here instead. Have you considered the veracity of the report? I thought it was rudimentary given the minascular quality of the event. It is arguably not even macroscopic. I feel like I am learning to sing a song. Why are you asking me questions, if only the same questions as the others are asking below as well, to only the same answer, with the inference that somehow responding to the perpetuation of that situation, is a kind of instigation. You open continually on an individual with a request for explanation as to why they are even apparent, and you get a load of rampant dichotomy. But the issues are not so complex. Please, stop asking me for arguments. I had to leave a reminder that there are those who Ryulong has broken the rules with. They responded with ANI threads and more monkeying around outside of the actionable protocols. If there were something so obviously amiss, I'd have been corrected to it some time before by now. So my input is complete. Do stuff or don't. ~ R.T.G 17:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of their edits are ok, I'm failing to see what admin action is needed. Per above thread, support IBAN between the two. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to suggest that my couple of interactions with User:Ryulong somehow implicate me in their massive list of ongoing issues. I am one of dozens of users needlessly burned by this dragons breath. I have not one single interaction with them over actual content except once that they followed me. User:Ryulong breaks the rules and cannot be stopped, and I get to say that and so does any other user so long as it is true. Bring me anything meaningful to compare to Ryulong or show some sort of unprovoked harrassment over a handful of interactions. There is no guideline to say that editors, who wish to request a rule breaker is acknowledged, should be punished and silenced. There is no way that I should be topic banned from any content that User:Ryulong has been involved in for a start. And I've posted on their talk page only on one occasion that wasn't to put an ANI notice there or to simply state in response that I was not interested in their following me around for a fight (content of which was:"Not interested" and a signature). It's my duty in a way to report wrongs of other editors isn't it? ~ R.T.G 17:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You want to sanction me for posts like this and this, but these are not my posts... ~ R.T.G 17:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So, what happened here? You, RTG, posted a hostile but barely intelligible and incoherent rant [150] on a noticeboard, where it had no business to be. Yes, Ryulong should not have removed it himself; somebody else should have though. Posting hostile rants on administrative noticeboards is generally not a very good idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Do not accuse me without evidence. Let's see a quote. This is ridiculous. The post has been deleted because. There was no abusive content. Any accusations were founded and about conduct. Nothing personal except the fact of the person. But I am an incoherent babbler, right? ~ R.T.G 17:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)(edit, was not deleted as told below diff)~ R.T.G 14:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@RTG: fut.Perf. provided a diff above. Yes, it was of the removal, but the point still stands; That was not sutable for AN3, and was borderline personal attacks. My advice would be for both of you to leave each other alone, before one or the other of you is forced to. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I was reading your SPI link from a couple of months ago, regarding a banned user called "Instantnood". Are you aware that edits by banned users are subject to deletion on sight? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

fut.Perf.'s mistyped the diff, the link should be this. — Strongjam (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs:, this has nothing to do with Instantnood. The only relevance there is that I went to that page to suggest that it was become a badge of honour for socks (this stuff is in the guides to watch for) to debate it with whoever, no-one in particular for genuine purpose, and there I met Ryulong and found them to be hauling editors of good standing, so I complained to which they followed me around, addressing me directly on various talk pages promtping me to check them and follow their discrepancies. Is it to be said that my report here is not even to be reviewed because it is me only that is being reviewed and that sort of seems a little bit suspicious given that Ryulong is a perennial, often daily on ANI, whereas I am not that, and so on... The diff being waved around is certainly hostile. Ryulong is fully hostile to all. I am not that, and my hostility for Ryulong is not incivil even and is about their conduct only, and their apparent longstanding immunity thereof. Show me some genuine blockable behaviour I have before any claims that I should not be given the chance to make any claims... genuine founded claims. ~ R.T.G 17:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is not the first time Ryulong has been caught violating Wikipedia policies. I would also like to point out that it seeming to be the same admins who keep coming to his rescue. --DSA510 Pls No H8 19:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's usually a good idea to provide diffs when making such comments. — Strongjam (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Right right, I'll collect my evidence tomorrow, my laptop's charger broke, and I don't have time to find them right now. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

DSA510, you shouldn't be one to talk at all here considering you returned to editing by linking to my old website.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Block OP for repeated disruption, per the diffs provided by Ryulong in that user's request for RTG to stop WP:HOUNDing them. This thread is clearly retaliatory. Ivanvector (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, 2 diffs merits a block of somebody who just wants a review taken into another editor's behavior? Not buying it and oppose any block. Tutelary (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Retracted; apologies to RTG. More comments below. Ivanvector (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a blatantly retaliatory thread to the one I made 3 days ago. None of RTG's interactions with me have been productive of anything. There was no reason for him to have made any of these messages to me or about me [151], [152], [153], [154], [155]. This is why I want him to be indefinitely interaction banned from me. I have no problem staying away from him but he obviously has a problem staying away from me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I just wanted to comment because I was involved in the AN3 issue. RTG's addition to the noticeboard was an aggressive, unhelpful rant. Still, Ryulong should not have reverted it. I actually restored it and then shortly after formally closed the discussion. It's an administrator's discretion what to allow at AN3, and I usually give a fair amount of latitude after my conclusion for editors to complain. As for here, I can't discern what administrative action RTG is requesting. In addition, I have only glanced at the merits of their complaints about Ryulong. That said, the style here is similar to the style at AN3, combative, aggressive, and overly dramatic. That certainly doesn't help RTG's credibility.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, three respondants are admins. Yeah, I've got hostility for Ryulong, but it is not raw, is instigated by them, and hostility is their MO, not mine. Most non-admins here are implicated in Ryulongs content disputes. I am not. At all. My posts here are directed at admins. I have little or nothing to debate about the content of the diffs I OPed above, because they are relatively simple and the violations are individually minor. But the site needs WP:CIVIL and 3RR and none of you have standing above that. Jimbo don't have it. Material Scientist don't have it. does Larry Sanger have it over on Compendium? No, I don't believe so.

So I am a bit craking up with the Ryulong situation, but needless to say, I can see that and have not nor will not devolve with it. There is no chance of me descending into attacking behaviour here, except attacking hostility, which is all I am trying to do. Ryulong was not getting these blocks before this time last year. Someone gave them offsite hassle. I appreciate peoples situations, but I am not the one, and Ryulong did pursue me from which I was spurred to investigate, and I found what I found, and I don't believe perpetuating it is fair either from Ryulong, or from anyone else.

The reasons for my presence are clear. I have no content interaction with Ryulong (they've questioned me once on a talk page about something which I was correct or at least went with the site). I will be just as impressed if I see this editor get a hard time at Christmas as I am to find their immunity and manner of support. I want to see some smooth. That's all it is. Everyone here has decided to focus me, or at least they have managed to destroy every other impression of this thread. He's not dumb. If he insists on being blocked out, maybe he wants to. You won't get them back into RFA like this anyway. This really isn't my area. I've made the report. It's valid. I've only come back that I could comment as the OP. I don't want to bicker. The reason I have posted here is to report bickering. ANI has returned a so far verdict of: More bickering. Now please forgive me while I go and dream of incoherent laughter (and ombudsmen) instead, cheers. ~ R.T.G 01:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What does this rambling even mean? I have not had any sort of interaction with you for several months and you decided three days ago to lambaste me across my user talk page and then again at WP:AN3 on a thread that was closed for non-actionable reverts. You have gone out of your way to try to get me blocked. I want you to stay the equivalent of 300 feet away from me on this website.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia says, "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it. Due to the way in which Wikipedia has grown, many articles contain redundant passages of this kind. Please be bold in deleting these passages." ~ R.T.G 02:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? You and I have had zero interaction in the article space as far as I am aware. What are you trying to even say?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, here are more diffs of RTG appearing out of nowhere to try to get me blocked. [156], [157], [158] (reverting my removal of the AN3 notification), [159] (warning me I'm apparently not to remove it from my user talk), [160] (complete ignorance of WP:OWNTALK), [161], [162].—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a single ANI thread (the above diffs). I already mentioned it. what I didn't mention is that there are about a dozen or more diffs of evidence of User Ryulongs disregard for the site at the expense of others good feeling. Strange how they post up each diff rather than post up the thread altogether which was closed, as the 15RR was labelled as over, and my posts to the ANI, including lists of valid incidents gone without acknowledgement by the perp, were responded to wholly by the accused. Isn't that an interesting incident? Who's to blame there? Me I bet. ~ R.T.G 02:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Because I am calling for your behavior to be examined as a reason to leave me alone. You have no reason to pile on to any thread that's posted at ANI or AN3 or anywhere to get me blocked because you have shown to have absolutely no knowledge of how policies and guidelines are to be applied. You have your own personal interpretation that is contra to standard practice. I shouldn't have made that many reverts in a single day. But the article is a point of contention that is subject to extreme offsite disruption. But that thread was left alone for hours and obviously I wasn't blocked for it, unlike the multiple other times I've been blocked (often when dealing with users who are later banned from the website for the edits I was reverting) for edit warring. You have gone out of your way to get me blocked when it has nothing to do with you whatsoever. I want you to go back to your side of the project and I'll stay on mine. If it has to be a formal ban from each other I will have no problem adhering to it. You obviously cannot keep yourself from trying to get me banned for no valid reason.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

One thread on ANI and one thread on AN3 ever, only one of which I instigated. Surely Ryulong is indundated by my persistent harassment, or, as happened over at RFC archive.is, you think that I am an idiot, and if you keep calling an idiot an idiot others will join you, and they will, but this magic breaking of the rules I have done in relation to you. it's not there. I am not perfect. You think I do not and should not confront other abusers, but I do, because I am not about abuse, and neither is this site. So, why don't you move on the the SPI. It's all you've got left. I've got your entire contribs to point out the relevance of reporting you here... Face it Ryulong, I ain't interested in your content disputes. I ain't your harasser or any of that. You do break the rules in intolerable fashion. You are not beneath the intelligence level to claim you do not understand that... Even if they ban me from interacting with you, you are building a goodbye ticket. If you can't get back to the site while you are on it, you know you'll be seeing it on the ARBCOM sooner or later and that I will not interact with you there and that no amount of pointing at me will make it seem that I have caused any of your incidents. What you think of that then? Seems legit to me. ~ R.T.G 03:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not the one here who has repeatedly gone out of his way to make sure that the other party knows what they think about them. I will have no issue if I am banned from interacting with you because you and I don't edit any of the same pages. You are the one who has the desire, or even need, to go "Ryulong is an awful person and he should be banned from Wikipedia".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in hurting you, even if it seems you have done wrong. I do attack hostility that continues, but I reason about it. I mean, if I thought you should be banned I'd be saying, ban that editor now, and I'd be a lot more careful about how I presented any information. What I think they should do, should have done ages ago, is give you a short block for some stuff and a warning for others, as and when it happens. I have seen that you do respond to that stimulus, but that the reprimanders go back on their intentions, and leave you again to neglect when you need, or start supporting you for the wrong reasons, worse than neglect. You've been an admin. If you cannot produce this attitude, you don't get to be admin, so you know this attitude, and also so do the admins here. What kind of support is it they give you if they aren't trying to fold you back in as an admin and be a strength for you should you decide to be more careful again? I just want to see it fixed if it is broken. The fact that you are implicated in that for the moment is secondary. That is where my desire lays. If I was trying to slay you, you'd see a wall of diffs, not a load of text. But it's meaningless if the admins refuse to take notice. They are giving you barnstars for biting noobs. It's not fair, and I don't mean to me, I mean in general, me included, you too. Everybody here should be trying to resolve the situation to the most amicable outcome possible or its meaning is worth less. ~ R.T.G 04:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone understand this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to understand what I say Ryulong so long as you understand that you create hate for this site in the way you conduct your self. The site is more important than you are, and the admins are here to protect it. It doesn't matter how much poison you or passing revellers chuck on that. You are temporary. There's been worse. A true dragon would strike fear. You strike as getting cleaned up after. :0 ~ R.T.G 11:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You create hate for the site among ones that love it. Is that funny too? ~ R.T.G 11:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Knock it off, both of you. RTG, this is now crossing the line into wiki-hounding, stop it or you'll be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise:The tools are yours to abuse. I cannot hound someone who has followed me to a thread can I? ~ R.T.G 12:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I please have the equivalent of a restraining order now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Propose/Support IBAN - There is clearly discord between these two editors maybe it is best to keep them apart and see how things go from there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support IBAN, unfortunately. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban as I did in the thread above. As another editor put it succinctly on the AN thread RTG opened today, whenever these two editors interact, drama is the result. There is clearly no hope for an amicable resolution here. I also think it would be a healthy decision on RTG's part to step away for a bit and get some fresh air, but that's up to them. Ivanvector (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Pie in the sky proposal

First, we're getting a new thread nearly every three day in the intersection of Ryulong, Gamergate, and someone who feels offended by Ryulong enforcing the standard operating procedure. While I know this will be resoundingly opposed by the hordes of SPAs and POV champions I propose the following To discourage frivilous reports, any ANI or AN report brought after November 14th with respect to Gamergate controversy that does not result in action being taken against the reported shall have the same magnitude reverse sanctions applied to the reporter. The goal of this proposal is to sweep these drama magnets off the AN boards and to encourage reporters to have a bulletproof case when they file the report. Hasteur (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems out of place here. This report really doesn't have anything to do with Gamergate. There is also now Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement which hopefully will cut-off Gamergate issues before they reach ANI. — Strongjam (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Strongjam Since I can only surmise that you've missed the dots that connect how this report connects to Gamergate: This report was regarding an AN:EW filing, which was about edit warring on the Gamergate controversy article. As demonstrated at the ArbCom Case request the advocates bringing these frivolous cases are not interested in working inside/with the system. Their goal is a slash and burn strategy to get their way regardless how many pseudonyms they have to burn. Hasteur (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, this is entirely unrelated to Gamergate. After RTG disrupted an SPI case I had opened (SPI archive, SPI's talk page) where he was making claims that either policy should not be adhered to or that our interpretation was wrong or I don't know I can't understand a word he's ever saying I had found he was making other problematic contributions to the Archive.is RFC (RFC page) and involved myself. I then left him be and then two months later he goes to the AN3 report (AN3 report) and disrupts my user talk page under the false assumption that I'm forced to keep Tutelary's AN3 notification there. And then three days ago he goes insane on my user talk, adding comments to several old messages I was sent, completely unprovoked ([163]). I report him ([164]). He ignores this and two days later leaves another rambling message at another AN3 report that had been closed ([165]). I notify him of the thread again and then he opens this retaliatory thread. And when he's not getting his way in this thread seeing as he's now shot himself in the foot he forum shops over at WP:AN ([166]). RTG's behavior towards me since August 31 has been nothing but disruptive and shows evidence that he doesn't know anything about Wikipedia's actual policies and guidelines and only acts on what he thinks they should be instead of actual practice. I want him banned from ever being involved with me again. And this bilateral interaction ban stuff should not be applied because there is no history of me hounding him as he has hounded me time and time again. Just because he's decided to hound me on something peripherally related to Gamergate does not make this a Gamergate issue.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Web_archiving_initiatives#Archive.is_is_not_notable. I am sorry, but it is User:Ryulong who follows me around disrupting my content improvements quoting the rules the wrong way around and insulting me. What exactly do you think I am here for? ~ R.T.G 14:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I forgot I did that. But it's not like what you've been doing for the past couple of weeks to come out of no where to pile on to closed or about to be closed discussions rather than the isolated cases that have never been repeated. I have stayed out of your way since the first week of September but you have gone out of your way to be in my face and demand I be punished for the last two weeks. Who is more in the wrong here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

For example, I haven't intervened in your disruption at Talk:Goldman Sachs#GS is one of the largest Wikimedia Benefactor, since 2012 where you went against a consensus that had actually formed or whatever you're doing at WT:Ombudsman here which is the same stuff you were pulling with the Archive.is discussion and the SPI case.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"...and someone who feels offended by Ryulong enforcing the standard operating procedure". Am I to conclude that 15RR is now "standard operating procedure"? 74.12.93.242 (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason for this IP who has cast aspersions at the arbitration request about content not in the article to constantly harp about the fact that I was not blocked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

So now RTG is jumping into Talk:Gamergate controversy with his usual aplomb [167] [168].—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

RTG is now jumping into the completely independent failing topic ban proposal below now. I want him IBAN'd from me ASAP. I can easily stay away from him if it needs to be mutual.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And he's left a message to David Auerbach. This has gone on long enough.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Ryulong accuses me of threatening him, WP:CONDUCT issues

• Will someone close this and all subsections please. An arbcom case appears likely so sniping here is not needed.

  (and remove my comment) Johnuniq (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ruylong has offered an apology to Auerbachkeller, so there's nothing more to do here. Gamaliel (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Not accepted. [169]

Ryulong made a problematic BLP edit referencing me as chronicled on the Gamergate:Talk page. When I politely requested that he not cite me in the future due to this incident, he accused me in multiple places on WP of threatening him: On my own talk page and on the Gamergate talk page He is now telling Drmies to revoke my confirmed status and to tell me to stay away from him (Ryulong). Ryulong's behavior appears to be a WP:CONDUCT violation on the grounds of civility at the very least. I hope this issue will be addressed. Auerbachkeller (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

My edit is only being construed as BLP because Mr. Auerbach was not pleased with how a counterpoint to his piece was presented in the article and The Devil's Advocate explicitly listed me as the offending party who originally wrote the piece. This resulted in Mr. Auerbach leaving me a message to the effect that he wishes to censor me from ever discussing him again and I refused. Mr. Auerbach has been coached by TDA as well as ChrisGualtieri, both of whom have prior content and personal disputes on this project, to punish me for an action whic weeks ago was seen as benign. This is a frivolous request, as is Mr. Auerbach's statement at the ongoing Gamergate arbitration request, as I should have never been singled out by TDA as I have and Chris should not have gone out of his way to sully my name on this project. This should be thrown out and instead TDA and ChrisGualtieri censured for using an off-wiki dispute to urge Mr. Auerbach into doing their dirty work.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This account is also incorrect with regard to me. As it is undocumented I will not refute it in detail, other than to say that accusations of "censoring" and of being "coached" are serious matters. Auerbachkeller (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that this should probably be moved to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement. (not commenting otherwise here, either way). --MASEM (t) 20:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Everybody stop confusing this man because he has already been told to post something at arbitration by Drmies and then here by Strongjam. Let's just leave this here and let the community at large see it than let it stagnate in a page no one has used other than to get each other banned from the Gamergate pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. I should have just pointed him to WP:EA to get better advice on how to deal with the dispute and left it at that. — Strongjam (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This has the potential to make the GamerGate article dispute even messier than it already is. User:Ryulong, I think it would be a good idea for you to refrain from dealing with User:Auerbachkeller or his writings from now on. I don't think you are handling your interactions with him well and you are blowing things out of proportion. I also think that Auerbachkeller should be wary about who he takes advice from, as he risks being used as a proxy for editors who are inappropriately attempting to drag him into preexisting conflicts. Gamaliel (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I wrote one thing about his writings in the whole of the Gamergate article and that is not even to say that there are plenty of other editors who had directly cited him that he is not complaining about. I have been unfairly singled out by The Devil's Advocate because I am not a fucking professional writer and I wrote a shit two or three sentences about someone else being critical of one of Mr. Auerbach's articles and he linked to that pisspoor attempt at writing from weeks ago as if I'm to blame for the whole of the article's content. Just like a quote unquote journalist did to me and Tarc on some pro Gamergate news blog that everyone is lapping up. And then Tarc starts arguing with Mr. Auerbach on Twitter, Jimbo yells at Tarc, and then Mr. Auerbach comes onto Wikipedia fully believing someone that I have an agenda against him when I'm just being painted all over the Internet as the big enemy on the Gamergate Wikipedia article. No one can edit the Gamergate page for another week so what does it matter anyway? I should not have to deal with people like Russavia evading his ban on Jimbo's talk page and others who have a personal dispute with me goading someone into getting me banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

All of that sucks. There's no denying that. But I feel that your anger about all of that might be clouding your judgment. Leave others to interact with User:Auerbachkeller. If you feel like he or others are acting inappropriately, post on the GG sanctions page and let uninvolved parties handle it. Gamaliel (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I will just add that Ryulong's account of my actions & motivations & influences here, in addition to being undocumented, is incorrect. Auerbachkeller (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You came here and when you made your request several editors who have had personal grudges with me on this site came to your aid immediately. I am being character assassinated all over the internet by a vicious fringe movement and your misinterpretation of my intent three weeks ago is not helping you or I.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Disengage voluntarily, or it will be enforced. Nick (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless you are alleging that Auerbachkeller has something to do with this offsite harassment, then there's no reason you can't drop this matter voluntarily and let other editors engage with Auerbachkeller. Gamaliel (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy is fully protected for another week and all I am doing now is responding to Mr. Auerbach. What has to be disengaged from? I am saying that Mr. Auerbach is being influenced by onsite members who have prior disputes with me as well as offsite harassment. I am not alleging that he is involved with the offsite harassment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You've made that point. Now it is time for you to disengage, let matters cool off, and let others handle it. I understand tempers are high on this article, but if you are unwilling to moderate or disengage, I am considering imposing an WP:IBAN. Gamaliel (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm considering blocking him for all of these unsubstantiated claims made in relation to Auerbachkeller. Ryulong if you would like to present evidence to confirm and back up your claims, of course, that would change the situation, but you know we do not let people make allegations without providing evidence. You are no exception. Nick (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I've presented minimal diffs at Gamaliel's user talk that I had intended to post here ([170]), modified all of the statements I had initially made that Mr. Auerbach found questionable ([171], [172]), and left him an apology on his user talk for my actions over the past 12 hours ([173]).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

At Drmies advice I am staying off of Ryulong's Talk page. He is not, however, staying off of mine. I will nonetheless not engage with him directly to the best of my ability from this point on. Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. Another fine mess. ANI being what it is, it's probably not the best place for this since as a single "incident" it probably does not warrant much admin action. Then again, it is entirely possible that an admin (in this particular case I certainly don't consider myself uninvolved; see the article talk page for my involvement with the Auerbach article) decides to act, citing the general sanctions. Now that we're here anyway, let me add that I think that Ryulong's behavior in this particular case is problematic--not that edit in the article, but the behavior afterward: the "threatening" comment. I wouldn't sanction him for this alone, but I have a feeling that if I take in the totality of Ryulong's actions and comments on the talk page I would feel differently--I have a feeling that if I take that in I will be inclined to think that Ryulong should take a break from the article, that while he has done good work he may perhaps be too enthusiastic in an already overheated situation. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong has also made a somewhat dubious appeal to Jimbo Wales where he calls me a patsy. It shouldn't need to be said but I am acting on no one's behalf but my own and with no intent but to protect my reputation. Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Ryulong: why does your name keep popping up here? I see there is already a discussion involving you above, just saying but when your name is being brought here multiple times this is something that should be looked into. My advice would for you to disengage per the admin or find a way somehow to avoid you being dragged here again and again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  There's only a thread above because I reported that guy first and he's very verbose and blunt about what he says. In this case, I may have overreacted to Mr. Auerbach's initial message but when I am subject to so much onsite and offsite harassment over this my current state is to be expected.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  Maybe you should take a wikibreak, idk I just have noticed your name a-lot in here it seems is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  So because other people are indiscriminately angry at me all the time and I'm never censured for it that's a problem?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong now says I "edited Wikipedia early this morning and this afternoon to get me banned at the behest of all of these other editors." I have *never* advocated for his banning nor for any particular sanction at all, nor am I acting "at the behest" of anyone. That statement is simply not true. Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Can one impose an interaction ban on these two under the aegis of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate? Because I am sorely tempted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

  This was posted by Mr. Auerbach before I further modified my statement and left him a personal apology.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  @Lankiveil Yes: "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." NE Ent 00:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I also want to point out the concurrent discussion on Jimbo's talkpage: User talk:Jimbo Wales#David Auerbach. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This matter was concluded with Ryulong's apology and so there's nothing more to do here. Auerbachkeller is within his rights not to accept the apology but there is nothing actionable at this point besides hurt feelings. My closure of this section was undone by an involved editor seeking to stir up more drama. It should be closed again unless there is something productive to be done here. Gamaliel (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization but you are entitled to your opinion. I believe you are more involved than I to close it and probably should wait for an uninvolved admin. Consensus is currently against the topic ban while at the same time there is a call for more DS being applied. --DHeyward (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

May I ask whether Gamaliel's suggestion to Ryulong that "it would be a good idea for you to refrain from dealing with User:Auerbachkeller or his writings from now on" has been accepted? (It was, after all, my initial request.) I can't see that it was ever followed up on. Auerbachkeller (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Propose Topic ban

• Topic Ban Ryulong from gamergate articles (30 day?, 90 day?, indef?). It appears that his work on that topic area always ends up here. Auerbachkeller would appear to be COI at that article anyway. Ryulong has an issue with Auerbachkeller today, but earlier it was a different editor, tomorrow it will be someone else until the topic ban is eventually placed. Let's cut the drama cord now. There has been repeated calls for more DS and this is a good time to police it. --DHeyward (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't believe the apology was accepted as being too little, too late[174]. Topic ban is a remedy, though, so discussion about the incident can be closed. We can discuss the remedy here or GG DS page. I propose here for eyeballs. How many times are we going to ignore topic induced incivility and disruption? --DHeyward (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Ryulong always ends up here because there is an inexhaustible supply of throw-away accounts promoting nonsense and making clueless commentary on several gamergate articles. Ryulong may well have cracked under the strain and behaved poorly in this instance (he is also being attacked offwiki), however it seems likely (21:35, 15 November 2014 and 21:37, 15 November 2014) that Ryulong has taken the advice that has strongly been offered to drop the matter raised in this report. There is a strong enforcement system so an ANI-imposed sanction is not needed. Furthermore, a topic ban would be counter productive as knocking out one of the small number of editors who are defending the encyclopedia would be most unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Johnuniq. Also DHeyward, if you are going to re-open this thread because Auerbachkeller didn't accept Ryulong's apology, I think you should try to find another reason. All the non-acceptance showed is that David seems to be too upset or too petty to accept a sincere apology. Dave Dial (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Whoa: that an apology was offered doesn't mean all harm is undone. One should not topic ban Ryulong for this one single incident, but by the same token we shouldn't not topic ban him in relation to this one single incident. Auerbach's not accepting Ryulong's apology does not negate Ryulong's earlier behavior--and let's remember that, if it hadn't been for some admin editing through protection while seeking consensus on the talk page, that stuff would still be in the article. In other words, berouw komt altijd na de zonde ("regret always follows the sin"?), but the real question here is about the actions (plural) on Ryulong's part that led to all these events: that is what we are asked to judge if a topic ban is to be granted. It's there we can differ. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I did not base my oppose on the apology, nor it's acceptance. So I don't understand your comment. I do agree that the inability of Ryulong to acknowledge mistakes can be problematic, I do not think that rises to a topic ban in an area that needs editors at the moment. Dave Dial (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It was closed 5 minutes after my proposal and it doesn't appear over if one side is continuing on. I can give other reasons related to arbcom pending case but I'd rather not devolve to that level as the close was in good faith. The reopening is in good faith as well. Note that Jimbo as already called for Tarc to not edit for a similar reason [175]. --DHeyward (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Ok, but I still think it should be closed, and my oppose is per Johnuniq and other factors having nothing to do with David. Dave Dial (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• He asked for a retraction. I gave a retraction. He asked for an apology. I gave an apology. Just because he does no want to accept that apology shows more of his behavior than anything I could ever do. This is ridiculous. I should not be banned for anything concerning David Auerbach.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• I apologize if my inability to accept Ryulong's apology makes me appear "upset" or "petty." Ryulong's immediately preceding comment, however, does not strike me as the words of a genuinely repentant editor, and consequently I am still unable to accept the apology, and I believe its sincerity should be up for debate rather than accepted as a given. Apologies in advance if this response is unwelcome on this page. Auerbachkeller (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auerbachkeller (talk • contribs) 08:15pm EST (UTC)
  • No need to apologise to me, I can understand someone being upset during these interactions. But I encourage you to find out more about Wikipedia and the policies, plus the POV driven masses sent from 8chan concerning the article in question. If not, that's fine too, just a suggestion. Dave Dial (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry for forgetting to sign the last comment. I am indeed a neophyte but I had little choice but to pick up policies as quickly as possible when I felt that I was being seriously misrepresented and had little recourse (I certainly couldn't edit the article myself). But as I implied, my inability to accept the apology is not because I'm upset, but because I cannot convince myself of its sincerity. I accepted Tarc's apology for his attacks on me because it did indeed seem sincere. I did not get that sense from reading Ryulong's apology, and his immediate reversion to criticizing me after my polite refusal has only reinforced me in that belief. I remain concerned about Ryulong's future edits as far as they may affect me. I am troubled by Ryulong's statement that "So because other people are indiscriminately angry at me all the time and I'm never censured for it that's a problem?" You are, of course, free to disagree with any of these points. Auerbachkeller (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I gave you a sincere apology and told you the truth about everything that has been affecting me over the past two months after you asked for an apology and you say "sorry no dice". I should be expected to be appalled by your actions here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
        • If so much has been happening to you there's all the more reason for you to just stay away. I don't understand in the first place why someone would be a Wikipedia editor and a Twitterer at the same time. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
          • I don't use Twitter other than to follow some Japanese video game news feeds. I just get hate there because I bothered to respond. I don't go inviting this shit to me on my social media. It targetted me directly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Don't worry about the occasional forgotten signature and other bureaucratic stuff. Wikipedia is a pretty loose kind of place where people are not required to offer an apology—our purpose is to build the encyclopedia and any disruption that interferes with that process is stopped (eventually!). People are not required to say they were wrong or otherwise humble themselves because it doesn't contribute much in the long run—what counts is how frequently poor behavior is repeated. The community just wants unhelpful behavior to stop. Ryulong was needlessly aggressive in his responses to you, but you might understand his poor approach if you had experienced the silliness that has been continuous ever since people started trying to use Wikipedia to excuse the harassment described in Gamergate, and to pretend that the article would exist if it really were about the concerns of gamers regarding the ethics of journalists. Ryulong should definitely disengage and not make any further commentary on this topic. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
        • A gamergate is a type of sexually viable ant.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)Yes, what Johnuniq said. Also, I wasn't talking about your missed sig, I'm more than happy to sign it for you and let you know how to do it yourself(even though you obviously know and are adapting quickly). I was referring to such Wiki policies as citing sources and neutral point of view. A couple of basic pillars of Wikipedia. If anything, it will make it easier for you to understand some things that go on here when referring to Wikipedia in your articles. But again, just a suggestion. Dave Dial (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban on User:Ryulong from Gamergate, because Ryulong is usually right, and in general because the community cannot deal effectively with editors who polarize the community, and Ryulong, right or wrong, is a polarizing editor on Gamergate and some other issues. This thread, as a request for a topic ban, is a waste of electrons. However, a very strong Warning is in order that Ryulong appears to be too angry to be dealing effectively with Gamergate, and if he doesn't calm down, he may need to be blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an involved editor stirring up more drama. Gamaliel (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I respect your oppose. Your aspersions are without merit, however. --DHeyward (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. I retain confidence in Ryulong. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  The Devil's Advocate, none of those have anything to do with David Auerbach's writing and everything I wrote is supported by reliable sources. Stop cherrypicking things and presenting them out of context.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  No, what you wrote in the first two diffs is not supported by the RSes cited. You wrote that Kluwe did not receive harassment despite making inflammatory remarks. The corresponding RSes state that Kluwe made inflammatory remarks, but do not deny Kluwe receiving harassment - they don't talk about it at all. I checked. All four of them. The closest is the Time piece citing Kluwe's claim not to have been doxxed, which is a weaker claim than "wasn't harassed at all". For all we know, doxxing of Kluwe was attempted and unsuccessful. The CNN piece also claims that Wheaton and Kluwe weren't doxxed, but relies on uncited Twitter hearsay for this claim.

  For that matter, as far as I can tell, the RSes in question don't even support the assertion that Day, Wheaton and Kluwe are "all gamers". The position that Kluwe is a "gamer", in particular, seems at odds with the anti-gamer remarks he made that are the point of this discussion in the first place. Keep in mind here that we are specifically referring to video games here; fans of tabletop board games (which certainly do include Day and Wheaton) aren't normally labelled thus.

  The Vice opinion piece is obviously biased, comes from a source that should not be considered reliable, and takes a POV on the question of "fair use" which was not balanced in any way, and misrepresents Nazer's viewpoint per his own Twitter (while also glossing over what seems to me like a joke at Vice's expense). Further, the claim that archive.today "strips advertisements from the archived web page" is trivially demonstrated to be a lie. I'm sure you're about to point to WP:VNT - let me quickly rebut that while it may not be required that something be proven true to be included, it is not reasonable to include, in Wikipedia's voice, something which is proven to be false.

  In the next edit, you removed a claim that had three proper sources, because you felt that it was "not a major point of contention" in two of them (an absurd objection in an article with over a hundred citations, most of which are used for a single-sentence observation out of perhaps thousands of words) and that the third - Reason.com - is not reliable. WP's own article on Reason notes in the lede that "The magazine has a circulation of around 70,000[2] and was named one of the 50 best magazines in 2003 and 2004 by the Chicago Tribune.[3][4]", and has no Controversy section, so I simply can't fathom your objection here.

  The "Dashgate" bit is absurd because it's sourced by a relative no-name "death and taxes magazine" that is representing an offer of charitable donation, clearly presented as a rhetorical tactic (the expectation being that the offer would be declined, so as to confirm someone else's viewpoint) as a "bribe". This is ignorant of the context and deliberately spun to create an impression of hypocrisy WRT ethical standards where none exists. It also draws a connection between two Twitter conversations that appear to be completely unrelated if you actually follow the links. It also ignores the context in the second conversation whereby Dash (who was represented as "having literally nothing to do with the situation whatsoever") claimed without evidence that Cernovich "supports bullying women out of gaming" and Cernovich replied by noting the matching donation he had already made to an anti-bullying charity. Including this bit is thus very, very clearly pushing a POV.

  The bit from Fast Company is, quite simply, not notable. Why should anyone care about the colour scheme of Vivian James' sweater?

  74.12.93.242 (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  [183] [184] [185] [186].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  Still all entirely unrelated to Auerbach. What are you trying to prove exactly, TDA? If anything, I can show that you are clearly doing all of this because it's pro/anti rather than any actual issues with the article. [187]. Heck, you completely go off the wall here [188]. And if we're pulling unrelated diffs out of our collective hats, I can show that you were intentionally toeing the line of BLP in this comment you left on the Brianna Wu article two weeks ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  [189] [190] [191] [192] [193].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  TDA, why are you posting all these diffs? Everything I added in these is supported by reliable sources. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's evidence I should be topic banned. This is gettin ridiculous. Can someone close all this off now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  [194] [195] [196] [197] [198].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  All TDA is doing here is picking out every edit I've made to the article that he disagrees with rather than edits that have done anything wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Presenting naked diffs without discussion is not a viable approach to resolving disputes. aprock (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A topic ban isn't warranted in my opinion because Ryulong's edits have been balancing in the article, and ANI is a ridiculous platform to vote (indeed, vote) on topic bans. How about admins actually enforce the WP:GS/GG sanction? Clearly Ryulong's incivil behauvior has violated the "expected standards of conduct" mentioned in the sanctions, even if they do not warrant a topic ban. --Pudeo' 06:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Johnuniq. MarnetteD|Talk 16:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone above - 9 times outta 10 Ryulong's only brought here by newly created accounts whom have nothing better to do than cause drama. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: 8 out of 9 times Ryulong seeks the 1 edit accounts out, because they make it their business to be in SPI. If you were getting a 10% valid complaint return, providing ten times as many irrelevant rubbish may be a good way of drowning yourself out of scrutiny. If you got a 10% complaint rate on eBay, they'd ban you from the site. ~ R.T.G 19:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

RTG is making statements that he does not know anything about still. Why hasn't he been interaction banned from me yet?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and Close Oppose and Boomerang There appears to be a solid consensus not to impose a topic ban here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Per below I have amended my opinion as Auerbachkeller is making this disruptive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for intruding once again, but since Dave Dial forgot this suggestion of Gamaliel's, I wanted to repost it here so it doesn't get lost:

This has the potential to make the GamerGate article dispute even messier than it already is. User:Ryulong, I think it would be a good idea for you to refrain from dealing with User:Auerbachkeller or his writings from now on. I don't think you are handling your interactions with him well and you are blowing things out of proportion. I also think that Auerbachkeller should be wary about who he takes advice from, as he risks being used as a proxy for editors who are inappropriately attempting to drag him into preexisting conflicts. Gamaliel (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong has continued to discuss the conflict today on Jimbo Wales' page, where he now claims I started the conflict and repeats a false claim that I only know his name via The Devil's Advocate. In truth, I learned Ryulong's name by searching diffs via Wikiblame on the edit in question. Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I am allowed to talk to Jimbo about this. I have been singled out unfairly and despite what you think I have no issue with you. I'm sorry you felt that my writing was incorrect but that's not something that requires a ban or voluntary anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong is now doing a Reddit AMA in which he is giving false accounts of what transpired between myself, him, Jimbo Wales, and others. Yes, I realize this is off-WP, but in my opinion it bears rather strongly on the matter at hand. Auerbachkeller (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and WP:BOOMERANG since Auerbachkeller is unwilling to put down the stick, the only sensable solution is to strongly warn Auer that the next time they try to bring this specific complaint they will be dealt with less gentleness. Auer's importing off offsite complaints in addition to shoveling any manure on Ryulong demonstrates the prime behavior of this "movement" to burn down established names in favor of their jettionsable pseudonyms. Hasteur (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose and Boomerang: the proposal was made in bad faith in order to promote one side of a content dispute. This should have been nipped in the bud, but as it has gone on this long, best to sanction the proposer with a WikiTrout. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and trouterang: mostly I just wanted to say "trouterang", but seriously I think I've seen editors come from the Gamergate area to propose topic bans for Ruylong three separate times since last Thursday (I'll find diffs if you want) and none have had much of any basis in policy or snowball's chance in hell of being accepted. Proposing the same thing over and over again is disruptive, and there's clearly no appetite for using admin tools to throw gas on this fire attempt to solve this dispute. It looks like it's already being discussed at Arbcom. Ivanvector (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Only on the basis that this specific thread is not about the topic but about user interactions. Retartist (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose boomerang This is ridiculous Loganmac (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Ryulong appears a great deal at ANI and his interactions with people often leave a lot to be desired. However, on the flipside of the coin, the fact that he hasn't lost his mind after all the crap the internet has thrown at him is a credit to his resilience and commitment to the project. It's a very rare day indeed when Ryulong has been hauled out for poor content injection. People will invariably disagree about what content he may put in but I highly doubt that, if we all stood back a bit, the quality of his content could be seriously challenged. This is not to say that a prolific content contributor should get a free card, but context is everything. Blackmane (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now what?

I'll be honest with everyone here. I have no idea what to do at this point. I thought we were close to having this issue resolved with Ryulong's apology. He deserves kudos for doing that regardless of whether or not it was accepted, and I think Auerbachkeller is perfectly within his rights not to accept it, but that should have been the end of it. But instead of the apology ending this issue, other parties attempted to use this dispute to topic ban Ryulong. In my opinion, that was an inappropriate attempt to hijack the issue with something that should have been handled separately and inflamed an issue that seemed to be nearing resolution. It's pretty clear Ryulong is not going to be topic banned, and now the two main parties are still sniping at complaining about each other and everyone is still annoyed. Facepalm. Gamaliel (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell me where I have been sniping at Ryulong? I have had no contact with him since yesterday. Auerbachkeller (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You just posted above complaining about him. I will change my phrasing, I really don't care. The essential point is that you are both unhappy and I think third parties are trying to fan the flames here. Gamaliel (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am unhappy that Ryulong is continuing to make false statements about me on and off WP after his supposed apology. Yes. Auerbachkeller (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"It's pretty clear Ryulong is not going to be topic banned." That's the problem: to a basically outside observer, he's the cause of a lot of the problems in the article, and it would be much better off if he were. Unfortunately, the wagons appear to have been circled around him and he won't be, so yeah, now what? If we can't get consensus to topic ban a disruptive editor from an article, what's left? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement. It was inappropriate for editors to hijack a sensitive situation to attempt to impose a topic ban, but concerned editors can request enforcement of general sanctions at any time. Gamaliel (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Why would we bother? As expected, the sanctions appear to be only for those perceived to be on one side of the debate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how I'm supposed to answer this. I'll use the sanctions if somebody gives me a reason to. But all I see here are a complaint that has been resolved with an apology and partisans trying to get the other side and only the other side banned. Gamaliel (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• The reasons have been detailed for some time. Why they haven't been used, I don't know. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Given the contentious nature of the topic, anyone who edits it heavily is going to attract significant blowback; it's unrealistic to expect any resolution to enjoy universal acceptance under those circumstances. But I think it's clear that there's a broad consensus here that Ryulong has acted appropriately overall -- like I mentioned on the article's talk page, I think the root of this particular issue stemmed not from anything Ryulong did but from another editor who accidentally changed the meaning of Ryulong's paraphrase while blindly applying WP:SAY, which accidentally changed its meaning from "Auerbach's article implied this" (which was a reasonable paraphrase of what the article being referenced was saying about him, even if Auerbach clearly disagrees with that article) to "Auerbach literally said this" (which obviously isn't.) Overall, though, this article needs more attention from users who understand our policies; I don't see how it would benefit from driving Ryulong away from it. Rather, if people are concerned, then what the article really needs is more attention from additional experienced editors so Ryulong isn't taking all the heat over editing it himself and so he doesn't become a flashpoint for everyone who has a concern with how it's currently written. --Aquillion (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think he's acted appropriately at all. Nor do I think his paraphrasing (or your "implied" version) was reasonable. This topic is under general sanctions. There have been a number of topic bans. Jimbo has asked Ryulong multiple times not to edit the article. Policies are enforced by admins using general sanctions and the drama keeps going because no one will step up and topic ban them and use DS to calm the waters. It doesn't have to be permanent but a handful of WP:OWN editors need to take a break (either on their own or by general sanctions). Two have been called out by Jimbo. A few are being attacked off-wiki and have been drawn in to the point where it's nearly WP:EXTERNALREL if not past that point. They need a break if only to stop the external BS that keeps being brought here. No article should be identified with individual editors and unfortunately, these articles are. This is not a hard decision and 30 or 60 day TBAN will go a long way to defocus the external eyes from specific editors. --DHeyward (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• It's hard to see how this won't be interpreted as punishment for offsite harassment, and worse, encouraging offsite harassment because it gives them the results they want. Honestly, there's about six editors on either side that I think should be forced to take a break, but I don't know how to make that sort of sanction stick and how to do it without blowing the whole thing up. The relatively minor and clear cut sanctions that have been imposed so far, for much worse behavior and for blatant repeated BLP violations, have already been dragged before ArbCom by partisans claiming that they are "tyrannical behavior". Gamaliel (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Okay the "clear cut" and "much worse" parts can be debated, but "relatively minor" is just absurd. Are three month, one year, or indefinite topic bans considered "minor" these days?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right, that was extremely poor wording on my part and I have struck that phrase. I was trying to convey that the issues were not difficult to sort out for admins compared to others, not that the sanctions themselves were minor. Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• As I understand it, his paraphrasing was discussed on the talk page, and nobody objected to it particularly at the time (indeed, based on the comment when he first added it, he was careful to get feedback from other people before putting it in.) It only attracted attention after Auerbach objected (responding to the version with Halfhat's accidental WP:SAY edits, not to the version Ryulong wrote.) Either way, disagreeing with the precise wording of someone's paraphrase wouldn't blow up to this extent if it weren't for the environment of constant offsite pressure you describe; none of the things people are accusing Ryulong of would even be comment-worthy in a normal situation. Saying that off-wiki attacks are a reason he should pull back is likewise missing the point -- none of the off-wiki attacks really have anything to do with Ryulong or any of the other editors they're targeting; the people doing the targeting literally just made a list of the most prolific editors that they disagreed with and went after them. If Ryulong stepped back, the harassment would move down the list to the next-most-prolific editor, and so on until the article was purged of everyone perceived as unfriendly to their views. Which leads me to the most important point: In an environment like this, where anyone who steps up to edit the article is likely to be subject to fairly vicious attacks from some quarter or another, we absolutely need people who are willing to step up to the plate regardless. Ryulong should, for the most part, be commended for enduring that kind of pressure, not criticized for being a target of offsite harassment; just a look over the talk page shows that they have constantly engaged in good-faith discussions with people who have many different views, and that the article has been improved as a result. We need more people willing to participate in that sort of fairly grueling discussion over contentious topics like this. The best solution, of course, to the situation is for the article to get more experienced editors keeping their eyes on it and chipping in, not to drive away the few people who have been willing to endure the harassment and anger surrounding it until now in an effort to edit constructively... but given how Ryulong has been treated for his work there, it's not hard to see why that isn't happening. --Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "none of the things people are accusing Ryulong of would even be comment-worthy in a normal situation." That's absurd. Why, just the other day I saw him get away with 15RR. There have been hundreds of citations of issues with his behaviour WRT the article by now. Your claims about "targeting" are also unsubstantiated and, in my view, meritless. Offsite discussion I've witnessed has centered on Ryulong, yes - but only because he's been noted as annoying huge numbers of people across a wide spectrum of articles and communities, documented all over the Internet, over the course of a solid 8 years. When I did my own research, for example, I found a claim that he once leveled a /16 IP ban. But as regards the Gamergate article, most discussion explicitly already names three or four other editors as problematic, and accuses them of WP:TAGTEAM either explicitly or in more community-specific phrasing. 74.12.93.242 (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

My question: given that Ryulong is continuing to misrepresent me and unable to give a factually correct account of recent events, given that his behavior shows little improvement from before his "apology," and given that he is by his own admission a poor and unclear writer, how am I to think that he will represent me or my writings at all accurately in the future? Auerbachkeller (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't worry about this at all; if anyone misrepresents your writings on Wikipedia, someone else will correct them. It’s precisely the same situation as you would face if your book were reviewed in, say, TLS, by someone whom you think dislikes you and who, in any case, doesn't adore your book. As you doubtless know, attempting to address this directly is known as an Author’s Big Mistake. That's why people are urging you to drop the stick and back away. You've received more than you could reasonably have expected here; let it go. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I would remove the post with the Reddit AMA link myself but don't know if that is allowed. Consider that entire post rescinded nonetheless. Auerbachkeller (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"If off wiki dealings are so inconsequential, I fail to see the fuss over 8chan or KotakuInAction" grumbled DSA510. --DSA510 Pls No H8 04:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There is indeed a massive double standard there, as I noted in my statement to Arbcom. 74.12.93.242 (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A Background Note

Yesterday, I came across a thread (I believe at 8chan) that discussed the given name, city of residence, religion, and sexual orientation of the editor whose topic ban we were discussing above. I'm not sure this report presents significant information, or whether that discussion is already known. And I have no idea at all whether the assertions made there were accurate, facetious, or (for all I know) common knowledge in the community. I’m not even certain whether mentioning the existence of such discussions is appropriate or helpful. I made no particular note at the time, and only later realized that some editors here might wish to know this. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

But it seems to me that this sort of thing ought to be taken into account. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

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

---

I will notify Rotten regard in minute, but this [207] is problematic. I know all three accounts, and CU has been run without matching, so it sounds silly to me, but at a public board, to declare someone a sockpuppet without filing a report, is beyond uncivil, and is disruptive. Replying there would have only increased the disruption, so I came here instead. Showing two links of intersects isn't sufficient "evidence" to back up the claim. I'm involved, but I request an admin or the community take whatever appropriate action they deem necessary. Dennis - 2¢ 23:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not saying they defintely are socks, just that the intersections on very obscure articles are very suspicious. People should look for themselves and make their own minds up. --Rotten regard 23:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If I hadn't voted already, I would have just blocked you and redacted your vote. I still think that is the appropriate response. Dennis - 2¢ 23:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• +1, Dennis. Also, I must note that when someone has 255,980 edits, that situation is likely to happen. ^{(Wow, this is the first edit I've made to AN/I)} --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, but you'll look silly when I'm proved right. --Rotten regard 23:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS says "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence". @Dennis, I believe an editor interaction analyzer counts as evidence for the statement made. It may be wrong, but it counts as evidence. I would have opposed your block on the grounds of failing to meet the threshold of WP:ASPERSIONS.--v/r - TP 00:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I must say though, according to Intersect Contribs, you (TParis) have 802 results with NA1000 (an example of how the oppose rationale of RR isn't valid, IMO) because you and NA1000 have a high edit count. (TParis = 26,000, Candleabracadabra = 25,000, Northamerica1000 = 255,000) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have 55 intersections with NA1K and most of that is is on user talk pages because he used the MassMessage page to send out the same message 3 times to correct for his mistakes. Those aren't "obscure articles."--v/r - TP 00:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm seeing 802 here. I wonder why we got different results. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Because yours includes the 50,000 'Wikilove' messages he sent out to everyone to pump up his edit count? Dave Dial (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and an "intersect" tool is just that, a tool, it is NOT evidence by any stretch of the imagination. You use it as a tool to GATHER evidence, to show behavioral similarities. This is why you go to SPI to have an investigation done, you don't try to undermine faith in someone by making unsubstantiated claims. I've worked plenty of SPI cases to know. I can not for the life of me believe you have ever blocked someone just because they had intersects. Dennis - 2¢ 00:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

:With enough edits the Birthday problem easily shows how collisions between any two people is all but certain. I saw that ~vote, and that was my first assumption. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent example. Next we ask, "is this intentional disruption"? I maintain it is, as part of a pattern. Just look at prior RFAs. Dennis - 2¢ 00:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  If prior RfAs have the same type of claim based on the same type of evidence, that could be Rotten simply not understanding the statistics. On the other hand if they appear to be oppose votes based largely on (what to us) appears weak evidence, that could be Rotten simply finding what he looks for, in other words a form of confirmation bias. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC).
  

• I don't plan on getting involved in the drama here, but I just wanted to say that I find the socking concern to be legitimate. Now, if the edit intersection tool had only turned up common articles and noticeboards, I wouldn't be concerned. However, the tool shows that the accounts in question have edited the same obscure articles and AfD nominations, which makes me a bit suspicious. Concerning Dennis Brown's statement above that he would have just struck the !vote and blocked the user, I personally think that doing such a thing would be illegitimate. You don't block people just because they raise a concern that you happen to disagree with. In any case, I've always been a very skeptical person and will look into the matter myself. --Biblioworm 01:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Biblio, you need to actually read above. It isn't about agreeing, and if that is all you got out of the above, you missed the point. Those intersects are not evidence. Making a claim without filing at SPI can get you blocked here at ANI, no less at RFA. It boils down to "put up or shut up". This RFA isn't exempt. Even here, we would tell you to either file an SPI, or drop the claim. My disagreeing isn't because I think NA is a swell guy, it is because I knew ChildofMidnight back in 2008, AND I knew Candelabra, and was involved when the SPI case came around. But that doesn't even matter. You don't make a radical claim in the middle of a RFA then refuse to file at SPI, unless you asking to get blocked, it is disruptive to just fly by, make a claim, disrupt a process and feign ignorance yet maintain the extraordinary claim. Like I said, you either put up, or you shut up, when it comes to making sock claims, anywhere at Wikipedia. Dennis - 2¢ 01:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I understand what you're saying, and as I said, I am not by any means completely convinced; I just feel that there is sufficient concern to justify myself looking into the matter a bit more. In any case, filing a SPI would be futile, because CU data is not retained for such a long period of time. --Biblioworm 01:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't care if you are convinced he is a sock or not. You don't investigate socks at RFA or ANI, you take it to SPI, but you better have more evidence than intersects, because that isn't evidence. I just showed where DGG and I have over 800 intersects, someone should rush off and block us..... Dennis - 2¢ 01:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis. The aspersions are just another manifestation of how RFA has become a snakepit and witch trial. Making such accusations without filing a SPI is disruptive and blockworthy. The accuser should put up or shut up. Edison (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

*stuffs face with popcorn* This is getting interesting... I think Dennis is right. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Be careful. Candleabracadabra and Northamerica1000 have both edited popcorn. --NE2 02:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• This has got to be one of the most baseless implied accusations ever made at RfA. A quick review of the two edit intersections shows three editors interested in food-related articles (oh, yeah, lots of controversial editing there, full of sock puppets, eh?). As I noted in my snarky RfA comment, NA1000 has almost 1600 edits in common with administrator Anna Frodesiak (!), and unsurprisingly, many of them are food-related. When an editor has 250,000 edits, high numbers of overlapping edits are to be expected in areas of common interest with other editors. In the absence of obvious patterns of disruptive editing, vote stacking, vandalism, etc., all it means is that two editors share areas of interest. In the absence of providing such evidence and analysis, I strongly suggest that Rotten Regard should strike his RfA comment and withdraw his implied accusations of sock-puppeteering against NA1000. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'm about to look a little closer at Rotten regard, closer than I did after their crappy oppose at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/I JethroBT. For the record, I know NA1000, and I know ChildofMidnight, and I know Candleabracadabra. It's possible that they're all the same, but not in this universe. What Rotten regard (and perhaps others) seem to miss is that the overlap is on the same foods, hot dog stands, bacon trivia, other nonsense articles that NA1000 is so fond of saving and that Candle/Child (and their currently active sock) were so fond of writing. I'll mention only in passing that I only edit high-falutin' articles, and anyone is welcome to match my edits to NA1000's.

  But all that's beside the point. You don't bring something like this up in the middle of an RfA--I hope someone has removed that comment already. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• OMG! Dr. Mies is a sock puppet! He and NA1000 have almost 2300 pages in common! Burn him! He's a witch! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• :) I also have a thousand edits in common with CoM. And a few hundred with Candle. I really need to start editing better articles. I wonder how much Kelapstick and I have in common... Drmies (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ha, yes, of course--only a few days ago I reverted dozens of their edits, where they had tagged a whole bunch of notable Czech films and were edit-warring to restore the tags. They offered no comment when asked, except for "Please stop creating a bunch of crap stub articles about non-notable films." (Yes, it involved Der Blofeld, and User:Kudpung knows about this too.) In other words, this really has NOTHERE written all over it. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies and I have 1055 in common, which I find surprising since I don't remember working in tandem on more than a handful. But again, either this was stupidity or malice. Based on Rotten's previous votes at RFA, I still think it is malice, a willful attempt to cause problems, something he has been accused of more than once at RFA. Dennis - 2¢ 02:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Witches! [208] Burn them! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, does anyone have the courage to strike the offending RfA comment and move the distracting thread to the RfA talk page? I think it's time . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I would, but I've supported the RfA. What about you? You haven't !voted. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't support, but I removed it nonetheless. I do not wish to see NA1000's RfA tanked because of this. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• You removed the !vote rationale, but the oppose is still technically being counted. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Another admin can still remove that if they like; Rome wasn't built in a day. If this here discussion leads to greater concerns or a block or whatever, someone will remove it. In the meantime, you have to have faith in the crats who do the actual counting: for now, their oppose is a placeholder, and the crats will know what's on the talk page. (So it's only "technically" being counted by the mechanical counter--but what that counter counts doesn't really count.) In other words, it's less than nothing. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Rotten supported 5 RFAs in 2012 and opposed 3 in 2014. the opposes were the last 3 RfA's I believe, I JethroBT, Northamercia1000 and Jackmcbarn. The oppose diffs from this year are:
  1. Jackmcbarn oppose
  2. I JethroBT oppose
  3. I JethroBT comment on reaction to oppose
  4. Northamercia1000 oppose

Not great to see opposes in all these three cases, it smacks of opposing on principle. But probably not actionable at this stage.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

This kind of stuff is what scares away potential candidates. Maybe it would be wise to make a statement that this will not be tolerated. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I regularly edit new articles that are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Showcase/NA, performing edits such as cleanup, layout, formatting, WikiProject tagging, adding sources, etc., and have done so for a significant period of time. I'm certainly not going to abandon my membership in WikiProject Food and Drink and avoid food- and drink-related articles and XfD discussions because a person on the internet was blocked for using two accounts. I welcome anyone to please go ahead and open an SPI immediately and get a check user to start comparing IP addresses right away. It's injust and rather sickening to be vilified for my work to improve the encyclopedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I am concerned, that would explain a great deal, NA1000. Now, get off the ANI page during your RfA, and let the rest of us handle it. Believe me when I say that that this is the wrong place to ask for fair treatment during your RfA. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• • • Like I said, I knew CoM and Candelabra, and like Drmies, I know there is no way, but file if someone thinks that is the case. And I respectfully disagree Rich, although I understand your perspective. Last time, his disruptiveness was just under the wire, and I supported just leaving it alone, there on that talk page. This is different. He keeps pushing the envelope and even now is probably laughing his ass off that we are even debating this. As I said when I came here, had I not voted, I would have struck the vote and blocked him and my opinion hasn't changed. Good faith isn't a suicide pact, and once the pattern is clear, preventing it from continuing is an obligation. Dennis - 2¢ 03:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

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

---

Above, Rich has provided links to Rotten regard's recent RfA disruption. On one ongoing RfA, he has opposed without giving a reason. On another one, he makes a irresponsible allegation of sockpuppetry. In both cases, his brief responses have indicated that he is not willing to consider that he may be wrong. This may be somewhat harsh, but I am proposing an indefinite topic ban of Rotten regard from all pages beginning with "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/". I feel that it is important for the community to make a statement to prospective candidates that we are trying to clean up the process and that disruption will not be tolerated. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as nom. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support This sort of behavior cannot be tolerated at RfA if we expect candidates to be brave enough to run. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support This prevents disruption, and that is good enough for me. A reasonable compromise. Dennis - 2¢ 03:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Secret ^account 04:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support There are other locations such as ANI that they can use and meaningfully demonstrate that their behavior has indeed changed and they can seek to overturn this in the future. This will end the disruption and it does seem reasonable considering the topic.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support – RfA clearly is not the appropriate forum to make serious allegations without cold hard evidence. A user's talk page, AN/I or SPI would make a great start. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Please excuse my flagrantly biased participation here, but I think Mellowed Fillmore has it spot on. Tolerance of this kind of behavior during RfA is frankly embarrassing, particularly when it involves very serious allegations and arguments pretty much devoid of substance. Rotten regard is entitled to their opinion on any candidate, but failure to advance a believable case reeks of intent to disrupt rather than constructively participate in the RfA process. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support t-ban on RfA. Although WP:RFA2011 didn't bring about any physical changes to the process, it sent a clear message to the community and over the following years RfA has slowly but surely somewhat cleaned up its act. There are some who maintain that such !votes should be left to 'crat discretion be discounted and that such detractors will go away if we ignore them. The latter obviously does not work and we've been passive about this kind of thing for far too long. It's time therefore to reinforce that message to the community and the only way to do it is to start taking positive action and show that silliness on RfA will not be tolerated. Perhaps we'll then start to see an increase in the number of candidates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - It's clearly obvious he's only opposing everyone to simply disrupt, Comments like "No thank you" without fully explaining why is disruptive & sure as hell doesn't help the RFA. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support While the first oppose may be understandable, the second is disruptive. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 16:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Miniapolis 20:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

*Whoa (that's oppose, but) Agree the behavior is unacceptable but going straight to disenfranchising an editor from voting seems like overkill. How about "Rotten regard is topic banned from participating in Rfas. The topic ban is suspended on the provision that all future comments be supported by rationale in a manner consistent with the community Wikipedia:Civility policy. Any uninvolved administrator may revoke the suspension if they judge Rotten regard has violated the terms of the suspension." ? NE Ent 21:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on RFA. Enough with the poorly supported accusations. Edison (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 22:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support He's an idiot. --Rotten regard 23:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Rotten regard, are you invoking Hanlon's razor? I hadn't weighed in yet and was considering an Oppose, preferring NE Ent's alternative (if it's posted as an alternate proposal for me to Support). An apology and statement that you'll include a rationale with diff's to support your position in the future would go a long way toward smoothing things out. Removing your Oppose from I_JethroBT's RfA was a good start even though you should have struck it out rather than removing it. Your improper AfD closure and subsequent sock block and some other actions were disruptive. I judge your Support here as sarcastic and potentially disruptive. Continuing will result in bans and/or blocks. Stop the disruption now and productively edit in ways to help build an encyclopedia and mistakes will be forgiven in a year or so. I suspect that any of the editors here would be happy to suggest articles that need improvement (and please help improve, not just stick tags on them). DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 01:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Did it really come across as sarcastic? It wasn't meant that way. If the vast majority see a topic ban as appropriate then fair enough, you'll get no whinging from me. --Rotten regard 01:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Also forgot to say, yep it was a stupid thing I did hence the "He's an idiot" comment. --Rotten regard 01:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Rotten regard. NE Ent 01:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Rotten regard. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Does WP:NPA cover agreeing with someone personally attacking themselves? ^{[just kidding]} --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support RFA has routinely been described as one of the worst processes to undergo here at the English Wikipedia. It's important that not only the candidates, but those participating, are held to a standard of accountability for their actions. The venue must be prevented from becoming simply an opportunity for those that would abuse the system to attack other editors under the guise that ANY oppose rationale may be used. It would also appear that Rotten has other issues here on Wikipedia so preventative enforcement will come at each point, and this will be one of them. Mkdw^talk 03:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Rotten regard. Rr can ask that the ban be lifted in a year or so by agreeing to include thoughtful rationales when commenting on an RfA. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 15:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I was going to suggest limiting to just actual !voting but allowing participation via RfA talk, but after RR's own sarcastic !vote in favour of banning themselves, I see this as flippant disdain for the process and continuously attempting to disrupt it to prove a point. Ivanvector (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify, my support vote for the topic ban was not done sarcastically. The punishment must fit the crime and my actions deserve a topic ban. --Rotten regard 22:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think at this point there is an overwhelming consensus for a topic ban. Rotton, this does not have to be forever it seems like you realize your actions and hope for the best in the future. Lets all move on shall we? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Bashar al-Assad

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

---

Hi, at Bashar al-Assad, I added information with sources such as BBC, Huffington Post, ABC news, UN.org, The Telegraph and maybe also some unreliable sources, but all of these have been reverted possibly by the same User using multiple IPs and accounts. I removed the uncited claim that Bashar was brought back as heir apparent, and replaced it with what he said to Barbara Walters at an interview that he nor his brother had anyone role in politics while their dad was alive+ Bashar and his dad never supported dynasty in Syria. Bashar al-Assad's article is full of POV, synthesis ans BLP issues. I also probably unintentionally corrupted the article a bit. It needs attention and fixture. More importantly, it needs protection from Syrian opposition trolls. Feel free to remove everything I added. Thanks--Makerbuck1 (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of my edits, like huge part of the article, are not neutral and require definite removal. --Makerbuck1 (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Makerbuck1, you are adding poorly sourced material (i.e. random bloggers with WordPress sites) exclusively to the lead of the article, while deleting WP:RELIABLE sources regarding Assad war crimes and other details. If you carry on like this you are just going to get yourself blocked—you are ignoring WP:CONSENSUS (your edits have been reverted by multiple editors), WP:NEUTRAL, as well as WP:RELIABLE. Nulla Taciti (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Can an admin please caution Makerbuck1? This editor is simply reinserting inappropriate material into the lead of the article verbatim. It is getting tedious dealing with his edit warring against several editors. Nulla Taciti (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Makerbuck as a sock of Mangoeater1000.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Harassment by Widefox

User widefox is harassing me by reverting all my edit or adding harassment tags to my activity everywhere on wikipedia. He has not proved his claim of conflict of interest and still he is stalking my activity and adding tags to my editing to discredit me. I ask him to go to administrator and he does not because he does not have any proof.

I was reported by user Rahat that I made conflict of interest edit at a topic. I gave my evidence that I was not making conflict of interest edit so Rahat has withdrawn his report. This user widefox added me to his list of sockfarm without proof then tried to stop me from clarifying that Rahat has withdrawn his report. Rahat posted his clarification again on notice board only then widefox left that report alone. But he did not remove my name from his list of sockfarm. Then he came to this notice board and an admin told him to be careful who he calls sockpuppet. After this he added conflict of interest tag on talkpage 2 times but I left him alone. Widefox was trying to hinder discussion on talkpage as well. Then I started discussing with one user every single reference which is on going discussion. I even made controversy section longer. If I was ERA worker why will I make controversy long. I made its conclusion as reference said. But widefox wants to revise it to incorrect data. Now he is also saying I am also working for Jason Minter. He thinks I am working for everyone and he is deluded about this. If I was working for other people why am I discussing every single reference in so much detail. Please stop this user from disrupting all my debates and please stop him from discrediting me everywhere on wikipedia. Please see proof of my discussion on talk page. Widefox is still stalking me and harassing me. I created a new topic separate from ERA. Widefox also followed me to that topic and prejudiced a neutral user AuthorAuthor who was voting keep on deletion debate. There is no concern with notability of topic and he is only discrediting me so that he can delete all my edits. Widefox has started same behavior on this topic now he is adding harassment tag on talkpage with my name on it and he is bombing the subject page with tags as well. He has reported me on another notice board without concern to discredit me but I have only removed his harassment tag I even corrected his one edit back when he requested [209].

Widefox has not made even one proven report against me and he is obsessed with conflict of interest. One admin has told him to be careful and still he is stalking me and harassing me. I move that widefox should be blocked from wikipedia until my debates of reference discussion and article deletion are over. Widefox has not proven it on conflict of interest noticeboard or here. And he is telling me to "take it up to COIN" where there is no proof. So he should take it up to admin or stop following. If he does not stop following please block him. Thank you. --TheSawTooth (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) TheSawTooth has edit warred Electronic Recycling Association (I was uninvolved) until it was locked, and is now repeating at Jason Minter (afDed by Adamfinmo, where am I involved editing - mainly BLP source checking/maintenance templates). TheSawTooth has been reported Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TheSawTooth_reported_by_User:Widefox_.28Result:_.29 to prevent article being locked like ERA. Overwhelming behavioural evidence - articles/timing/ TheSawTooth account did 10 minor edits plus created Jason Minter draft then started promo editing ERA. Links with disclosed Fiverr editors at WP:COIN#Bert_Martinez, SPIs are Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amyxcell Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amyxcell/Archive . Widefox; talk 12:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Pinging other editors who've commented Logical Cowboy, DGG. Comment about "careful" is from Dennis Brown about filing an SPI (see 2x SPIs above which weren't linked when he made that comment). Note I'm reworking the SPI as requested. Widefox; talk 12:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Update. Widefox is editing archive to manipulate my outcome of this investigation so that it appears that he has reported me for sockpuppet investigation. But it is clear that he has not reported me in this investigation which he is claiming by editing archive and he is only harassing me without case. Next I think he will add my name to investigation and lie about it too. So I am asking admins to keep check on this kind of manipulation it may be intentional. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Bad faith report: I noticed the SPI links weren't there for Dennis (which was his comment), but didn't notice it has just been archived. I've undone already realising the error. TheSawTooth is not on the SPI yet, it is already too big and the majority appear to be meats - I've already said I'm reworking it, which will take time. The behavioural evidence is at the SPIs, COIN, and ANI. Widefox; talk 12:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ping me when you file. Dennis - 2¢ 13:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. deletedhistory permission is a growing issue for me - an admin is needed to see deleted article edit histories. Widefox; talk 15:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The links you are looking for are [210], [211] and [212], where he just requested a speedy delete on an existing article for A7 (claim of importance). It was soon after deleted for G12 (copyvio). Dennis - 2¢ 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

My impression is that Widefox is making a tremendous good faith effort to root out a big complicated mess of COI editing while following WP policies himself. I don't see any evidence he is getting "personal"--the only personal aspect seems to be TheSawTooth calling this "harassment" in this forum. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That is my impression as well. After poking around a bit, I can see why he would want someone to look closer. Dennis - 2¢ 16:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, thanks for the links, can't do anything much with them - all deleted so it takes an admin to see the A7 or who requested it who edited it. I can see more offwiki - those two articles are a paid job offered & taken on odesk.com . That may be all OK as I can't see who edited it to see if they've disclosed or not. Widefox; talk 17:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

update: seen the A7 notice now, but that's about it. Widefox; talk 20:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You were not ready to report me to admins now saying that SPI was too large but you were happy to put conflict of interest tag on my name everywhere on wikipedia so that is bad faith as well if you want to make it a rule. Three deleted edits by Dennis are not related to ERA. I got them from recent changes and I saw on editor creating article which was not notable. So I asked for deletion. Some one else also asked for deletion at same time I did. So one tag remained and it was deleted. Two other were similar maintenance edits and I did not comment at deletion debate of two topics because I am not interested in that topic. Admins can see my history that I was going in recent changes and doing those edits. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

SPI being too large/complex is the comment from the SPI admin not me. The SPI aspect may be similar to issues faced with Morning277. Widefox; talk 20:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Bad faith 2 - right after this ANI, TheSawTooth accused [213] an SPA of "I think you are a sockpuppet" but provided no evidence. Seems to be WP:OWN on Electronic Recycling Association and Jason Minter. Widefox; talk 17:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

His only one edit is on one subject that is on notice board concern of regular wikipedia users. It is sock but I do not know who is doing this. It is not compulsory rule of wikipedia to assume good faith. So do not accuse me of bad faith again. ERA topic has paid editors who are editing for or against ERA I do not care. I want to make it neutral. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I do not know what widefox is doing for wikipedia other than this but he is obsessed with conflict of interest. He maybe doing good work if you say but he is following my activity and adding tag to my name and my activity. So it is personal or not? He was doing this on ERA topic but I did not fight with him. See I have replied to every concern at ERA. He is saying that editor that I think is sock is bad faith accusation but he is doing samething saying that I edited ERA so I have conflict of interest only because my account is not as old as his account. This is unfair dealing by widefox. If I am not neutral then why am I discussing references at talkpage? Widefox's attempts to discredit me at ERA so that he can change to revision before my edit are not fair. I have told him ten times that I am ready to discuss and I am ready to make it neutral. I have given proof now that I am discussing. But no. He is not interested in that. He is only interested in his label of conflict of interest without proof to revise ERA topic. Same case with deletion debate on next topic where he has stalked me. Ask him to stop. Any admin can do it instead of him and help me in discussion to make ERA topic neutral. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• I want to request that if widefox has no proof that I am related to ERA then he should stop stalking me. If he keeps on stalking and if he keeps trying to ask to revise locked topic he will disrupt my discussion with nikthestunned. Many editors are discussing and doing effort. User Rahat, Jytdog and nikthestunned have discussed concerns with me and I have replied. Widefox is not even discussing. he is just tagging and following to next then tagging then tagging talkpage. Then telling everyone that I have conflict of interest by showing them his list so that they change their vote. But in his list I have replied that I have no conflict of interest and again he has no proof in that list. A list full of other usernames is not my concern so I move that an admin should stop him from doing this or just decide now for future that what he wants to do because I have told him that I am not conflict of interest editor in 10 times. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• I can do one thing for widefox. I can invite widefox to discuss with me on ERA talkpage what he want to add or remove in topic. Like a civilized person. I will answer him like I have answered nikthestunned. If he can do that and withdraw his allegation of conflict of interest I will discuss with him as well and answer his concern or remove. I have done this at Jason Minter topic two times at his request. He should have good faith as well because he has not proved anything. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have treated the TheSawTooth account in the same way as all the other suspects. The only difference is that it was also independently reported at COIN by another editor for edits on ERA at the same time as I reported for similar editing patterns to confirmed paid editors (disclosed Fiverr and undisclosed). TheSawTooth's edit warring on the two articles was reported to AN3 but admin wishes it to be dealt with at a venue like this. I see no sign that editor has understood about edit warring on the two articles, and despite protests here, has accused an SPA editor of being a sock without evidence or listing them anywhere, in contrast to the massive behavioural evidence submitted (by me and Logical Cowboy) about their account in this. It would seem prudent to see WP:OWN and refrain editing those articles for now, and wait for this to be cleared up, even if (as editor claims) they don't have a COI. Widefox; talk 20:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The other editor realized his mistake and he has withdrawn his report. If editor who has reported can withdraw and take my good faith work to discuss. Why are you forcing me? You reported me for editwar on only 2 edits. So that admin said I am not in editwar. ERA editwar was stress because I did a lot of effort to make it neutral and he was not even telling any reason to revise it. But now he is discussing it and I am discussing it as well. So no concern in it. I do not own any article but you are accusing me without listening to me in same way. I will withdraw my accusation against new editor if any admin can check and tell if this new comment is possible to be fair new comment. First it was conflict of interest now it is ownership. I do not have both of them. If widefox will not discuss about what he wants to remove and why he should let other users deal with it on talk page. If he has concern he can tell any admin here but just get over with this so that I can use wikipedia without him. --TheSawTooth (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is inevitable than in investigating the related but not identical problems of puppetry and promotionalism, mistakes will be made, especially in the early stages of an investigation. The general way of proceeding is to collect everything that seems likely, and then start more detailed checking. I only do the promotionalism side, but I as well as everyone else active in dealing with these problems have made errors, both in thinking that perfectly responsible editors were promotional (or puppets), and in being convinced that some editors were promotional or puppets, but being unable to prove it. The extent to which someone protests at being labelled does not prove either innocence or guilt: some people get outraged at the merest suspicion, some obviously guilty parties think their best strategy is to complain about it as loudly and often as possible, and denounce the investigators. I & others have sometimes needed to apologize to people whom we really knew were due no apology, but where the evidence did not convince others. It's reasonable that the standard of evidence for proving it be higher than the standard for checking it, or we'd miss a great deal. Sometimes an extensive ring of puppets has been first noticed as collusion at a single article.

I think that Widefox's investigations have been reasonable, and almost all the people they identified are indeed in need of blocking. A few are equivocal at least at present. What we need to be careful about is doing actual blocking on insufficient evidence, and we need to at the least be willing to remove the blocks if we or others think them unwarranted. I've been stopped by traffic police for infractions of which I was not guilty and been able to show it; I've been stopped when not guilty, and been unable to prove it & had to pay the ticket; I may also have been stopped once or twice when guilty, and talked them out of it. And of course I've committed traffic offenses and not been caught at it. Obvious the possibility of injustice gets very much more concerning for more serious matters, but unlike the real world, nothing we deal with here will lead to a criminal conviction. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your reasonable remarks. Can you tell widefox to not use COI word for before he can prove it. It is not a good excuse to delete data from subjects without proving COI when one editor is discussing with other editors. --TheSawTooth (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Early stage behavioural evidence is already at WP:COIN. In the meantime the COI tag hasn't been added to the article as a courtesy. TheSawTooth is, meanwhile, still edit warring on two three articles Kargil War [214] [215], Zarb-e-Azb [216] [217] [218] [219] [220], Jason Minter [221] (older with COI tag [222] [223] - note these BLP failed sources were correctly removed by User:Adamfinmo [224]) and claims harassment by several different editors in several forums. Widefox; talk 15:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I gave up on Jason Minter to wait until deletion debate is over. Saadkhan12345 crossed topic to revise me on Jason Minter you know that. I do not have COI at Kargil War and India is not paying me. Kargil war got to compromise just like real Kargil war stop now. --TheSawTooth (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have agreed to Jytdog's draft idea. I hope they do not call me COI and help me to revise the draft by agreeing or disagreeing on each point like me and nikthestunned are doing. --TheSawTooth (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User dissing Banglapedia and repeatedly removing citations to it; a topic ban may be warranted

User:বব২৬ has been involved in some heated arguments with several others, with a previous ANI for edit warring as discussed on their talk page User_talk:বব২৬#Warned for edit warring at Bengali calendar, which resulted in the reporter being warned as well as this user. It is my impression that two skilled editors, @Redtigerxyz: and @Nafsadh: have been driven away, outlasted by the combatant. I thought I could help matters by carefully adding sourced statements to the article, but User:বব২৬ has continued to remove them, including removing the citations. Most recently, the pattern appears to be that citations to the venerable work Banglapedia are removed and dismissed as in the note added with this edit "is at times also miss-romanized as Banggabda instead of the correct phonetic romanization". The article concerns difficult material, but this attitude is not helpful to sorting it out. It is not clear whether this person has a generally dismissive attitude towards Bangladesh and/or Muslim culture, or whether their failure to understand other people's edits and explanations and their aggressive responses are the real problem. In either case, I believe it would be helpful if this person were banned from editing pages related to the country of Bangladesh so that others can get a chance to patiently and carefully edit the material involved, including sorting out the points of confusion. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• EdJohnston warned him under Discretionary Sanctions for WP:ARBIPA, which means he is one step away from a topic ban (or any other sanction the admin feels is warranted, including blocks) that can be given by any uninvolved admin. With these types of problems, that is usually the most effective way to deal with it, as it doesn't require a lot of debate. So now he will either get the point, or get topic banned. Dennis - 2¢ 18:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. First, let me say, I am fond of both Sminthopsis84 and বব২৬; they are good editors.

I am not driven away, but I became busy with other things and thus I cannot gather much time that is needed for those articles. I hope to come back when I find more time. I suggested both বব২৬ and Redtigerxyz to refrain from editing Bengali Calendar, until the dispute resolves. Instead of trying to resolve the issue, বব২৬ started to edit the article after three days cool-down period ended. I also noticed, Sminthopsis84 is also involved there. However, the article has turned into a mess. Initially, Redtigerxyz appeared to be confused about Bengali calendar, and he is a bit pushy about relating Hindu calendar to Bengali calendar. While, বব২৬ is bold about not allowing any such relation. Banglapedia stipulates fully Muslim and Mughal basis of Bengali calendar, which is prevalently popular theory in Bangladesh. Redtigerxyz's source relating Surja Siddhanta, is however notable.

But, I am afraid, বব২৬ is either confused about the subject matter or cannot understand other editors' edits. I am not sure what he means by the modern Bangla cal. is not solar in nature! while it is indeed a solar, sidereal calendar.

The Wiki romanization is phonetically more appropriate, but I don't know who designed it, and it is not authoritative. বব২৬ should take note on that.

Sminthopsis84 has dissed some edits of বব২৬ which seems to be better wording.

I would say বব২৬ is a very skilled editor. But, several recent edit war indicates that, he may have to rethink his approach to other editors. – nafSadh did say 18:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. It is a catch 22, you need the skills to edit, but you also have to get along. It takes both traits. Both can be learned, however. Dennis - 2¢ 18:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope বব২৬ would refrain from editing the article for one or two months, otherwise, a temporary (may be 2 months) topic ban is warranted. He is very experienced in Bengali Wikipedia, but he has to understand, there are different community standards in English Wikipedia. – nafSadh did say 18:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can go to his talk page and explain this? Being an "admin" doesn't make us better at explaining nor give us exclusive rights to do so. I get the feeling you could explain this better than some random admin, such as myself. We all want the same thing, peace. Dennis - 2¢ 18:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The only user here in this thread that I know is Sminthopsis84 (talk · contribs), for whom I have the utmost respect in all regards. If only all users were like said user. As for the combative attitude by one user brought up here, all I have to say is that all users should edit in a polite, mature, and cooperative manner. Wiki does not need users who can't get along. All material should be sourced with reliable quality references. If there are opposing views, both can be in article as long as they have quality references. HalfGig talk 18:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I posted a message in বব২৬'s talk to read this discussion. I assume, he haven't been online in a while and hope would respond when he is back. – nafSadh did say 22:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have tried discussing with বব২৬ on Talk:Bengali_calendar#User:.E0.A6.AC.E0.A6.AC.E0.A7.A8.E0.A7.AC.27s_edit. But I was getting was WP:OR. The WP:RS were removed, however the user never introduced a RS to say the info I added was inaccurate; besides violations of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking and WP:OVERLINK. As nafSadh suggested, I stayed away from the article but in the while বব২৬ continued to edit on the same day. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why other users report me without understanding and having a proper talk on the page. Anyways I recently am going through stress due to this and I give up on this article. Hope other users will develop this article well. Thank you. Cheer up ^__^ বব২৬ (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@বব২৬, I was in a long Wikibreak for more than a year and when I came back this summer, I noticed you to be a very good, prolific and careful editor in Bangladesh related articles. But, it seems to me that, you are probably stressed from something else than just Wikipedia. If you are disturbed and stressed up, it affects your personal and professional life. Recent events about you is very unlike you; you are more patient and collaborative. May be it will be great if you can take a vacation; winter is coming, make a trip to St. Martins Island may be (I assume you are in Bangladesh now); recharge yourself. Cheer up and nJoy! – nafSadh did say 08:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah Sadh, I'll try planning going there, ^_^. Thanks for the traditional tea. Cheer up . বব২৬ (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

And let me make clear to Sminthopsis84, That I am a Bangladeshi and Moslem. Why do you think I would have a dismissive attitude towards my own mother country and religion? You are one of the editors I have seen who edit without understanding users and articles. You misunderstood my identity and are stating "It is not clear whether this person has a generally dismissive attitude towards Bangladesh and/or Muslim culture, or whether their failure to understand other people's edits and explanations and their aggressive responses are the real problem. In either case, I believe it would be helpful if this person were banned from editing pages related to the country of Bangladesh so that others can get a chance to patiently..." againstt me! What's up with you? I would suggest you too a WikiBreak!

Do you like to plan go to St. Martin's Island to take a WikiBreak together? (A bad Joke to Sminthopsis84)

Like this one, you reverted my edit without understanding that it was enhancement.

Thank you, that's all I wanted to state. বব২৬ (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. However, it is not necessary for me to know anything about you, since the essence of contributing to Wikipedia is that edits should be encyclopedic, and backed up by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not your personal blog; it is a social endeavour that gives little credit to individual contributors. In Wikipedia credentials are irrelevant; edits can be judged on their own merits. Your joke is in bad taste, an attempt to create an in-group that excludes me. That would be in bad taste no matter who it was directed at, but to explain a little, I will let slip one fact about myself: I have been to St Martin's Island; I spent two weeks there with my family and my father's students from Dhaka University. It wasn't really a wikibreak; it was hard physical work.

So back to the main point: why do you keep removing citations to Banglapedia? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

(off-topic) If you go to St. Martin's Island, you should not engage in hard physical work. What I like to do there is, just lie down and count (literally) waves.

Banglapedia, might not be comprehensive, as limited by its physical size, but it is a venerated RS and shall be cited. বব, please try to keep citations intact everywhere. – nafSadh did say 08:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of my archived talk page.

I have anonymous editor Special:Contributions/86.152.18.72 disruptively editing one of my archived talk pages. In short they posted a potentially libellous on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_American_Football_Referees%27_Association&diff=633356397&oldid=633292149 They then entered in an "argument" on my talk page where I pointed out that such a statement would need to be verifiable, relevant and adhere to the biography of living persons. They stopped the disruptive editing. I moved the conversation to an archived talk page. They've now started disruptively editing my archived talk page by removing their comments. I've asked them to stop with my reason being that I want to keep the comments in my archive as I want to record why I wrote what I wrote and why I acted. I have put the appropriate warnings on the users talks page, but I can do no more. I don't want to turn this into a revert war --Rehnn83 ^Talk 23:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

1. User:Dennis Brown beat me to the block. Secret ^account 00:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Rehnn83, in cases like that, repeatedly reverting the IP is fine; WP:3RR lists exclusions. Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 thanks Rehnn83 ^Talk 19:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It's "fine" is the sense it's not an edit-warring violation, but it's probably a bad idea because it's going to amuse the troll. Revert once or twice, then file at WP:AIV, and/or WP:RPP. NE Ent 00:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Rehnn83, if this recurs you could ask to have those pages semi-protected. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

I had actually applied a short-term semi-protection to the talk archive on the 16th - once it expires, should disruption resume, a request to WP:RFPP could get a long-term semi-protection applied. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you but I am no troll , I was trying to remove my words not his , as I had decided I was in the wrong. but hey keep calling me names it makes you all look really intelligent 86.152.18.72 (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A couple of recommendations: (1) The OP could ask for semi-protection on his archived talk pages. That will put a stop to such nonsense. (2) The IP could ask the user to strike-through (rather than deleting) any comments he regrets making. That's done by bookending the verbiage with < s > and < / s > without the spaces of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou , but he is refusing to even accept an apology. I admit what I put was in the wrong place , but he wont admit that what I put is the truth even though he knows it is. Anyway on the advice of a better editor , I am going to do what he said and that is drop the stick and move on.86.152.18.72 (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User returns from block to resume battleground strategies

Spotter 1 has returned from being blocked to resume the same tendentious editing activities he was blocked for in the first instance. While I don't usually revert any talk page entries or comments, I felt compelled to revert this entry on the RT TV network talk page as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. The call outs to other editors was undoubtedly a WP:Pointy tactic to draw other editors back to the talk page in order to maximise disruptive impact because of his WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach to consensus and reliable sources. Evidently, he did not understand why he was blocked in the first place. I honestly don't think he has any intention of WP:LISTENing now or in the future. --Evidently (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This is simply not true. This user accused us of a minority position without any evidence! ("Two users jumping up and down and making a lot of noise in as many forums")[225] under "Motion NPOV tag") and the post was meant as a rebutal of her claim!.Spotter 1 (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I might add that Iryna Harpy's behaviour is unacceptable. Reverting a talk page entry without understanding even slightly the intend of the post. Evidently Iryna Harpy wants WP to be immune to any ideologically inconvenient criticism.Spotter 1 (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to also make a note of Spotter 1's aggressive resumption of casting WP:ASPERSIONS regarding other editors per the section he's just added to my talk page here. The user is convinced that there could only be a WP:CABAL at work if consensus does not lie with him as a seeker of 'The Truth'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As regards not understanding the intention of the post, I beg to differ. Your intentions are being evidenced by further additions, using the talk page as a forum within a few minutes here and here. As regards my 'obfuscating' ideologically inconvenient criticism, you're tossing in red herrings. I've argued for and against 'ideological' positions, but always within the parameters of policy. I don't actually care what position you're advocating, so long as you don't pursue it by bullying and being WP:POINTy. You just don't seem to want to grasp that there are constructive approaches to discussing important issues and intentionally disruptive approaches (which your behaviour epitomises). I don't care whether you represent 'The Truth' according to small l liberalism, Ukrainian nationalism, Russian nationalism, or any miscellaneous branch of neocon kneejerk-ism: I would do my best to stop you from flouting Wikipedia's processes. The fact is that you're WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No not forum, what I do is setting up my argument into a context, point being how it is possible to arrive at a point where a multitude of editors is contesting the NPOV of the RT article. The core reason for all the disputes is the fishing for reliable sources which are used to justify any claim (mainly in the political sphere). Giving the example of Ofcom's methodological fact based approach to criticism of RT is part of my INTENT to show what a fact-based article actually means, thereby giving a constructive model how disputes can be avoided in the future. I don't care what your mission statement is but I do care if the claims stated in articles are factbased and therefore the encyclopicdic value of WP is preserved. I do not claim to have the "truth". I eschew any ideology that is not fact based. I'am open to constructive suggestions how to improve my approach, but keep in mind there is a history to our disputes which I pay special attention to. That's itSpotter 1 (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"I'am open to constructive suggestions how to improve my approach" - a good idea would be to start with editing something less controversial, and learn the ropes of discussion that way. Volunteer Marek  01:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. The "Information-System", which WP is a part of, is one of the most important topics and RT is one of the most exposed organisations which are under considerable scrutiny right now. I think WP has much to gain through resolving any issue regarding the usage of opinions and facts.Spotter 1 (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• What I'm seeing looks like a POV issue with Spotter, particularly at RT (TV_network). They seem to have decided that neutrality mean showing 50% pro Russian perspectives, when that is not what neutral means. It means we follow the sources, where ever they lead us. No amount of verbosity or wikilawyering gets around that. Until you learn the basics around here, I strongly suggest you take Volunteer Marek's advice and avoid contentious articles. Dennis - 2¢ 02:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, this shouldn't be a "what is the majority-opinion" contest but what are the facts and which RS is corroberating these facts. In effect you are saying that facts are meaningless, everything we do here is parroting American mainstream media talking points; that's not a neutral point of view, it's the mirroring of whatever is the majority opinion of the "Western" mainstream media.Spotter 1 (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I said we follow the sources. If the majority are reporting one thing, that is where the majority of coverage goes. That is how it works. You keep saying "facts", but for some reason, it comes across as "Truth®". We should include more than American perspectives, but you seem to have determined what "fair" means ahead of time, and you are trying to find sources to back your claim. That isn't how we define "neutral". That is probably why you are getting into so many arguments. Your disdain for the American sources is pretty obvious as well. So yes, I smell a NPOV issue and that is a problem. Dennis - 2¢ 02:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious how the user seems to think he knows the facts ahead of reliable sourcing. That's like putting the troika before the horses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. That is the difference between searching sources for facts you don't know, and looking for sources to prove the truth you already know. Dennis - 2¢ 02:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• I was about to warn the user via WP:ARBEE, but I see EdJohnston already has (its on his page, but not logged). I'm tempted to sanction Spotter, but I've got to leave now, and couldn't follow up. Any admin can use any sanction they feel is appropriate here, without delay as this does fall under Discretionary Sanctions and he was warned on th 14th, and I wanted to make sure they knew that. Dennis - 2¢ 03:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The answer was absolutely warranted because the accusation of being "only" two editors who try to make up things or a dispute was disproven; if it weren't for Iryna Harpy's accusation (others made it too) I wouldn't have posted the rebutal!.Spotter 1 (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok let's make it more tangible (RT and almost every other media organisation did report on it): RT in it's coverage of the MH 17 crash reported on the Russian Defence ministries public presentation of the tracking of a unindentified aircraft near MH17. Now the claim is becoming a fact when other entities (f.e. other defence ministries) independent confirm the claim by comparing their recorded data (radar signature etc.) with the Russian analogue. The most important thing here is the recorded data which can be used as evidence for a factual statement.

Or take Ofcom's report on RT's coverage. When it makes a judgement, it uses actual facts (starting on page 6, reproducing the actual coverage of RT), which can be independently verfied by footage (which is the data if you want) and applying it's rules in its specific judgement (becoming an opinion when it leaves the territory of facts, which it actually readily admits).

The link to its report: [226]

The summary statements about facts have to be sourced in/from independently verfiable data.

Spotter 1 (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please. Now you're using the ANI as a WP:SOAPBOX. Before you dig yourself in for another BATTLEGROUND stand-off, take the good advice you've been offered about learning the ropes by starting with uncontroversial articles you don't have a vested, emotional POV interest in. The majority of regular editors here have extensive watchlists and patrol, copy edit, check sources for articles from religion in the Maldives to the history of novellas to popular television shows. Whether you're prepared to accept it or not, they're all important and interesting. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You see what I am dealing with? As soon as the argument is reaching its climax, editors throw different jibberish accusation at me to avoid any further discussion (when it looks like it is not going in favour of the respective editor). I have no intrest in a BATTLEGROUND stand-off, I think I've made it clear what my intent was and is, I pull back; let the reader decide.Spotter 1 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you persist in calling Wikipedia's policies and guidelines "gibberish"? You've not even familiarised yourself with policies as they have been pointed out to you but, instead, find essays that appeal to your POV and try to base discussions around this along with huge tracts of anything you can find to throw into the mix. Policies and guidelines have been developed with care and much deliberation, and if you took some time out to understand them you'd see that they are most certainly not some form of irritating obstruction (except to your own agenda). The fact that you don't want to read them doesn't make them 'gibberish'. As to your assertion that "As soon as the argument is reaching its climax, editors throw different jibberish accusation at me to avoid any further discussion.": what 'climax'? You've established nothing other than the fact that you believe yourself to have proven some sort of spurious pseudo-case. Please be so good as to point out examples where editors were about to have an epiphany due to your insights. Are you really going continue to be so arrogant as to believe yourself to be the only person who has questioned how best to implement and serve policies designed with the spirit of Wikipedia in mind? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That's your interpretation of what I wrote. I agree with WP:POLICIES and I am prepared to reflect on any mistake I make. "you don't have a vested, emotional POV interest in" this is gibberish nonsense. "Climax" as in the debate has reached the point when there is not a objective statement to make and you resort to ad hominum attacks. "only person who has questioned how best to implement and serve policies designed with the spirit of Wikipedia in mind?" I count on our fellow men to do just that.Spotter 1 (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Will topic ban for EE topics be in order here?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This is hardly someone who is a neutral party but the complete opposite. I stated my reason for the rebutal if it is deemed invalid, so be it, but be aware that Ymblantar is not someone who should tip the scales. Ym is part of the conflict from the beginning, not a neutral observer and very distinctive by threatening to ban anyone who disagrees with him for a period of time (he had to retract from a recent threat made against Kenfree). Spotter 1 (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong prospective (I am not against you, I am against breaking Wikipedia policies) and outright lie (I did not retract from anywhere). The thread is about you, and I am perfectly entitled to propose a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Well then you should READ Wikipedia policies, Yblanter. They do not say that "any" admin is free to impose sanctions, but any UNINVOLVED admin. And you, sir, have been identified as "involved" ever since you declined to participate in the mediation request to which you were named as an involved party, and by your many one-sided comments before and since. Kenfree (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A lie? [227][228] and if I remember correctly the relevant passage was crossed out. Still you are not a neutral observer in this context, the proposed sanction is in your interest.Spotter 1 (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Iam obviously involved, and this is the only reason why you are still not indefblocked despite beinmg an obvious sock. However, I am perfectly entitled to propose a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It is very sad that false charges like Ms. Harpy's here are allowed to distract constructive editors (I am wondering if she can provide even a single instance of constructive editing on the RT page) from their work. Nothing could be more obvious to anyone with a modicum of understanding than that the intent of this editor (SPotter 1} was to document the widespread opposition to the continual violations of NPOV on the RT web page. Not liking this message, Ms. Harpy seeks to kill the messenger by alleging illicit motives for Spotter 1's post, whereas amyone who reads it recognizes its clear intent, anyone whose purpose is not to provide yet another "energy sinkhole" (not eaccidentally a favorite term of Ms. Harpy's) for one of the few PRODUCTIVE editors involved with the RT TV network page. Kenfree (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban for Spotter 1

I'm going to make Ymblanter's proposal official. Spotter 1 has been nothing except disruptive on this particular article. Classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTHERE. Just got back from a week long block and immediately resumed the kind of activity that got him blocked in the first place. I'm tempted to throw in Kenfree into this as well but that's probably best dealt with separately since they might be separate persons. Spotter 1 is topic banned from anything to do with Russia and Ukraine, including the RT (TV Network) article.

• Support as nom.  Volunteer Marek  20:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Spotter 1 has demonstrated responsible editorial practices and has done nothing to merit sanctions of any kind. Kenfree (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support; it's the classic pattern of tendentious editing. bobrayner (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This user made less than 50 edits in article space, and almost all of them are reverts [229]. There is also something common between him and User:Kenfree. Kenfree also made less than 50 edits in article space, and almost all of them are reverts [230]. Both are SPAs. After looking at their contributions ([231] and [232]), it seems they operate as essentially the same account (meat or sock). My very best wishes (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Technically, any admin could do this with the stroke of a pen, but I strongly prefer it be a community decision, and I support on that basis. And My Very*, file if you must, but it is common for two people to have exactly the same opinion on articles like this. Very common. Dennis - 2¢ 22:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think this idea is strange. There are so few editors here in Wikipedia who are opposing to the pro-Western views and you want to ban one of them. You should treasure the person who for some reason hasn't yet left the English Wikipedia. (I've noticed that some people have gone away while some of the most ardent Maidan supporters became more aggressive.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: I don't believe that to be a correct evaluation. There are many articles related to the events in Ukraine over the last year and plenty of pro-Novorossia, pro-Russian editors working within policy and guidelines. True, at this point (as events are still underway), some of the articles lean to one side or the other which is something to be cleaned up further down the line. These I've tagged as being POV and in need of better sources where they're based on Ukrainian media outlets or Russian media outlets alone. And, yes, we've been inundated by nationalists from all sides, but their edits are removed. Discussions regarding DUE and UNDUE content are being slogged out on a daily basis and allowances are made for minor violations of policy in these heated discussion. If editors are working in good faith and bringing up valid points, everyone gets their say and content is adjusted per consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Yes, you are right. Probably it's just that since a few days back I've started noticing some other articles, like "RT" and "Malaysia Airlines Flight 17", articles that some of the most neutral editors don't seem to touch. While some other articles aren't edited as often anymore and I don't see them in my watchlist. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 is a very problematic article we're looking at and trying to figure how best to approach the problems surrounding it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work! --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support: While I am sorry it has come to this, and I've never supported a topic ban where the user recognises that they are not working in good faith, and has even been willing to ask for mentoring, nothing about Spotter 1's approach to his return from being blocked as a matter of preventing further damage and using the time to actually bother to read policies and guidelines speaks to a genuine desire to do anything other than persist with disruptive behaviour in the name of 'The Truth'. Even his response below is that of assuming the role of martyr to editors he keeps casting WP:ASPERSIONS about. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Response I am truly amazed how a simple response to Iryna Harpys accusation is equated to WP:FORUMSHOPPING. It's clear that Volunteer Marek, Ymblanter and Iryna Harpy want to crush any dissent that doesn't comply to their view. If I'm not mistaken the block was for a specific event (with the verdict still out on basis of principle but not according to 3rr). Now to concoct a continuation from these past edits and hypocritically using my past edits (which I'm ready to review anytime) against me, is simply put abhorrent.Spotter 1 (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - user's first edit after coming off a week-long block is to resume the exact behaviour on the exact article which led to the block, on which they were alerted to WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions in the meantime. A topic ban is getting off easy here. Ivanvector (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This person has been winding up the drama crank far too long on the issue of whether RT is reliable news or Russian state propaganda. The behavior following the release of the block cements my impression of battlefield behavior. Binksternet (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  The problem is that the person is right in principle. Here, search Google Books for the words "BBC disinformation" in Russian [233] and rewrite the whole BBC article based on what you will find. What will be the result? What will British people think of Wikipedia after that? And this is exactly what is happening with the RT article here in Wikipedia now. I wonder if people are serious when making edits like this [234] and accusing RT of disinformation while preferring not to notice the beam in their own eye. And yes, I understand Spotter 1 cause it's very hard to continue assuming good faith. I think Wikipedia stopped being a reliable source for anything Russian and I can't do anything. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  Well, I am Russian, I write about Russia for many years, and I think it is pretty reliable. It just presents propaganda as propaganda and not as honest opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  But do you think the opinion of the Western media is an honest opinion?
  Like, an example found in Google Books, it's about Libya:
  "Western media spread lies and disinformation. The climax of truly Goebbels' lies by BBC was reached with allegations of bombing "peaceful demonstrators". Allegedly two pilots ..." ("Западные СМИ распространяют ложь и дезинформацию. Венцом поистине геббельсовской лжи «Би-Би-Си» стали утверждения о нанесении бомбовых ударов по «мирным демонстрантам». Якобы два летчика ..."). [235].
  But the BBC article is very respectful to its subject matter. While the Russia Today article reads like a collection of allegations and criticism. Basically, its very purpose appears to be to criticize RT as much as possible. The whole article just says "RT is evil, don't watch it! Everything it says is disinformation!". --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  Now we are talking about opinions, right? Not about facts which I will run to add to articles immediately? Then, yes, I think what RT says is what the Putin administration tells them to say. They are just paid for that, and both Kiselev and Simonyan have a long track record of creating propaganda (for Simonyan, that is her entire career, she was appointed the head of Russia Today at the age of 23 or smth). If tomorrow the administration tells them to praise Ukraine as the best democracy in the world, and slap the separatists in Donbass and call them terrorists, they will do so and will not even provide any explanation. In contrast, BBC does not work like this, because they have their reputation at risk. Yes, sure, they often have to provide info on topics such as Lybia which they do not understand and have no idea about. Then they often fall flat. But it is very difficult for me to imagine that a head of the Prime Minister administration or whatever this position is called, phones them and says: Guys, tomorrow we start calling Kaddafi an asshole. It is just impossible. If this leaks out, both would lose their jobs within a day. Where BBC falls flat is systemic bias and sometimes incompetence. This is why BBC is generally accepted as a reliable source, and RT is not. (And, to answer a next question, I am of very low opinion of all Ukrainian media I have see, and do not see currently much difference between them and blogs). I am not interested at the moment in the article on BBC, but if I would, I would not object adding a section on criticism based on reliable sources. You can try proposing it, though I am not sure how successful your proposal could be. (It may even has such a section, I did not check). Additionally, I have the RT article on my watchlist from its creation (I also have the Russia Today article for a couple of years). When it was announced that Russia Today is transformed to RT, I though: well, look, now we are waiting for trolls. Russian government invests a lot of money into internet trolling, and I was sure they could not miss this article. And, sure, trolls came. I do not mean you - I have seen you on other Wikimedia projects and I know you have your own views. I mean first IPs with very bad English, who could only edit war, and then doemant accounts - on one occasion, when an IP was blocked and I reverted their POV edit, within minutes I was reverted back by an account which did not edit the English Wikipedia two years prior to that - and the account is still around and occasionally editing. Then a strange influx on new users came, who started to create large-scale disruption, using wikilawyering, pretending they are still misunderstand policies, reverting three times so on. They are all over the place, and it becomes very difficult to edit Wikipedia in such situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  I understand your position. But still, I think you wrongly assume that 1. The only way to influence the press is to call them directly; 2. Only BBC cares about its reputation. (I'm sure RT does too.) 2. People who are making pro-Russian edits are trolls or get paid. (I don't see any large pro-RT disruption at the RT article. Quite the contrary, I see people randomly adding bad things there and in their edit summaries they seem to express their enjoyment of hating RT and when I tried reverting a couple of times, they acted very aggressively and immediately started edit warring.)
  But okay... I hope RT gives some air time to pro-Ukrainian opinions in order to comply with any British regulations and people will ease up.
  (Btw I watch RT very rarely. It's boring, so I'm not sure what it's like, even. I enjoy watching news on Ukrainian television, though. :)) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Both "Moscow connection" and Kenfee (who is currently blocked) edit war in article RT-TV to support version/views by Spotter_1 [236]. Should their votes be counted here? My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  ?!!
  I reverted to Sidelight12's version once... You probably forgot. I'm assuming good faith... (I also reverted bold changes by Sayerslle and Bobrayner and this is probably all I have ever done in the entire article history. While you and some other editors who have voted are there 24/7...) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in addition to first revert you are talking about [237], there were two edits, clearly annotated by you as reverts on this page on November 17 [238], [239]. You also made this ANI posting below to get an upper hand in edit war conducted by you on another page [240], [241]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

1. I have mentioned all three edits already in my previous reply; 2. I started the ANI discusion exactly because I didn't want to continue the edit war you started. I let you have it your way, didn't I?
(I don't think all this is even relevant here.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• To answer My very best wishes, a block user has no right to participate in a discussion where there is no personal jeopardy, either of sanctions to them, nor to the work by them. They gave up the right to participate by committing the action that led to the block. To allow them to !vote while blocked is proxy editing, which is not allowed in this context. Dennis - 2¢ 22:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Further response to My very best wishes: I don't consider Kenfree and Moscow Connection analogous in any way. Kenfree and Spotter 1 have been (at the least) WP:TAGTEAMing, and both are acting as aggressive, disruptive and abusive crusaders. Moscow Connection has been editing for some time in multiple articles and is essentially a good faith editor who has been vigilant about BLP violations and articles being turned into COATRACKS. Few users editing controversial articles manage to avoid moments of sailing a little too close to the wind. Wikipedia would just be a blatant POV resource if we all got our way and silenced editors we don't want here. In fact, if we all got our wish, no one would have a voice here. Besides, you know that this is WP:NOTAVOTE. It's Spotter 1's editing that is being discussed, and it's not the number of votes but his ongoing policy violations that will determine whether a sanction and terms thereof should be implemented. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Incivility and attacking messages from User:Prisonermonkeys

I am here to report incivility and personal attacks by User:Prisonermonkeys on his talk page while pinging me (see here)

I recently reported User:Prisonermonkeys for violating the 3RR at Assassin's Creed Rogue. They (and I) got a warning (as Bbb23 miscounted my revert count; see [242], [243], and [244]). They proceeded to make a uncivil comment on the talk page ("That's better. Not, you know, much better, but it's a start. Now all you need to do is understand how an encyclopedia works, and we might actually get somewhere." [245]).

The user reverted the page the following morning (and added content that partly addressed the situation; the experience left a bad taste in my mouth, and I have since decided to stay away from the page). I reported them to Bbb23 by email and then by talk page post, and Prisonermonkeys was given a one week ban. The user made countless attacks against me on his talk page in his failed ban appeals. The user also repeatedly misrepresented me as being in violation or near violation of the 3RR and continually claims I did not fess up for this IP edit, when I in fact did minutes later (Edit summary: "Last edit was me logged out. It was clear that there was a link between Rogue and Unity, that is important independent of the plot and can stand alone until the plot is fleshed out. Do not remove it just because you don't like spoile"). I even tried to point out to them that I clearly fessed up, but they ignored me and continued to misrepresent my actions ([246]). Then an hour ago, they left a long, uncivil, attacking rant against me on their talk page. Can something be done about this user? Thanks! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• One important detail to anyone reading this, Prisonermonkeys is currently bannedblocked and will not be able to respond here until 00:52, 21 November 2014. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Procedural note, Prisonermonkeys is blocked not banned. The terms have different meanings here. Blackmane (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have corrected my terminology above. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I had a read of their rant. Editors generally get a small amount of leeway to vent when they've been blocked. Invariably they will feel it is unjustified and unfair, particularly if there is another party that they feel got off lightly in comparison. It's probably best if you ignore the rant part and correct them on any inaccuracies that you feel are present then disengage from them, not as a parting shot but to let them cool off. Blackmane (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I tried to correct them once, but they just ignored me and kept spouting untruths ([247]). I tried ignoring them, and then they pinged me with that long rant. I understand they get some leeway, but this user clearly went passed that leeway. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Just an idea of mine, but I suggest not to post on User talk:Prisonermonkeys again until they are unblocked. You should let them cool down for the duration of the block, because if Prisonermonkeys doesn't want to hear of your corrections, just leave them be. Epicgenius (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I was about to post the same followup suggestion. I don't think any admin is realistically going to take any action against them for now, as they're already blocked. Of course, if it continues, you could request their talk page access be revoked for the duration of the block. Blackmane (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict, so I suppose this is in response to Blackmane too) Epicgenius, that is what I did. After they reverted the correction, I stayed away from their talk page as well as the article they warred on itself (per admin suggestions for the former). Then out of the blue, a couple hours ago, I see a massive rant on their page which pinged me. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly, it's better to leave the rant there. An admin may revoke Prisonermonkeys' TPA anyway if the user talk page has been misused. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• As rants go, this is minor: irritating, maybe, but not enough of a personal attack to warrant talk page removal. If NE Ent wasn't so busy celebrating the new AP poll (Roll Tide, Ent) they'd drop by to say that the easiest way to deal with this is to not look at their talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Before the latest "rant" from PM, that's precisely what I recommended to Thegreyanomaly here. I did read PM's latest comments about when he posted them, and although it's annoying, I agree that it's not sufficient to revoke talk page access or take any additional action against him. My advice to Thegreyanomaly is the same. Stay away from PM's talk page. Just because he "pings" you doesn't mean you have to go there. Ignoring him is the best way of handling it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• While I endorse not posting on the blocked editors talk page and not watchlisting / reading it, I also think Prisonermonkeys should be firmly instructed to stop pinging other users, and TPA removed if they keep it up. Also, I think WMF should do this: Wikipedia_talk:Notifications#Blocked_users_pinging. NE Ent 10:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • • I don't see enough editors participating in that discussion to make this a "rule", NE Ent. Ironically, PM just tried to ping you, but he screwed up your user name. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed, they should not be able to ping. I remember previously noticing that PM had used pinging on their talk page to ask other users to do their bidding during their last block. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Chasbo123

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

---

User Chasbo123, for whatever reason, insists upon formatting his talk page comments at Talk:Phineas and Ferb (season 4) with an obnoxious font that adds undue emphasis to his comments.[248] Though font formatting is not specifically mentioned in the talk page guidelines, I think this contravenes the spirit of the guidelines. As I said, it adds undue emphasis and attention to his comments, and it also grates against the "Keep the layout clear" aspect of WP:TPYES. I removed the formatting and explained the reversion with an edit summary. The user attempted to remove his comments from the discussion entirely, which of course then created the problem that there was a one-sided discussion at the talk page. This was reverted, and user again attempted to restore the formatting.[249] And after they were asked to not continue their disruption, they again submitted the formatting. I tried explaining the matter on their talk page with my specific issues, but they submitted the formatting again and left an incoherent, font formatted message about cursive on my talk page. This is a silly thing to be bringing to ANI, but I'm not sure what else to do since the user seems adamant to personalize their comments in public talk spaces and I guess we now need admins to figure this out. Thanks. Sorry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's possible to set up wikipedia to display, for each editor personally, in the font of their choice. I could be wrong, but if that's possible, someone more knowledgeable than myself could show them how it's done. The extra benefit is that Chasbo123 won't have to add the formatting each time and not annoy everyone else. Blackmane (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I have it for you here, under the Teahouse stuff. at User talk:Chasbo123. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A reasonable compromise, if used by the reported user. However, user is still engaged in an edit war over fonts, as is evident by this edit made not only after reverts, warnings and clear explanations, but also after being notified that there was an open ANI case involving them. We still need to address the behavioral matters that has brought us to this point, as user is still inflicting their fonts in other users' talk space. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This has to be one of the most-interesting reasons someone's been brought to ANI in quite some time. Left a final warning on the user's talk page. m.o.p 12:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

+1. I was already writing a block message but a last last warning can't hurt I suppose. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Martijn Hoekstra: figured a final warning would be less heavy-handed than a block because it doesn't seem an administrator has warned the editor yet (though I just woke up, I could be wrong). If you think a block is warranted, I defer to your judgment. m.o.p 12:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Master of Puppets: a matter of preference I suppose. I don't consider a warning of an administrator to weigh heavier than that of another editor, nor do I consider a block to be a really heavy measure if it's clear that it's only intended to stop the editor in place, and would be lifted as soon as everything is cleared up, but I recognize that is a viewpoint that doesn't have very wide support anymore. Anyway, I'm fine with a final warning - as long as it stops the disruption. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, guys, I'm not proud of this ANI report. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Bit late to respond to but many thanks to AmaryllisGardener for their css input. A final warning is probably best at this point, AGF and all that. Hopefully they'll sort their preferences out or at least seek assistance instead of continuing their disruption. Blackmane (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Matt200055

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

---

Note: This section was prematurely archived and has been restored from archive.--02:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Recently I removed inappropriate material (a list of 'evil users'[250] that clearly violates what is stated under WP:POLEMIC) from the User and Talk pages of Matt200055 (talk · contribs) after the editor made attempts to goad BlackCab (talk · contribs)[251][252][253] and SummerPhD (talk · contribs)[254][255]. (Previous content of the 'evil list' indicates this to be an ongoing pattern of behaviour.) After I removed inappropriate material from the editor's User and User Talk pages, he responded with imaginary 'conditions' for how I was 'allowed' to respond to him in future.[256] The user has subsequently vandalised my user page while logged out (i.e. as an IP user).[257] Comparison of the material added to my user page relating to A-Ha with the editing history of Matt200055 provides a clear link with the user, in addition to the obvious timing of the retributive action (separate action elsewhere by Favonian (talk · contribs) also confirms this). The vandalism was reverted by BlackCab (talk · contribs)[258][259], who was one of the editors previously goaded by Matt200055. The editor has never engaged anyone at any article Talk page to discuss any article content, instead choosing to make mild threats about his 'evil list' when content disputes arise. As the editor's behaviour appears to be escalating, it seems necessary that something be done to assist the editor to abide by Wikipedia policies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've looked at and reverted some of this editor's work--including removal of valid information and addition of unsourced information. They've not restored their silly list: so far that's the best thing they've done here. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Matt200055 is attempting to game the system by continuing to deny actions that are clearly his. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Matt200055.--02:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm kind of at a loss here. Yes, I think it is pretty clear that the IP in question was used by Matt200055: How many editors on one ISP in Edmonton, BC are editing A-ha articles and would have a reason to vandalize User:Jeffro77? Yes, he has denied it. I'd say a warning not to vandalize user pages goes to User talk:Matt200055 and it becomes past behavior if we end up discussing them again. One act of vandalism isn't typically a blockable offense. That said, the denials are odd and I've recommended the user seek out adoption as some of their actions have been somewhat disruptive. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A single act of vandalism isn't a blockable offense. That isn't the primary issue. The problem is that the user is attempting to game the system by denying edits made while logged out even though they're obviously his edits, which compounds the editor's already problematic behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Drmies has already given some helpful advice, which seems not to have been listened to. A small cloud of disruption seems to hang around Matt200055 (talk · contribs). The common element is that he is trying to needle some of his content opponents. He is also playing games with his multiple accounts and IPs. The editor's response at the SPI is disappointing. It sounds like he is trying to continue the joke about his 'evil list'. Adoption only works for those with good intentions. Since this has been going on since 1 November and the editor is making no effort to put things right I would suggest a one-month block for Matt200005 and an indef of the sock AntiMatt200055 (talk · contribs). The latter account seems to have no good-faith purpose. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I can't easily argue against that. I don't believe "fucking around" is a valid reason for having an alternate account, and denying that IP charge is silly. Blocking the AntiMatt account is valid, in my opinion. Summer mentioned mentoring but I also think that's a bit too hopeful, but it begs the question of what to do with the main account. Indef-blocking is an option, or no block at all but a very short leash--I'm always a bit leery of blocks long after events have happened. Your mileage may vary. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The disruptive intent is clear from the editor's November 12 comments in the SPI. "Maybe 162.157.225.132 likes lists. Also, it's not an evil list, it's an EVIL list. Capitalize EVIL. Matt200055 (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)". In my opinion the bad behavior is still a current event. An indef block of both accounts is something to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

An indef block? Seriously? Matt200055 (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

An indef of AntiMatt200055 is, IMO, pretty much a given. My !vote is a short leash with a mentor/adoption. While he's made some trouble, it's been mostly "fucking around". Yeah, he called me "EVIL". I've been called worse. Yeah, there was some mild edit-warring. I've seen much worse. He copped to the alternate account immediately with a reason that calls for blocking the alternative account and ... well, it's already been explained that that is not o.k. (and he hasn't run off creating a drawer full of socks). His vandalism of the user page (replacing it with the content of an article) was pointless: neither making an argument nor causing much of a wound. Denying ownership of the IP is absurd. IMO, it's merely an attempt to avoid responsibility. Why keep him? His edits to A-ha related articles help counter a bit of the U.S. bias around here. The band had a very brief moment in the sun over here, with a couple singles I barely recall from the late 80s -- they're practically one-hit-wonders in the U.S. In Norway, 8 of their 9 albums went to #1 (the 9th was #2). While his edits that I've seen haven't exactly been major changes, they've been mostly corrections of errors that I wouldn't have noticed (incorrect years, especially). I think he's worth a chance with some guidance (to Wikipedia policies and culture). Without guidance? You might as well indef him now. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that his behaviour necessarily calls for an indefinite block of his main account (definitely block the sock). His edits on his primary subject do seem to be of some benefit to those articles. If he continues to deny his inappropriate behaviour, it is probably a reasonable indication that he is not going to improve. Beyond his obviously inappropriate—and yes, absurd—recent behaviour, it is not encouraging that he has never bothered to participate on any article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2014 (UT

I'm led to understand the vandalising of my talk page by Matt's IP was quite distasteful. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• If 162.157.225.132 is this editor logged out (which it appears certain they are), the contents of the vandal edits to User_talk:Pinkbeast would indicate an indefinite block, in my opinion. Black Kite (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

For those of us without a mop, can you give us a general idea of the contents? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Eh, yes, I could, but I won't. It's really just disgustingly disgusting. In the meantime I blocked AntiMatt indefinitely. If anyone can make the case that the IP is Matt, I'll be happy to block as well: a quick glance suggests this might be the case, but I'd like confirmation, preferably with a diff or two. WAIT: Morten Harket is a member of A-ha, so I think this nails it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

67.236.182.55

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

---

IP started adding funding information at various PBS related articles. Contributions were formatted oddly. There were no bullets, there were `` marks instead, and excessive whitespace.[260][261][262][263][264] It got messy. I fixed a few of these and notified them of correct formatting. They then started posting this odd content to their talk page, then got into a strange set of disruptive edits at Talk:Main Page,[265][266][267][268][269] which eventually got them blocked. At some point either during their block or after, they started up again on their own talk page [270][271][272][273][274]. Not sure what's going on here. Robot editing? The edits make sense generally, but there's some unclarity why we can't communicate with the user and why they keep submitting the same problematic content. Need admins. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bot. It's vandalism or incompetence. at first it seemed similar to how you optimise a blog for a search engine then I noticed it was PBS related stuff mixed with none PBS related stuff. I think the Admin was right in blocking them but wrong in putting on a 24 hr block. None of there edits seem to respond to anyone at any point. They've posted alot of nonsense I think it would be best if that block was switched from 24hrs to indef until they come forward with a human response.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that it is all vandalism. None of it is sourced, and some of the edits are clearly nonsensical - see [275] for example. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a poorly-formatted list of the ads at the beginning of the tape. Silly thing to include, but probably not vandalism. --NE2 22:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I blocked for two weeks. All edits are relatively fresh; if they continue after the block, I wouldn't object to a longer block. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Spammer

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

---

Avcgi360 (talk · contribs) ~ R.T.G 11:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, and user page deleted. Peridon (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

IP editor hopped IP to evade block.

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

---

75.162.179.246 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) was recently blocked for persistent disruptive editing (block log). This user has now hopped IP address to a sock 75.169.14.135 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) in order to evade the block and is posting to the original IP address's talk page clearly as the original user. Further the new IP address is continuing exactly the same disruptive editing by changing the tense of historical articles (apparently in pursuance of making the point he was making under the original IP address). All reverted per WP:BE. (edit history of new IP). –LiveRail < Talk > 12:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

 Blocked. I've let the editor know that, whether intentional or not, block evasion is unacceptable. m.o.p 15:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

68.147.198.171

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

---

IP was blocked in August for 3 months and it appears the block recently expired. They have a solid wall of warnings dating back to Dec 2013. Most of the warnings are for disruptive editing at numerous articles related to children's entertainment. Disney-related, Teletoon, things of that nature, which suggests that it is likely the same operator. Off their recent block, user is posting odd discussions on various talk pages. [276][277][278][279] None of these discussions seem to have a focus or a purpose, and some are quiteincoherent. This edit looks like it was an attempt to add unsourced content to the article (article is semi-protected), so the user added it to the talk page instead. Several of the talk pages the IP is using are for semi-protected articles. If these notes are intended to be used to improve the article, it's not clear how, as the user does not add references or make obvious suggestions. Not sure if this is a competence issue or straight-up vandalism, but it doesn't seem productive, to me. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a year Secret ^account 16:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Concerning edit summaries by IP 99.107.148.15

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

---

Take a look at the edit summaries left by IP 99.107.148.15. Based on their comment here, it appears that they're basically doing it as some kind of experiment to see if they can. That's not to say they're all "constructive edits", as the IP also edits to add a single period and then immediately reverts themselves to leave these edit summaries – [280] and [281], [282] and [283], [284] and [285]. Some of these edits are old, but the most recent was two days ago. Should action be taken here? Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I took a quick look. The edits are too far apart, in my opinion, to allow for anything further than a warning for unconstructive edit summaries. demize (t · c) 18:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

IP was warned in March to not do this, and stopped after admitting they were only doing it to see if they'd get away with it. Now they're back doing the same thing, and I think it's pretty clear this is a single person and not a shared IP. Escalating warnings are warranted, if not a WP:NPA block. Ivanvector (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I've written a rather stern warning on the user's talk page warning them that they may be blocked without further notice if they continue these edits. If they continue, then there should be reasonable grounds for a long block on this IP. demize (t · c) 22:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Aggressive behavior, edit warring, a personal attack by User:Sayerslle

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

---

It started when User:Sayerslle added a quote from Putin to the article "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine". The quotation took Putin's words "But I would like to stress that this is not the issue" out of context. The user's addition was:

When asked in interview about the complaint that Russia supplies weapons to the separatists and sends its servicemen there he replied that 'people who wage a fight and consider it righteous will always get weapons. [-] But I would like to stress that this is not the issue.

when the source says:

HUBERT SEIPEL: The question or, more properly, the claim made by Kiev today is that Russia supplies weapons to the separatists and sends its servicemen there.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Where did they get the armoured vehicles and the artillery systems? Nowadays people who wage a fight and consider it righteous will always get weapons. This is the first point.

But I would like to stress that this is not the issue. The issue itself is entirely different. The issue is that we can't have a one-sided view of the problem.

Today there is fighting in eastern Ukraine. The Ukrainian central authorities have sent the armed forces there and they even use ballistic missiles. Does anybody speak about it? Not a single word. And what does it mean? What does it tell us? This points to the fact, that you want the Ukrainian central authorities to annihilate everyone there, all of their political foes and opponents. Is that what you want? We certainly don't. And we won't let it happen.

As you can see, the way it was misquoted may even look like an intentional misinterpretation. Like an attempt to make Putin look bad, to make it look like he said he didn't care about the war.

I deleted the sentence [286] from the article and wrote a message about it on Sayerslle's talk page [287].

(Actually, just for the record, I somehow added the message two times. I'm not sure how it happened. Maybe I accidentally pushed the "Save page" insted of "Show preview". So there are 4 edits:

• My message 1
• Sayerslle simply reverts my message from his talk page
• My message 2
• I apologize for posting 2 times and say I don't mind if he deletes the message again.)

But instead of discussing the matter, he reverted the sentence "But I would like to stress that this is not the issue" back in [288].

Then I warned him not to continue the edit war [289] and reverted him again [290]. (I had to revert him cause I didn't want something like this stay in the article. And he added it without a prior discussion, so I had every right to revert. And as you can see, in my edit summary I'm politely inviting him to start a discussion about the matter on the talk page.)

But he continued edit warring. He reverted the sentence in again [291].

And then I also noticed he made a personal attack towards me:

: yes I deleted it - but then I wrote a response - ' completely out of context - its the next fucking sentence - he means it to follow directly on - a putinist complaining about disinformation - that would be beyond satire really , no? ' - bit exasperated , really Sayerslle (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(Just for the record, his reply was made seconds before I posted the warning message, but I didn't see it and the Wikipedia software again didn't say anything about any edit conflict. I'm not sure why. I spent some time writing the warning message and prepared everything so that I could post the message and delete the sentence very fast afterwards.)

I think his behaviour is unconstructive and aggressive. Since I can't continue the war, I would like admins to interfere.

Update: Now he has finally started a discussion on the talk page [292]. But I don't think it's a good idea for me to talk with him. At least not before the article is reverted to a pre-war state. I would really like Wikipedia admins to review the case and interfere. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Update 2: Another editor has already deleted the complete quote Sayerslle added [293]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I misrepresented nothing. Volunteer marek has taken it out the lead - I think hes wrong to say Putins comments in the interview are not relevant material for the lead but you've got what you want. - 'Since I can't continue the war' !- ffs - - good heavens, that shows your mindset doesn't it. ( and yu accused me of bad faith - you were the aggressive, personal abuse one - I just said if a putinist complained of disinformation that would be beyond satire - it would be - can't one say anything to respond to your attack ? Sayerslle (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Since I can't continue the [edit] war." It's just a Wikipedia term. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

write 'edit war' then Sayerslle (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

People really need to stop running to AN/I with every bit of trivial crap like this. The reason they do, is as part of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attempt to get those who disagree with them banned. Which in itself is sanctionable. Volunteer Marek  19:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Page-move vandalism cleanup help needed

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Babarstamp52

Don't have time to deal with it now, but I did indef. DMacks (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll help.  Doing... --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Helped  Done Amortias (T)(C) 20:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User page review request, Dcbanners

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

---

Going by the User page policy on what is not allowed, this recently created account's User page seems to be overly promotional, [294], with links to off-Wiki material. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Meh, I wouldn't bother. They have links but they also have a lot of contribs for a short while. It is mainly about proportion. It is a bit promotional, but not to the degree it needs deleting, in my opinion. Normally, that would a matter to decide at MfD anyway. I don't think anyone would say you filing it there is bad faith, but my gut says they would say the same thing. If they did this, then didn't edit, it would be different. Dennis - 2¢ 23:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair enough and thanks for the look Dennis. Admittedly I began looking around when this person became disruptive by removing sources from an article after consensus had been reached on the Talk page by others, but if its not worth it, I'm happy to drop the stick about the page. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Conspiracy theorist at Talk:Illuminati

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

---

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

Only edits consist of spamming conspiracy theories at Talk:Illuminati about Queen Elizabeth supposedly being connected to the Illuminati, says that we're biased and are censoring him... Actually, would someone mind proving him right on that count? His edits technically fall under WP:BLP, and he appears singularly focused on making sure everyone "knows" about these "facts". He is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia, but right great wrongs, and may not be capable of or willing to provide useful contributions. Fnord. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, Jon Doe claims that he found his information, quote, "while investigating a paedophile ring within the British government." Clearly not here to help. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Ticks all the WP:NOTHERE boxes - WP:OR to promote the 'truth', attacking contributors in his first post, while insisting that his conspiracy theory about government paedophile rings isn't a conspiracy theory because it is the truth, because he says so, and everyone here is out to censor him because he knows the truth... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

And now the conspiracy-monger tells us that "this conversation has been a study for a dissertation about bullying and bias on the internet".[295] Or, in plain English, either self-confessed trolling, or the delusional babbled threats of someone failing to get anywhere with their attempts to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. All the more reason to block indefinitely... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:CheesyAppleFlake

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

---

• CheesyAppleFlake (talk · contribs · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This edit referring to Sieg Heilman (see James Heilman and User:Doc James) shows that a topic ban from Electronic cigarette is required for CheesyAppleFlake. There is no need to block if the user manages to edit constructively elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There is really no response when someone starts making racial slurs. This is Godwin's law in action. Further less than helpful comments keep coming in [296] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Longshot's voice actor

Something is really suspicious on the article for X-Men character Longshot (permalink: [297], as it mentions Formula One driver Fernando Alonso as the voice actor in the 90s animated series. I can smell vandalism, but revert fights prevent me from tracking who inserted that. Please help. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 11:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really an ANI issue, but the edit was made by an IP back in 2012 [298]. The acting was previously attributed to one Rod Wilson. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Check IMDB and see what it says. Not foolproof, but more likely to be correct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't even see that character listed in the IMDB credits reference.[299] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Really don't want to post at ANI again, but since no one else seems to be willing to actually do some proper legwork - [300] and [301] support the presence of this character in the series, and the former also supports the Rod Wilson voice acting bit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV

There is something of a backlog at WP:AIV, your assistance is appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, people at WP:RFUB would be nice; the longest request open has been unanswered for almost a month. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 18:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Can't there be a bot with edit count checks and only blocking tool etc to block users with obvious vandalism and a final (or escalating) talkpage warning(s) present on talk? Cluebot seems to be quite accurate in reverts. A category for unblock requests by editors blocked by bots would invert the backlog... just an idea. Probably needs to go through village pump. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors like yourself have requested this feature for years. Predictably, admins fight against it with their last breath, and make up all kinds of silly excuses why it won't work. Of course, it will work, and it will work so well that it will inevitably replace admins and their elected-for-life-why-should-I-care attitude, which is precisely why they are against it. Automating admin tools so that the rest of the community can get back to building an encyclopedia is precisely the reason why technology was invented. But they won't allow it, because adminship is really a mechanism for social control and authority. Take the red pill... Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

So the significant chunk of my evening that I spent clearing the AIV and UAA backlogs was a complete waste of time? Or an exercise in social control? Pick one. I know it's popular to go round bad-mouthing admins, but actually some us work bloody hard so that people like you aren't bothered by the shit that we deal with. We don't sit in darkened rooms grinding axes all day. For example, just this evening I blocked about 50 vandals, a couple of dozen spammers/self-publicists, and the odd sockpuppet or obvious case of NOTHERE. As a result, they're not at liberty to replace your writing with profanities or distract you from the mainspace by igniting old disputes while pretending to be new or get their self-promotion indexed by Google and risk damaging Wikipedia's reputation. And that's not the worst of it—if you could see how much effort goes into cleaning up after nutters who can switch IPs in the blink of an eye you wouldn't moan about admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You missed the point. Automation can replace all of your admin tasks and free up your time to improve articles. You've been sold on the noble lie that these tasks require admin tools to handle while the true purpose of creating an authoritarian control mechanism in a flat environment escapes you. Just as the shackled prisoners in Plato's cave preferred their slavery, so too do admins. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There's still a human factor required. I've said several times here, to equally deaf ears every time, that there needs to be a way for established users to issue temporary blocks against obvious vandals. They created the rollback feature years ago, there's no logical reason they couldn't do this as well. That would buy some time for the admins to review blocks and take some pressure off them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Viriditas's proposal is boneheaded, which he'll realize the moment some overeager patroller starts slapping around incorrect vandalism warnings and he gets blocked. Or the moment some sock starts slapping around retaliatory vandalism warnings and he gets blocked. Or the moment ClueBot acts up because he makes some weird edit that ClueBot interprets as the insertion of a foreign word for "penis" and etc. If you can't understand that the trigger for such a system, the warning template, is still placed there by human people and that this creates the possibility for enormous abuse, well. HJ Mitchell, I appreciate all the work you've done here and still do. And every afternoon when school goes out somewhere in the US I think, ah, here we go again. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As a vandalism fighter and administrator hopeful myself, I can see the arguments for both sides here: yes, an automated blocking robot would be useful, but no it really wouldn't work. Whether I'm using STiki or Huggle, there are always edits that I mark as vandalism (or even do a good-faith revert) where I can't be completely sure my action was warranted. I do my best to make sure that I'm actually reverting vandalism, but sometimes there are edits that look like vandalism because they're improperly sourced or just poorly written. If a human can't always make that distinction, why would it be reasonable to expect a robot to be able to? Admins are necessary in order to sort through all that crap and make sure that they're only blocking editors they're sure are persistent vandals. A warning can be easily reverted, and an apology will make it likely the editor will stick around. It's awfully hard to revert and then apologize for a robot blocking someone who never did a single thing wrong. You gave some great examples of what that could be here. I think it's easy to forget that bots aren't perfect, that they're based on people. I'll probably get blasted a bit for "being sold on a noble idea" for posting my opinion, but that's alright. Maybe I am sold on a noble idea, but it's an idea that I'm firmly behind. demize (t · c) 02:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, Drmies. I can see already; some idiot figures out that he can temporarily block the guy reverting his vandalism, or Cluebot, or Sinebot if he just copy pastes a template a few times and boom! encyclopedia anarchy. To say nothing of the fact that this wouldn't work for those who (gasp) remove templates from their talk pages. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 03:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but I suppose we can make a bot that looks into the edit history of the talk page, or devise a warning log or something. Which in turn will beg the question of how long until a warning "expires". And of course many of us don't start with level 1 warnings, which for most vandalisms is ridiculously mild, but ClueBot does. And some vandalisms are instantly blockable, and if you leave this to bots (and thus give admins less of a reason to keep an eye on things) then the worst of the racists may well have more opportunities to strut their stuff. Despite all the proceedings at ArbCom right now, I can't help but think that hasty, templated warnings and hasty blocks that sometimes result from them, esp. for IP editors, drive away many more potential editors than the occasional f-word. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• I just turned down two requests at AIV, one of which was for a brand-new editor who just doesn't get it yet. BITE, anyone? Drmies (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point, Drmies. How many strikes before a bot decides that a newbie is out? Felony charges and plea bargaining, anyone? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:UAA is backlogged as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Holy moly NYB, you weren't kidding. Thanks for pointing me that way--and thanks for not doing all of them rightaway so there would be something left for me. Real grand of you. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• It looks like a random user came by this discussion by accident after hitting the wrong key on their keyboard or mouse and failed to read for comprehension. Perhaps they were in a hurry or maybe English is their second language, I don't know, but rest assured I am more than happy to correct them once again. As this thread shows, this particular proposal was made by TopGun, not by me. For the record, I merely noted that the proposal is of the perennial type, and is, IMO, a very good idea, as it eliminates the admin problem we currently have and replaces it with an automated model. I maintain that we have no need for admins, and that all of their tasks can be automated. This would free up these noticeboards and the valuable time of other editors to focus on improving the coverage of the encyclopedia. It would also remove 90% of the drama that many of the editors on this page seem to enjoy perpetuating through their MMORPG behavior and actions. Far too much time is wasted on primate dominance displays. The admin function is a throwback to ye olde mainframe days when sysops were needed. Computing is now more distributed than ever, and there is simply no need for anyone to block, ban or discipline anyone else. This can be done automatically with rules, mechanics, and karma metrics. Anyone with half a clue knows this. Stop wasting my time with puerile hand-waving. Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course all admin tasks can be automated. All you have to do is create a select group of trusted editors, say about a 1000, who are allowed to instruct the bot when to speedy delete a page or to block an editor, to avoid that too many incorrect or vandalistic blocks, unblocks, deletions, ... are made. Give those editors a toolbox, where they can check e.g. all pages tagged for speedy deletion and indicate that yes, the bot may delete it (perhaps some protected page where they can list them?). This will make admins obsolete and give the new group, let's call them sysops, the last word instead. To decide who can become a sysop, let's create a voting process, we can call it RfS. Brilliant idea! If you want to eliminate the new sysops group altogether, first have someone create a bot that correctly tags pages for speedy deletion. If it can't do that, it can't correctly delete them either of course, as it will need to judge whether a tag is placed correctly. Good luck with that though... Fram (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • If it was possible to write such an admin bot (it isn't), we could just write an editor bot to write the encyclopedia. NE Ent 10:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Whoever writes that better be certified in English by Dr. Viriditas hisself, to whose karma metrics and superior manners I bow like a proper servant should. Perhaps they should run the show here, since they probably have more than half a clue. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
      • In all seriousness, the problem with automated processes is that something is needed to automate them, and they can't make judgement calls. If we only found copyvio based on Earwig's tools, a lovely page which I got speedied twice in the past two days would have been passed over because the computer only found ~60% probability. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 16:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Can we require that this bot utilize a random number generator on the grounds that it's safe to assume X% of the AIV filings will be invalid for one reason or another? I think it would be reassuring to the editing populace to know that even if they were reported at AIV there was only a 70%...oh, let's be optimistic and say 80%...chance that the bot would auto-block them... If the bot could utilize a Big Six wheel graphic so that editors could view their likelihood of blockage in real time, so much the better...in fact, I say open up the betting to the masses and alleviate the need for fundraisers! DonIago (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Genre warrior on the loose and periodically changing IP addresses!!!!!!!

(non-admin closure) Techno-rampaging IP blocked for 72 hours by Dennis. demize (t · c) 01:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

79.166.125.45 appears to genre warring some of the articles relating to mostly Sash! and Faithless. Is there any way to stop this?

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S: Please don't sue me, I'm here at Wikipedia.

79.166.125.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Contacting them about it is a good first step. Also, please notify them that they have been mentioned at ANI. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked them. The IP was on a very obvious rampage to insert 'techno' into every article, ignoring sources and being disruptive. He was doing multiple per minute, there is no way he was checking sources. He isn't the first to do so, and my gut says this isn't the first block he's seen for it. Dennis - 2¢ 00:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Seven years' worth of music vandalism

Nothing to do here; I'm simply reporting that I have begun taking action against a long-term vandal who engages in BLP violations and original research on pop music articles, never citing a source. Yesterday I put together a case page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Music vandal from Greater Detroit.

Right on cue, the LTA vandal came to a handful of typical articles today, inserting typical wording such as "disappointing" sales figures[302] or "disappointing" chart performance.[303] I reverted those edits and tagged the account.

I'm not the only one who saw a pattern here; Candy156sweet has been working to repair this vandal's activities since June 2007, creating a workpage at WP:Suspected sock puppets/63.3.1.1, and in August 2007 Ebyabe created the category of suspected sockpuppets. Hopefully we can nip this person's damage in the bud now that we can refer our vigorous cleanup actions to a case page. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is vandalism? It sounds to me like a long-term content dispute in which a couple people are attempting to win said dispute by calling their opponent a vanndal. 69.210.241.175 (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It's about an editor persistently posting editorial comments in articles. That's not a content dispute; it's vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that such comments are unwanted (generally speaking, unless there is a reliable source saying the sales figures are disappointing), but is there any evidence this is being done in bad faith? Cluelessness rather than malice may be the issue here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

Seven years of this kind of thing adds up to a lot of bad faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats by DungeonSiegeAddict510

Here DSA threatened legal action [304] over alleged threats offsite. I've previously notified his constant habit of soapboxing and WP:FORUM here [305]

• [306] Soapboxing about Gawker media and a commentator, misrepresenting their position as "20k+ white males are doing it purely for "misogyny""
• [307] Soapboxing on the arbcom case, promotes conspiracy theories, referred to Gawker as "encouraging domestic abuse under the guise of "feminism" or whatever" and their authors as "sick bullies on their payroll". Dramatically exceed the word limit despite admin notice .
• [308] Soapboxing on the Arbcom case, claiming that Conservapedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica are more neutral than the WP article
• [309] Soapboxing on Gamergate discussion page, equating feminism with fearmongering against men ""All men are rapists" "Kill all men" "Die cis scum""
• [310] Making nonsensical proposals on talk pages eg, using unsourced images from the internet [311]
• [312] Violates WP:CIVIL, referred to User:Tarc "It's only because your No True Scotsman BS"
• [313] Again, soapboxing, referring to a source as "trite from a known troll".
• [314] On RS noticeboard, claimed that all Gawker sources should be blacklisted, and that they're nothing but clickbait.
• [315] Soapboxing about OpSkynet, refers to Gawker and GG critics as promoting an echo chamber and censorship
• [316] Reposted BLP violating material on his talk page

• [317] Warned about sig policy violations
• [318] Warned by uninvolved admin for edit warring
• [319] Indirectly notified for violating WP:FORUM

He was cautioned by the closing admins, yet his behavior continues [320][321][322][323], and his battlefield mentality in pushing a pro-Gamergate POV is completely unconstructive.--137.111.13.200 (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"Expect legal action" is a blatant legal threat. Regardless of what side anyone is on, that is not allowed. The user must be blocked until, or if, he recants and disavows the legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Because of the pending arbitration request I'm not going to respond to the context of this specific user or comment on his or her overall pattern of editng. Nonetheless, I must emphasize that Baseball Bugs' knee-jerk reaction is a far too simplistic analysis and must be rejected. The editor here is alleging that he was threatened on IRC with being "SWATTED" in retaliation for his editing. This refers to the dangerous practice, constituting a serious crime, in which one calls in a false police report against a targeted individual, claiming the existence of a life-threatening emergency at his or her residence. The intended result is to cause the residence to be invaded by a SWAT team of armed police officers. Again, obviously I have no way of knowing whether such a threat actually was made, or if so in what context, but if this actually occurred in a serious context it would be entirely appropriate, if not essential, to report it to law enforcement and doing so could not reasonably be considered to violate Wikipedia policy in any fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"No legal threats" is a bright line that cannot be crossed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

So if you credibly threaten to shoot me and I call the police, I should be blocked? That's absurd, and if that's going to be the quality of your input on this noticeboard then you shouldn't be allowed to post on it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely with Newyorkbrad here. I have no sympathy, personally, with Gamergate, and this editor may have behaved unreasonably. But discussing the deep consequences of off-Wikipedia threats of "swatting" does not violate our ban on legal threats regarding Wikipedia editing. "Swatting", to the extent it actually exists, is an extremely grave form of online harassment that results in significant risk of severe legal problems, destruction of property, personal injury, and even loss of life. This is not an online game. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it. Also that IP has a vetted interest in me. Go away. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If someone's being seriously physically threatened, they should go to the police for help, not Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

also let it be known I am not " pro-gg". I'm a former anti turned neutral. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and they are forum shopping since the arbitration enforcement request has gone with no action, and are presenting in effect that same amount of diffs, and took the diff of the supposed 'legal threat' out of its necessary context. I'm gonna just say that this IP seems to either be a heavy troll, a dedicated sock master, or someone's bad hand, good hand sock. They also seem to have a vendetta against Dungeon for some odd reason...I wonder if the swatting threats also have some importance in this. Oh, and why do sides matter in this? Does someone who's 'Anti GG' get more leniance in policy or guidelines than 'Pro GG'? They shouldn't, but in this, this is in effect an anonymous IP user only here to stir the pot of drama and to forum shop for no reason at all. Oh and even seeing it in its proper context is iffy with me, but we should go with the spirit of the policy for WP:NLT: A chilling effect. If it turns out that some member of Wiki is literally sending swatting threats to Dungeon--a waste of SWAT teams' money and their ability to respond to actual emergency requests, I'd hope they get their comeuppance. I also don't see within the spirit of the policy of Dungeon breaking such. Tutelary (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Continual vandalism of pages by User talk:Bigbong12

I would like to request that User:Bigbong12 be blocked, as he (or she) has continually vandalised and falsified some information on a few pages on Wikipedia and I have had to revert several of his (or her) edits on Wikipedia (see this for some of the edits that I have had to revert), in particular the page 2015 State of Origin series. He (or she) had continually filled in the tables of players, when the event (let alone the matches) has not even started yet (for the record, the series starts in May next year). I was going to consider giving him (or her) some sort of formal warning but I didn't feel that I had the administrative privileges to do so.

Have a look at some of his (or her) edits when considering your case. While some may be constructive, most of them were either false and have had to be reverted, some by me, some by others. Regards, MasterMind5991 (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

1. You have to notify him when you create a section about him here. I did.
2. Anyone can put warning templates on someone else'e talk page, such as {{subst:uw-spam1}}.
3. I suggest the vandalism noticeboard, instead of here. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 11:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think a large boomerang should hit you. You are quick to post content issues here in an attempt to get me topic banned. This is not the place for content problems, but you insist on bringing them here. But talk little on the articles talk page except to defend the problems you insert in the page (see long line diff's below). You revert things to how you added them no matter how the wording was changed or who changes it. This wikilink was placed by you in order to get around the agreement you are trying to enforce. You originally added it here. You want things to be consistent. Based on limited agreements. But only so far as it doesnt touch edits you have made or wording you have placed in[324], 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. [325][326], [327], [328] [329], and here where you accused me of filing a fake 3rr report You insist on inserting WP:OR [330][331][332]. You argue over small words that have the same meaning and dont pahaphrase[333][334][335]. You insert non MEDRS to make medical claims [336]. You insist on placing one review out of order to serve your pov [337] and refuse any order but the one you want. After dating the citation names in the source to keep them in order[338][339] you changed them back to disguise your actions and edited the section to place your subjective order in place[340]. 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)

I think he is a candidate for an indefinite block. AlbinoFerret 15:59, 19 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 [341]

Since that has occurred they have supported a now banned user who more or less made racist comments [342] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 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)

Paperzz.com: useful or spammy?

Not sure about this one: At first contributions from 80.249.180.3 seemed like 100% citation spamming replacement, but for dead links. But the first two new URLs I checked really do have archived content, though one has to work some (2-3 clicks) to get it; if there are advertisements, I don't see them (thanks to AdBlock).

Anyone see a problem here? —EncMstr (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Distortion of consensus at Talk:lift_(force)

A disagreement between two principal editors has been discussed for many months at Talk:lift_(force).

The discussion is ostensibly about content, and highly technical. I have tried to assist and provide technical input, as have others, but consensus appears to be distorted by one expert user who continually refuses to WP:LISTEN or accept opposing views. In his latest post he dismissed months of detailed review of evidence for his claims as 'speculation'.

A request for closure has been filed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Lift (force) but no volunteers have come forward. I have suspected for some time that nobody at Wikipedia will be listened to on this matter. I am becoming increasingly concerned about the effects of his behaviour on the community. Please help. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Operation Zarb-e-Azb

I'm having a problem with two aggressive P.O.V. pushers who are now bombing my talk page with inapplicable warnings. [343] [344] Users TheSawTooth and Faizan keep on adding "Afghan terrorists" and "Afghan militants" as belligerents in the infobox of Operation Zarb-e-Azb, [345] [346] which are unsupported by the cited sources (I've read them all). I recently started a discussion on its talk to have this attack on Afghans removed because the reports simply don't mention Afghan terrorists or Afghan militants but these two editors won't allow me. [347] I also added a latest New York Times article explaining that the operation has thus far resulted in 1.5 million Pakistanis becoming displaced. About 250,000 of them were forced into taking shelter in Afghanistan. [348] This is obviously important information as it involves the lives of so many civilians and very relevant to the article but TheSawTooth removed it. [349] I recommend TheSawTooth be blocked for disruption, it was created less than a month ago and has already engaged in edit-wars with multiple editors. I also feel that Faizan be blocked for P.O.V. pushing and deliberate source falsification. This will teach him that falsifying information in articles based on personal feelings is not accepted in Wikipedia otherwise he will continue and create more problems. I don't enjoy seeing editors get blocked and that's not the reason I'm here, but these two are asking for it. I warned them to stop but they took it as a joke. We are probably dealing with this guy ("Chronic sockpuppeteer who primarily attacks and disrupts articles on India-Pakistan-Afghanistan (often Military History) with a Pro-Pakistani bias.)").--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)