Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Electronic cigarette

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

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

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

User:AlbinoFerret

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will address all these false accusations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:CheesyAppleFlake

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

---

• CheesyAppleFlake (talk · contribs · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This edit referring to Sieg Heilman (see James Heilman and User:Doc James) shows that a topic ban from Electronic cigarette is required for CheesyAppleFlake. There is no need to block if the user manages to edit constructively elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There is really no response when someone starts making racial slurs. This is Godwin's law in action. Further less than helpful comments keep coming in [50] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:QuackGuru

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

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

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

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

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

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

:I think a large boomerang should hit you. You are quick to post content issues here in an attempt to get me topic banned. This is not the place for content problems, but you insist on bringing them here. But talk little on the articles talk page except to defend the problems you insert in the page (see long line diff's below). You revert things to how you added them no matter how the wording was changed or who changes it. This wikilink was placed by you in order to get around the agreement you are trying to enforce. You originally added it here. You want things to be consistent. Based on limited agreements. But only so far as it doesnt touch edits you have made or wording you have placed in[51], 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. [52][53], [54], [55] [56], and here where you accused me of filing a fake 3rr report You insist on inserting WP:OR [57][58][59]. You argue over small words that have the same meaning and dont pahaphrase[60][61][62]. You insert non MEDRS to make medical claims [63]. You insist on placing one review out of order to serve your pov [64] and refuse any order but the one you want. After dating the citation names in the source to keep them in order[65][66] you changed them back to disguise your actions and edited the section to place your subjective order in place[67]. A forever boomerang should hit you because you have had banns (look at his talk page for a long list) but still continue disruptive editing. AlbinoFerret 12:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Continued edit warring while listed here

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of sourced material

In this edit QuackGuru removed sourced material from the article. [68] citing WP:TRIVIA. The Legal status section isnt a section of trivia. AlbinoFerret 03:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block or Ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

I have proposed a topic ban for Abino above [69]

Since that has occurred they have supported a now banned user who more or less made racist comments [70] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to you it is original research to change aerosol to vapor. You claimed aerosol is not a synonym of vapor but according to this change[71] you did replace aerosol with vapor. Do you think it is original research to change aerosol to vapor (or mist) and do you think vapor should be used throughout the body of the article no matter what the source says? QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This is bait and switch. You are saying again that I am claiming it is original research. I never have and I already explained this to you.diff[72] But you dont here it WP:IDHT The diffs you use dont prove the accusations you are levelling. This diff has clear comments on it "change sentence to avoid copyright problems" that mention "copyright issues". This diff has clear comments on it that the change was "change to be consistent" or consistency with the rest of the article according to the agreement that you broke.AlbinoFerret 19:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You claimed we are using another source to correct another source. You previously wrote "We are not permitted to use one source to correct others. That would be WP:OR."[73] However, This diff shows your replaced aerosol with vapor. Your edit summary claims it was a copyright issue but you changed it because it appears you wanted to use the word vapor. You edit showed at the time you did think aerosol and vapor are synonyms. Editors want to use commonsense and use more neutral wording or more accurate synonyms in accordance with NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I too have been involved in editing and discussion of this article and have been frustrated by QG's attitude. The unrelenting disruptive editing makes any substantive progress in the article impossible. QuackGuru's history of POV-pushing [74] and WP:OWNership issues [75] and his rather lengthy block log for similar behavior seem to suggest that it is unlikely he will change his ways or learn how to edit collaboratively. Mihaister (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action or closure? (e-cig threads)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright violations by a sockpuppet

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

---

Irmovies was blocked indef a couple of weeks ago following a mass creation/addition of copyright material relating to Persian cinema. Now Mattewina is doing the same sort of edits. This article has a clear copyvio plot, along with several other articles. Their account was created on the 14th November and then 3 days and six edits later, they are creating brand-new articles on Iranian films. WP:DUCK is quacking like mad. Can someone take a look while I clear up the WP:COPYVIO issues? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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

• Powerim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Account was created yesterday, already is creating articles on Iranian cinema and has been flagged by CSB for plot summary copyvios. Looks like he made good on his threat to sockpuppet. MER-C 12:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

And, as under his previous incarnation, creating numerous unreferenced articles and then removing the {{unreferenced}} tag without addressing the lack of references. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Single purpose account promoting a mthod

The user User:OrangeLeanVoice is heavily promoting a single method: OpenKanban on the Kanban (development) page. There are several revisions where the user has been adding the same content all the time ro the page, completely ignoring to try solve the issue: that it clearly looks like an advert. I suspect this is a single purpose account to try promote it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=634692008&oldid=633775865

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=627556168&oldid=627552623

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=627422758&oldid=627291071

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=626920643&oldid=626920543

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=609849797&oldid=609849712

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=609817308&oldid=609741321

There have been several undos by other editors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=627423765&oldid=627422758

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=622798661&oldid=622798194

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=614341636&oldid=614339834

In one of the diffs the user has claimed to try improve it ro be more neutral, but no results a has been shown at all. Thwre has been some talk with another editor before here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronz#Open_Kanban_Mention

Sorry if this is messed up but I am on mobile

95.199.24.159 (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an promotional WP:SPA to me. No edits outside the topic, all edits are about how Open Kanban "innovates". Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_%28development%29&diff=634981836&oldid=634901467

Undone with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_%28development%29&diff=635000000&oldid=634982645

95.199.24.159 (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It's an opensource fanboy. Open Kanban is Kanban and would seem to have a place in an article on the development of Kanban since they are after all developing Kanban. Just get with them and work on making the material (as they say) informational and not (as you say) promotional.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruption by Djcheburashka, proposed ban(s?)

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

---

(Restoring this from auto-archive. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)) 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 ([76], [77])
• Template regulars or sending them nasty messages when they revert their edits (e.g., [78], [79], [80])
• Assuming bad faith and accusing editors ([81], [82])
• 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 ([83], [84], [85], 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[86]-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. [87], [88], [89]) 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[90].-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. [91] And my response to her question. [92] 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: [[93]] 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, [94], 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, [95], [96], 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: [97], and again here regarding a pending edit war on another article: [98]. 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,[99] 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 [100] [101] 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. [102]

--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 [103]). 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 [104] 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". [105] I went on to actually add it. [106]. 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" [107]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the thing, though - a topic ban from Zhukova (or from rape, broadly construed) or an IBAN with me might help temporarily, but this is obviously a user behavior issue and we have no reason to suspect that things will be any different with regard to the next topic area or the next user that Dj takes a grudge against. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If he jumps into another topic with similar behavior then we will know at that time that a topic ban would be ineffective, but I am not willing to skip that step to see if it is just a localized problem, and one hopefully he will realize it is inappropriate and not continue the behavior. If all the bad behavior is localized we have no reason to believe that it wouldn't end with a topic ban, and that should be our default unless we have reason to believe otherwise. --Obsidi (talk) 04:17, 20 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)

I'll be the first to admit I may not be fully aware of what this is, but both my advice to you and my not-vote above stand regardless of whether or not BoboMeowCat has misrepresented things. The diff cited - the one where you essentially say you will wait until BoboMeowCat and Drmies have turned their backs, and will then resume trying to push through your version - epitomizes the wrong way to resolve a content dispute. You're not supposed to exclude other editors from the editing process, but work together with them - and while consensus can change, BoboMeowCat and Drmies turning the other way and leaving you alone doesn't constitute a change of consensus. One gets the impression you want to push your version through, regardless of what other editors think; that's page ownership and against policy.
It doesn't help that your other recent contributions include page histories like this; unlike some here I feel you can be a constructive editor and contribute positively, but you'll really have to stop edit warring.
I'll be happy to strike my not-vote if you tell me I've misinterpreted the diff, that you understand what the problem would be if my reading were correct, and that "coming back in a few weeks to fix it" really means you will come back to the talk page a few weeks from now, start a new discussion from a fresh angle, invite BoboMeowCat and Drmies to take part in it, and don't intend to make any edits that were previously opposed until the new discussion's gained steam and it's clear that consensus has shifted to support your edits.
Remember that edit warring is always disruptive, even if you're right and the other editor(s) wrong. Avoid it. Sideways713 (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sideways713 Actually, I think if you look at the timeline of the diffs and talk page, you'll see something of a different story -- it was me who opened the talk page discussion, and Bobo who ignored it, and repeatedly ignored consensus. Drmies changed his view about a small number of Bobo's proposals after most had been dropped and at that point I said "fine." I don't see any productive discussion on the talk page, and I don't think Bobo is there for any reason other than to retaliate because I didn't give him what he wanted on another page. I think the page right now has WP:RS, WP:V, and other issues. It's been a regular target of apparently WP:COI no-username vandals. Its misusing sources. And it leaves out several of the most important facets of the subject. Rather than continuing a battle which serves no purpose, with someone who seems interested in creating an edit war, I am taking a break from the page. I will return to it later, see what is there, and take appropriate action at that time. Whether that action is commencing a new discussion (which failed before, since Bobo chose to ignore it and impose his changes), or BRD, or what, will depend on the condition of the page at that time. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Restored from archive (edit break)

Another editor asked me to look deeper into this after #my comment above. Dj appears to have edited as an IP for a while, not signing their talk page posts, before creating this account, and continued not signing talk page posts for a bit. Some of this account's early edits were classic WP:OR [108] and other mistakes that no very experienced editor would have made but, then, their earliest edits were also peppered with very familiar language:
[109] Sixth edit (unsigned talk page comment) "Someone's PR campaign is not, of itself, notable..." Uses "notable" while failing to sign.
[110] Seventh edit: Uses "weasel words", "unsourced", "sourced to"
[111] Eighth edit. Uses "reverted" in the edit summary.
I've got house guests and can't really devote the necessary time to it, but I can understand others being leery of this behaviour. Still, the familiarity with our language and norms may have come from a prior dynamic IP career, and the arguing and boldness is fine with me. If we get into the realm of misrepresenting sources or problematical edit warring (I see a little edit warring on all sides - linked above) then I will change my mind, but for now I would just say, Dj, please generally allow yourself to be guided by WP:BRD, particularly regarding edits that throw a living person into a less favourable light. You're editing in very controversial areas and that requires (at least from newbies) an extra dose of politeness. Long term editors have had to deal with the most appalling POV-pushers and defamers over the years, and can sometimes be short on patience. Please try to be understanding and genuinely patient with them - they fill an extremely important and mostly thankless role here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It's arguable but reasonable that they are a new user. If they happened to continue appearing at pages that Roscelese has edited this would not be ideal. If they continue to edit war that would not be ideal. This ANI serves as a warning here if nothing else. The Wikipedia:Teahouse and Wikipedia:Adopt a user were both mentioned above. There maybe other places like on wikipedia. If so please do mention them. These were set up to assist new editors with acclimating to wikipedia. @Djcheburashka: I encourage you to use them to your benefit.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Can someone uninvolved please close this thread already? Djcheburashka edits in controversial areas and it's natural that there's going to be some drama. It serves no purpose other than attracting more drama to have brought this back from the auto-archive (though I know it was done in good faith) as evidenced by the several other editors who have come back here to pile on based on things completely separate from the original complaint, which seems to have resolved itself. There's a lengthy thread on my talk page in which the user asked for help and was willing to adjust to how things work here and have a civil discussion about opposing views, and I see the same occurring on several other talk pages they're involved with. They are causing discussion which is not a bad thing; they are not doing it for the sole purpose of being disruptive and we could use to have more editors around who are willing to have a discussion in tough subject areas rather than being rigid and blunt with "outsiders" and edit warring all the time. This has been open for nearly two full weeks now with nothing actionable - let's move on. Ivanvector (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

While it may be reasonable to close this at this point, it's worth noting that only one editor, -Serialjoepsycho-, has furthered the discussion since Anthonyhcole brought this out of archive and his comments seemed related to the original complaint. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Yes this is stale and this should be closed. How ever I was the only editor that made a comment after it was pulled from the archive. I didn't pile on anything completely separate. My comments were related to the original discussion. I also offered rather good advice, that they seek assistance from something like the wp:teahouse that is set up to help new users. I'm not sure were they are causing discussion but they don't really seem willing to discuss much. It's not that there is nothing actionable but that this is stale and no one wants to talk about this anymore. [112] This threat to edit war on Dasha Zhukova is an actionable enough reason to topic ban them from there as requested above.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to name anyone or any post specifically as piling on, and the request that Anthony received seems to have come via email so I don't know who was the requester anyway, I'm just pointing out that it's been happening. I think the revert war threat is only actionable if they follow through - from what I see there has been slow progress in the discussion there. I agree with your observation that nobody wants to talk about this here any more. Ivanvector (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

User is still reverting Roscelese - [113] and [114] EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Closure request

As OP, I'm requesting an uninvolved admin close this discussion. I am shocked to return after being out of town to find this still open and apparently devolving into suggestions of bans for other users. The discussion is nearly 2 weeks old. It appears to be getting out of hand. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Behavior of User:Eightball

• Eightball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yesterday afternoon, a disgrameent ensued over the inclusion of a flag in 2015_Formula_One_season. This quickly developed into a fierce dispute including a violation of WP:3RR. User:Eightball has reverted other users' contributions labeling them vandalism and calling the users making them liars [115], [116], [117]. The user has harassed other users involved on their talk pages [118], [119], has declared their intention not to discuss and to keep reverting despite already being in violation of WP:3RR [120], and declared their intention not to accept consensus [121]. During the discussion process the users has repeatedly issued personal attacks through calling disagreeing users vandals and liars [122], [123]. I consider the attitude Eightball diplayed in the dispute utterly unacceptable. I will not deny that my own behavior was not what it should have been (in particular, I reverted to much which I deeply regret). I've allowed myself to be dragged into this way to deeply. What I would like to see is for this user to learn to collaborate constructively with other users instead of calling them liars and vandals. That they learn to respect other users' opinions and that at that at times the community disagrees with them. I would also like that this user learns to have respect for the Wikipedia policies such as WP:Consensus, WP:3RR,... Tvx1 (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone going to take a look at this at all? Tvx1 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This has already been to the 3RR noticeboard, and a case is also underway at DRN. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't change the unacceptable behavior the user has displayed. And I wouldn't say the DRN case is underway. A request has been lodged, but it hasn't been accepted yet Tvx1 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate (again)

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

This page needs eyes (and IMHO protection) urgently. Obviously, Wikipedia’s repeating an untrue allegation about a game developer's sexual history involves BLP, and given the prominence of the issue. Note that I believe I may have violated 3RR under the BLP exemption and hope this was done appropriately. I'd appreciate it if the authorities could take over now. [[124]] MarkBernstein (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Per Bugs, I've extended protection. Chaos seems to erupt whenever protection expires or is downgraded, so we ought not let it expire again so soon. For a while, full protection was set to expire in late April, so I've put it back to that; other admins are welcome to downgrade it if they believe it necessary (no need to ask me or notify me; I don't care about the topic), although I'd advise against it. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure protection was necessary. User Avono seems to concede the issue to MarkBernstein's suggestion.--v/r - TP 17:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it was necessary because of this specific incident, but that wasn't the reason for the extension of protection; I did it because of the longer-term trends, and I would have believed protection necessary even without this specific incident. Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Plus, long term protection violates WP:PILLAR as this is supposed to be the Wikipedia that everybody can edit, not the encyclopedia that any admin can protect a page for a long amount of time just because it has 'problems'. A lot of page have freakin' editing problems. NPOV, biased content, tendendious editors. The solution to those problems is to discuss on the talk page, (and maybe file for enforcement for the more conduct related) not shut down all editing for literally 5 months because you think 'it'll calm down after that'. That's a fool's errand, and just delays the problem. You should absolutely use full protection for short periods of time, but not for this longer period since it happily negates any meaningful discussion on the talk page. I urge to you restore the full protection original date. This I also believe is unprecedented. Tutelary (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, no one is being oppressed. If you have a particular edit suggestion, propose it on the talk page, get consensus, and then sit back and enjoy the improved product. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Not worth worrying about here and now. Twenty four hours after this [125] vote, the criteria was met for the opening of an arbcom case. (The actual declaration depends on the availability of an arbcom clerk, who are volunteers like the rest of us.) NE Ent 18:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm extremely happy to see the page receive long-term protection. If anything resembling a consensus can be established on the talk page, then it can go into main article space. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• The article should not be removed to a semi-permanent draft version that will serve like an admin-only Pending Changes article. Such a concept goes against our core policies. I will recognize that there is a major effort by parties to advance an agenda, but semi-protection and the sanctions on the page are tools enough to control the matter without becoming draconian. Wikipedia is a neutral party, but compromising our standards and processes sets a bad precedent and it indicates that Wikipedia is helpless to regulate, control and maintain high-visibility articles. Full protection only projects vulnerability and shame in our self-regulation because when we pride ourselves on the notion that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The sanctions did not prevent (false) allegations about a young woman’s sexual history from being posted to article space within five minutes of the end of protection. The sanctions have not prevented Ryulong's doxxing and the shameful anti-semitic rants against him offsite, nor have they yet taken effective measures against relentless speculation about other unsourced claims [[126]], nor an admin’s repeated talk-page assertion that two reliable sources that refer to an image as a "rape joke" must be wrong because no static image can depict rape. This page needs an extended time-out, and related pages need watchful eyes. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, we can only deal with the vandalistic edit after the fact, and that's an oversight that has happened to other articles before. (Not restoring semi protection after full protection and a vandalistic edit gets through) To try to say that the article should be protected for 5 months because of a single vandalistic edit is absolutely crazy. And we don't control what happens off site, and linking to a general enforcement page in which the user is warned is not productive. Also commenting on deal dispute matters which you don't like the reply of an admin is also not exactly relevant to the topic. Also please don't insult or personally attack other editors, per WP:NPA. Tutelary (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The accusations against Quinn was the focal point for all of Gamergate, and discussed many many times in reliable sources, and considered refuted by most of those reliable sources. It has been long since accepted in talk page discussion that in discussing those allegations as the starting point and the fact they've been pretty much disproven is not a violation of BLP. Further, you need to stop misquoting me and making veiled personal attacks. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting real tired of the harassment I'm getting. --DSA510 Pls No H8 19:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Draconian Proposal

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

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no need for this; this is what the general sanctions are supposed to handle. The editors that edit warred (both ways) over long-established phrasing should be warned and/or have sanctions enforced to mitigation the issue. Doing this type of solution, having admin actions on specific details, I can see grow way too fast out of control. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, as the sanctions would cover this and, if things were to change in the future, would preempt the ability of the article to change with time. Terrible suggestion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support as necessary (extended page protection is also necessary). Also -- and knowing that I am walking directly up to the line of WP:CIVIL here, both MASEM and Thargor Orlando, opposing above, fought long and hard today to make the sexual allegations as visible as possible, and their discussion as protracted as possible,MarkBernstein (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This is simply untrue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Sanctions cover this sort of stuff. Redundant and unnecessary. Tutelary (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose As this was never the issue. Avono (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• oppose --DSA510 Pls No H8 20:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - unnecessary per above. ansh666 21:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Current sanctions are sufficient and because we should never impose an requirement that certain wording is not allowed here. The evidence of the current consensus is clear, is here and it's disruptive to change it but consensus can still change. The solution is for those editors to propose a more neutral wording and see if that is permissible. Their BLP attacks are not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Follow-Up Reply, and Alternate Suggestion

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

The sanctions page is [127]. Other than the initial flurry, and today's topic ban of DSA (after a at least one previous request and two or more trips here), enforcement has been glacial and, in my view, ineffective. Not only was the False allegations edit warred, but a subsequent edit war broke out on the talk page over whether discussion of Zoe Quinn’s sex life could be hatted or whether the five pillars require that the BLP violations remain prominently visible on the talk page. Yesterday's rape discussion was, in my view, beyond belief and also deserves close scrutiny, which I have been inviting just as I felt I had to open this discussion with my own 3RR violation. That this should be necessary to gather attention to the matter is unfortunate, but if attention is being paid otherwise, its effects are not evident to attentive onlookers. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to slander me, at least ping me. I don't sit around all day looking through contribs, so I'd prefer i know who is slandering my name, and where and when. --DSA510 Pls No H8 23:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

As your conduct was not under discussion here, and as it's not clear that you could contribute to this discussion (having been topic banned), it didn't occur to me. I'm regret the omission, @DungeonSiegeAddict510.MarkBernstein (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Just changing "false allegations" to "allegations" one time is in no way a violation of the general sanctions though trout-worthy due to the fact the issue has been discussed much per talk archives (and while using "false" is still controversial, is generally considered a stable solution at the present time), but edit warring over that would be. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud. Telstar introduced the issue [[128]], reverted by NorthBySouthwestBaranof. Telstar restated the BLP violation again [[129]], was stepped on by Avono introducing the draft revision wholesale, and again reverted by NorthBySouthwestBaranof. Avono immediately reverted to plain "Allegations" [[130]], reverted by me. Avono tries to replace "Allegations" with "Unproven allegations", reverted by me. As I'm reporting myself to ANI for that revert (head of this discussion), Gamaliel protects the page.

MASEM knows this. MASEM can, presumably, read view history just as well as I can. I know people hate drama here, but in the post above, MASEM can only be intentionally misleading his colleagues -- what other explanation can we offer for the edit immediately above. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

For further reference, MASEM's talk page edits today insisting on fuller exposure of Zoe Quinn's sex life, and attempting to argue that the allegations concerning her alleged exchange of sexual favors for editorial coverage were not false, in the teeth of (as far as I am aware) unanimous reliable sources: [[131]], [[132]] (page is protected at this point), [133], [134],[[135]] (worrying that new editors might not be familiar with Zoe Quinn's sex life), [[136]] (alluding to 'more sexual accusations which we will not discuss because they're not true either, except we have to mention again and again that they were alleged), [[137]], plus five subsequent diffs that interested readers can pursue as easily as I through View History. All of this, mind you, was closely coordinated with a small group of associated editors who play assigned roles: one is always careful to claim neutrality (while invariably favoring more discussion of Zoe Quinn's private life), one is more aggressive, a third is now topic-banned. But, after a whole day parsing whether or not "sodomy" is a good euphemism for rape and asserting that a static image cannot n any case refer to rape -- again in the teeth of the sources and defiance of art history and semiotics and common sense -- if this is, on a page already subject to sanctions and already at ArbCom -- if this is not misconduct, then let's just turn out the lights right now. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop personally attacking me. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Yes you are attacking me. "have facilitated a coordinated POV attack on this page and its talk page which is known to be coordinated offsite, and where your aid is specifically cited as an important asset" is an outright attack without proof and I can tell you is 100% false - I have purposely avoided any discussion of the GG article with anyone outside of the discussions on Wikipedia (save for what I've already documented at ArbCom as one private discussion with a person that wanted to know how reliable sources work on WP). I'm well aware my name comes up in several conversations on outside sources, but that's why I have fully avoiding interaction (and in part I am not proGG, I'm only fighting for an impartial article per NPOV). So that's an outright fabrication and a personal attack. Additionally, it is not BLP to discuss an accusation that has been the center of discussion of numerous mainstream reliable sources and central to the entire debate, which has also been generally debunked. BLP says we should be using the best sources if we have to discuss it (which we are) and we just have to establish how the allegations came and how they were refuted. You're claiming I'm trying to drag more of her life into this which is absolutely bogus - I know other other allegations exist but will not state what those on WP are because that would be a BLP violation at the current time. I'm trying to argue from the proper accurate and neutral wording to how to present the nature of the accusations. And I am only contesting hatting when involved editors are doing so, because of the talk page being under sanctions - if a discussion needs hatting, grab an uninvolved admin and do it themselves.--MASEM (t) 04:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I urge careful attention to the paragraph above, notably the phrase I know other other allegations [[concerning Zoe Quinn's sex life that] exist but will not state what those on WP are because that would be a BLP violation at the current time. That's breathtaking -- and so generous of you to not wish to discuss prurient details in a matter in which this software developer is blameless at the current time! Please: someone. Take this to sanctions or wherever it needs to go. It has to be done, and I can't face another long day of being dragged through innuendo about a colleague's sex life for the amusement of Wikipedia process. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say "sex life"? There are other allegations about her life, but not about her sex life. You are misquoting me left and right. Please stop immediately. --MASEM (t) 05:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(And to be clear, these are allegations I am aware the proGG has made, but no RS has covered in any detail we can even start to use, and hence why I won't bring the specifics up at all) --MASEM (t) 05:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That's breathtaking Masem. If you're not willing to drop the topic for a couple of months I think sanctions will be necessary. Meanwhile, readers here can thnk about what bad things Zoe Quinn might have done—that is, bad things apart from her sex life. Perhaps the allegations are that she has committed fraud or blackmail? Or that she threatened to kill or rape someone? Can't you see how utterly inappropriate it is for editors to use any page on Wikipedia to promote such nonsense? Please stop immediately. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I am absolutely not promoting those. I am saying, as editors of an article that has received an inordinate amount of outside interest, that we need to be aware that there are other things the proGg side would like WP to say but we are nowhere close to having any sources to even speak to them, much less cover them. I don't believe any of said things are true in any remote way, but that doesn't change the fact that there are people that want to come to WP to ask us to add them, and to respond best to them it is better not to be ignorant of these other claims and broadly what they involve (as it tells us what other articles might be subject to outside influence because of the connection). I am absolutely not promoting adding anything more regarding Quinn. --MASEM (t) 11:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

How much longer should the community tolerate these repeated attacks from MarkBernstein? Is there a reason his continued attacks and posts are tolerated? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Thargor Orlando: Apparently the enforcement page would be the revenue to have such issues dealt with as previously unfounded accusations were hatted by dreadstar [138]. Avono (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I am hatting this because it was becoming too offtopic. This was probably a cultural misunderstanding because as a German I correlate right wing to Fascism Avono (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And this [139] could possibly constitute slander, I would advise MarkBernstein to immediately retract that statement Avono (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC) In [140], a topic-banned editor is found editing [Christina_Hoff_Sommers]. Now, many people might not know who Christina_Hoff_Sommers is, so I explain that she is "a prominent, right-wing GamerGate supporter." I repeat this deliberately, which Avono calls "slander". That she is prominent is clear: she has a Wikipedia page. That she is "right-wing" lacks nuance but is broadly descriptive of our lede and of her affiliation with the American Enterprise Institute. That she is a GamerGate supporter is evidenced by her picture and passage on the page we are discussing -- a picture and passage I believe to be unnecessary and undesirable but which GamerGate supporters have defended fiercely and which, in my view, does no urgent harm (unlike the repeated insinuations regarding Zoe Quinn’s sex life). If anyone believes this is slander, you know what to do. If anyone believes this characterization rises to the level of sanctionable or, indeed, less than commendable, the door to sanctions is that away -->. If anyone has a spare trout, Avono needs a fish dinner for this; I think it is sanctionable but I really would rather watch football than spend a couple of days helping Avono catch a fish. If anyone would like to offer some help to the project, the GamerGate pages need protection and their talk pages need scrutiny, and I need useful advice. Email always welcome. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Right-wing politics states that Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable so please tell how a feminist can be right wing Avono (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Christina Hoff Sommers works for the American Enterprise Institute, a noted right wing think tank. They don't hire left-wing individuals (Well, not as contributors at any rate. Possibly as janitors). Ergo, CSH is right wing. She also claims to be a feminist, so it would be up to her to explain how she reconciles these seemingly contradictory affiliations. Most people say she does it by simply defining "feminist" in a way that does not match anyone else's definition of the word, much in the same way that Gamergaters use the word "ethics" in a wholly de novo fashion. But for a sourced answer as to how one can be demonstrably right wing and still claim to be a feminist, you would have to apply directly to Christina Hoff Sommers herself. ReynTime (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Likely useless exhortation

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

This is fine and I agree in principle. Would you agree so readily, NE Ent, if we'd spent six hours yesterday discussing whom you, or your daughter, had slept with? If an edit war was conducted, as it was conducted yesterday, to change a section heading of the article from "FALSE ALLEGATIONS ABOUTNE Ent" followed by a paragraph on your sexual history, and replacing the heading with "ALLEGATIONS ABOUT NE Ent" or, as a compromise, ""UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS ABOUT NE Ent]"?

More to the point, beyond being a tawdry toxic mess, Gamergate does involve sending countless threats of beatings, rape, and murder to numerous female software developers. Suppose, heaven forfend, the least-sensible follower of this tawdry, toxic mess decides to follow through. If that were to happen today, could you stand on Wikipedia's talk page and say, "we did an excellent job and demonstrated how sensibly we can handle a difficult situation?" If so, do you imagine that the New York Times or Der Spiegel would agree? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent, the precise problem is that there are a great many editors who are not here to build a source-based encyclopedia article about this issue, but are here to portray Gamergate as it wishes to be portrayed for public relations purposes while presenting a wide array of Gamergate's "tawdry, toxic, gossipy, juvenile" allegations against living people as something other than specious, disproven, ill-founded and frankly-nonsensical — which has been and is the clear and unambiguous conclusion of mainstream reliable sources. I would like nothing so much as to "run away," but it is my responsibility as a Wikipedia editor — and my responsibility as a humane person — to work to ensure that our project does not serve to perpetuate and propagate a series of anonymous, vicious and violent harassment campaigns targeting living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• At least in my opinion we should be TRYING to get gamergate back to being at least semi-protected. A very long term protect would be bad. Impose 1RR if needed, and then unprotect it (back to semi), if people start edit warring, temporary protect the page long enough to sort out who is edit warring (like 24 hours at most) and get them topic banned, and then unprotect again. Rinse and repeat until all those disrupting the page are topic banned. (and by edit warring I mean more then just propose removing false, and then someone reverts that and says take it to the talk page) --Obsidi (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The Gamergate article is suffering from serious recentism and bloat due to it being a current event with a small but persistent group coordinating efforts offsite to keep the mess front and center at WP, all out of proportion to its actual importance. Keeping the page locked for a significant length of time will give a chance for things to die down and for the actual cultural impact -- IF ANY -- to be properly assessed and the article appropriately trimmed. Frankly, it seems unlikely that in six months anyone is going to care about the minutiae of Gamergate. It'll be remembered as just another nasty, ugly little crapstorm drummed up to try to drive women out of "men's spaces". There's no real reason to keep wasting the time of editors who right now have to keep a hawk's eye on it to prevent BLP violations and material "sourced" on Youtube personalities from sprouting in it like dandelions after a spring rain. Keep it protected. ReynTime (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Also it seem arbcom will take the case (6 supporting and 1 recuse with 12 active arbcom members seems likely to take the case at this point). So whatever we do now may be moot, arbcom is likely to have some kind of preliminary injunction. --Obsidi (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• IMO the best solution here would be to delete and salt the article, then start again in six to twelve months when the drama has died down and the RS (not just news websites) have had a chance to get into gear. The world would not be a worse place for Wikipedia not having an article on GamerGate for a year. That's my 2p; unfortunately, I can't see it flying. GoldenRing (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  That suggestion gets thrown around a lot on a particular reddit forum.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  Er, right. Do you have a point to make here? GoldenRing (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  I'm guessing he means that removing the page is what the GGers want, except I disagree -- what the GGers actually want is to have a lengthy WP article that legitimizes their BS "movement." I tend to think that getting rid of the GG article entirely or at least paring it down to the two or so short paragraphs it may, possibly, deserve (due only to the extremes of harassment of women in the industry that occurred via the use of social media) would go further to indicate how meaningless, petty, and nasty the whole thing is than to have an insanely long entry going into every last little detail of the GGers terrible behavior. With a long and detailed WP article GG can run around claiming that (A) GG is REALLY IMPORTANT! and (B) WP is full of "SJW shills!" and other such tripe, which leads them to engage in coordinated offsite harassment of editors they don't like, and to try to drag in tangentially involved figures like Christina Hoff Sommers and David Auerbach (of Slate) to push their agenda for them via harassing Jimbo on Twitter and on his talk page, because they expect him to step in and personally "fix" things to their liking. (Not that JW can't handle it since this is by far not his first rodeo, but it's still really, really stupid.) Removing or severely trimming the article would reduce the potential for such behavior substantially, although WP would of course then have to deal with the shrieks of "CENSORSHIP!!" that would follow. As it is, I'm betting that the GG group has more SPAs and zombies they can bring in than WP has genuine editors willing to police the article properly until the GGers get tired of messing with it, and the GGers have more patience because they simply care much more about it. While WP:NOTPAPER holds, of course, having this crazy long and detailed article about GG gives it far, far more legitimacy than it deserves. (150 citations?! Seriously?!)ReynTime (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  Just so. Reading the current article, it seems insanely long for such a storm in a tea-cup. So by suggesting that we delete the article and leave it alone for a year, I was trying to say that I think some historical perspective will pare this down to, as you suggest, a few paragraphs dispassionately describing the controversy. But we are getting into a content discussion here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Can someone point to another precedent of a fully protected article just because the article has problems without being fixed? I don't believe such an article exists. Tutelary (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

FWIW, the infobox images are suppose to be those of the person who was elected Speaker & the challenger who wasn't. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

None of the edits were made as an Admin, so I don't know why that's an issue here. I made edits just like any user should (see WP:BB). I noted the reasons. Another user disagreed with my edits. So far, that's fine. But then that user started asking for apologies and taking it all personally. That I couldn't explain. As you see from the very title of this section, "Absolutely bizarre behavior," another editor cannot understand conflicting opinions without them being an explosive issue. Perhaps the infoboxes should be changed to reflect "the person who was elected Speaker & the challenger who wasn't," and that's fine. We can discuss that on the talk pages and reach a consensus. But this over-the-top action by an editor is inappropriate. —GoldRingChip 16:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits made by you at any time are done as an admin, since you are an administrator. This is regardless of whether they were actual use of administrator tools. It looks like you've been an administrator since 2005. Do you feel that your knowledge of policies, guidelines and editing norms is current enough? This exchange is a bit odd and certainly disruptive, and perhaps seeking a third opinion or starting a request for comment would have been better than blanking a large batch of infoboxes in an apparently controversial manner. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't know the casual edits of an admin would be treated at a higher standard. That's was my mistake. There was nothing to indicate at the time that the edits would be controversial. I make edits all the time which are taken for what they are: edits. If/when an editor disagrees, then we hash it out the usual Wikipedia way. Instead, the other editor started accusing me and demanding apologies. I didn't blank infoboxes, by the way, I just removed a small portion of data from them because they were unsupported and appeared factually incorrect. Indeed, I assert that there should be no data in those fields, as supported by my claims in the Edit summaries. (see, e.g., here. Unlike the other editor, I am providing a sample diff for this discussion, as suggested by this noticeboard.) If, in fact, I was incorrect, I welcome citations to support the claim and on we go. That's the system working the way it should. Please take the other editor's tone for what it is: a personal affront that there was an edit. I take no insult from other people's edits, because Wikipedia is about teamwork. —GoldRingChip 21:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, administrators *are* held to a higher standard. That's how they became administrators in the first place, by determination that they were deserving of greater responsibility than the average editor during their RfA. It would also be nice to see some diffs from Themane2 to support their accusations, though. Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Is an admin not allowed to edit? Can't I make regular uncontroversial ordinary edits? The other editor has made a harsh accusation and I'm being judged just because I'm an admin. —GoldRingChip 17:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I have 3 accusations against you: 1. You played the "name-calling" card when I never called you anything offensive, which can be verified through a simple viewing of your talk page. 2. You continued to ignore me when I pointed out that the Speaker of the House was always put in for the portraits. 3. You then refused to at the very least go to the 2012 or 2014 election page, which have been edited by scores of authors and are, at the very least, decent indicators of consensus. Basically, my problem is you came in to change a widely held consensus, without so much as a discussion, and then proceeded to ignore me when I asked some questions. The diffs are pretty much any edit summary from any of these pages, as well as his talk page. It's all in the public record and it's frankly embarrassing for any editor, administrator or not, to act this way. Themane2 (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Some diffs of note. I try to get through to him... He continues to ignore me... Themane2 (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Skamecrazy123 Tendentious Editing

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

Um.... I only prodded it once here. Mcmatter then nominated it for AfD. As for biting you, I have apologised both on your talk page and at the AfD request here and struck through the offending comments. If my edits were truly tendentious, I would have not offered the apology and struck through the relevant comment. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• You've done nothing wrong. No problems with listing the article. Now WP:BOOMERANG time: Orubel, your history here has not been on great help to the project. Your editing has been problematic to say the least. You need to knock off the attacks on everyone. I'd say it's pretty close to a WP:NOTHERE solution and moving on if you continue on this routine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Have to disagree User shows a history of attack against user by editing content and now stated it in page. This has been happening previously on the api chaining page and then he is more than happy to vote for delete because he has issue with user. If you have issue with user, you dont bring it WP:HERE Orubel (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have a feeling you are making this up as you go along. All these accusations of me bringing the page to deletion when I only prodded it once. All this stuff about me having a problem with you when I struck out the only comment that could be perceived as an attack and apologised for it. At the end of the day, I voted the way I voted because of a perceived lack of notability, not because I wanted to rub your nose in it. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• ' I have a feeling you are making this up as you go along'... obviously, you are completely unbiased. Orubel (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note - this is the AfD discussion in question. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As per the nomination on the on the AFD, I nominated it because the prod had been removed by a new single purpose account during my new user patrol. After looking at the article I questioned the validity of the references and the article itself and initiated the AFD process to gather input from the community. It was not until after I nominated the article that I found out the creator had been blocked or was having issues and it was his wife who was the SPA account which removed the prod. So far, through this process Orubel has been very combative and has taken everything very personally. A review of WP:OWN may be helpful, especially since he has admitted to a conflict of interest as the creator of the pattern as per this post [141] which he later retracted and removed.[142]. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• You've done nothing wrong either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• I do not question McMatter, I have felt the effect of WP:BITE and am just knee jerk responding as a user. Regardless of my actions, editors need to remember why we are WP:HERE and understand that scientific evidence for tech community is not presented in magazines anymore... it is at peer reviewed technical conferences, open source conferences, etc. This is where a board reviews your work to see if it is noteworthy and then invites you to present and a group of peers then sees and begins to implement your work. Magazines may never write about the intricacies of software... it just becomes fact. And it is up to us to make sure people can have access to that information. Orubel (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

More Ararat arev IP-hopping

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

• 64.134.224.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.95.223.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.87.39.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.134.230.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 173.198.43.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 104.173.89.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.119.236.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.134.238.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

And apparently he is able to leave one IP address, edit from another, and come back to the first, so they should all be blocked. A. Parrot (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

And 166.170.14.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Hayk. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

All + 166.170.14.60 blocked. Favonian (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"NOTICE IF INCIVILITY" (sic) (BlueSalix filing complaint against BlueSalix, on behalf of HafizHanif)

Collapse invalid filing of "BlueSalix filing complaint against BlueSalix, on behalf of HafizHanif" per Andrevan. Also, you guys don't need one more venue to argue the merits of Boyd Bushman. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

(The following post was left on my Talk page [143] with the alert that it was being raised in ANI. However, the reporting editor HafizHanif may have forgot to file the ANI report as I can't find it anywhere here. I'm filing it against me on his behalf so I don't have to keep checking back here indefinitely.) BlueSalix (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC) “ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. User:BlueSalix, I think you may have breached some civility guidelines in the manner in which you discussed the deletion of the Boyd Bushman wiki entry. I think you may have contradicted yourself, may have instigated others and also projected your own hysterics / frantic dialogue while pointing to others to have become hysterical and frantic. You seem to desire a speedy deletion process to an entry which had been on wiki for seven years without reading through the comments and concerns of editors, regardless of their tenure or lack thereof. Here are some examples: "due to the increasingly hysterical/frantic tone being taken by the new editors, I think immediate closure is warranted to protect both the encyclopedia and our editors" The reading of the entire dialogue would reveal who was hysterical and frantic in their colorful use of words. You wrote "that "alien nutcase" Bushman is a different man who simply shared a similar name and used it as part of his UFO con" in speaking to a real scientist, with real credentials, a real likeness to the name and the name matching a likeness. You seem to be the only one who disputes this man's existence, and believe a recently opened account on LinkedIn to be the 'real' Boyd Bushman. An account with no connections, a fuzzy picture and no business references. I don't think you are serious but this you use as argument. You wrote "Bushman was not notable before this. He had a WP article that should have been purged long ago, but no one got around to it. Anyway, I don't care. This article is going in the trash bin where it belongs. C'est fin" I think you should care as to why the article was around for seven years and why it is under attack and scrutiny now. It passed guidelines with the same citations and independent sources for seven years. You wrote: "Our guidelines establish that notability is not achieved by a single event." The single event you may be speaking about is the many recent news articles mentioning Boyd's testimonial this past summer. However, he had been mentioned in a book years prior, two documentary and several other places. The argument regarding his scientific work is debatable only because it isn't cited elsewhere, but his almost 30 patents are not in disrepute. You wrote "If you can't find any reference to Boyd Bushman in any of these hundreds of thousands of places spanning hundreds of billions of pages of text, then he doesn't get in WP." I don't think you are the only person to choose what does qualify, but the Wikipedia guidelines. You mentioned certain news outlets besides the ones Boyd was featured in, but I don't think you get to choose which news articles to use if they are all legitimate. You wrote the following phrase several times after being asked not to use such language "he was a self-aggrandizing nutter." This also seems to fall under incivility. You wrote "The patents simply show he paid a $130 filing fee and establish absolutely nothing else." This is your opinion and not true. A filing fee is one thing, the process of citing sources, writing a claim and all the rest that goes into actually having a patent is more than a small filing fee. This seems to be another unfounded argument used to simply detract from constructive reasoning. None of the news outlets denied Boyd being who he and others said he was... they in fact wrote he was a scientist working for Lockheed Martin and the many patents are all assigned to Lockheed Martin. It is clear but you seem to desire to further instigate and argue against these facts. You wrote ""Significant coverage" and "reliable sources" are not two separate standards that have to be met, they are the same standard: significant coverage in reliable sources." This scientist was written about in over ten newspapers worldwide recently, albeit for an unusual story. These newspapers were not yellow papers like tabloids, but actual news outlets that write about daily news events... yet you seem to ignore this fact. This recent notoriety shouldn't shadow his standing the his place for seven years in wikipedia. You wrote "I didn't have time to go through the rest of this laundry list, but I feel it's safe to dismiss the rest of them if you weren't able to distinguish between RS and non RS in the first few instances." It seems you are quick to respond but not quick to read what others have to say. Here you seem to admit you ignore and quickly dismiss what the others are sharing with you. You wrote "I could call Bushman a pedophile if I wanted." You seem to exercise your freedom of speech while disregarding guidelines and considering others in conducting a serious debate. You wrote "This article could only serve as a magnet for UFO weirdos. It should be salted to prevent recreation" It seems you have a strong opinion about a niche interest, but this is no basis to support your arguments. You seem to have repeated this theme throughout your arguments / responses. You wrote "He had no career achievements" in regards to the scientist in question. This seems to be either a blatant lie or your method of convincing others be speaking down about someone's career achievements. You wrote "You suppose wrong. Wikipedia is not a democracy" while you are counting votes to delete the entry. You wrote "You keep repeating this Nick Cook bunk" This is one of the main sources written by a journalist who also made a documentary which was broadcasted worldwide. Why the need to call this man's work 'bunk' and yet fail to acknowledge it as RS? You wrote "still became the most brilliant scientist in American history before being assassinated by a Martian butt probe" in speaking about someone. This is uncalled for and obvious incivility. You wrote "You can't slander a dead person under U.S. libel law, which is the jurisdiction that presumably applies to Boyd-O since that's supposedly the dirt in which he's buried (along with his B.A. from BYU [his highest educational credential]). And "slander" is a legal term; it has no colloquial use. Ergo, I have not slandered anyone." It seems here again you were fell into incivility. It seems your tasteless and uncivilized remarks about someone that contributed to U.S. defense systems, the several companies he worked for. The man had a family which most likely is reading along the discussion about their dearly departed relative. You may express a bit more concern to the public reader. I don't find any bit of consideration for the world audience. This brings a bad reputation onto Wikipedia and the many editors who do their best to make viable contributions and not be insulting. You seem to follow the letter of the law without having consideration for the spirit through which you speak and defend your manners and words. --HafizHanif (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC) ” Background: This report concerns, I believe, a deletion review discussion occurring here, regarding Boyd Bushman, whose article was removed from WP. The deceased Boyd Bushman claims a vast conspiracy by Martians to infiltrate the U.S. government and build a death ray to enslave mankind before launching a space invasion is underway. Reporting editor has passionately called for this to be reinstated to WP and I have taken the opposite side in this edit discussion. Responding to Allegations: I deny that I have breached WP:CIVIL. The first string of allegations declares I'm uncivil for saying "Our guidelines establish that notability is not achieved by a single event" and "Wikipedia is not a democracy" etc. I do not believe these attempts at policy guidance to a new editor attempting to insert highly unconventional content to WP constitutes a CIVIL violation. The second string of allegations concerns descriptions I have made about a deceased non-WP editor. Referring to a deceased non-WP editor (Boyd Bushman), in a talk page discussion, as a "self-aggrandizing nutter" is a simple statement of fact. TTBOMK CIVIL only applies to WP editors, not deceased persons who have never been WP editors. As per WP:BOOMERANG, I would like to point out reporting editor has referred to myself and two other editors as "slanderous" "bozo"(s) [144] [145]. He has also made a variety of thinly veiled WP:LAWSUIT threats declaring the Talk page discussion is violating libel laws. BlueSalix (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Filing an AN/I on yourself is certainly unorthodox, as is invoking CIVILITY on behalf the deceased. He may have a point that calling the dead guy a nutter isn't very nice, but it's not against policy. It's hard for a BOOMERANG to come back if the guy forgets to even file the thing, isn't it? Anyway, you seem to be fine, if you have any more trouble with this use please get in touch. For now just point him to our policies calmly as you are. Andrevan@ 07:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Thank you, Andrevan. BlueSalix (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC) responding to respondent's response Firstly, the "background" written by BlueSalix is categorically false and misleading. The scientist in question didn't make such bogus claims of "Martians" nor "death ray" nor :"government infiltration" nor "enslave mankind" nor "space invasion." These are all false and instigating statements made by BlueSalix here and now. Please do a "control F" at the :entry in question, talk page and deletion discussion and you will find no such foolishness. These seem to BlueSalix's attempt to draw attention away from his INCIVILITY and is yet :another example, thus why I have requested a review. --HafizHanif (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I initially posted the notice on this person's talk page as policy asked. I was hoping for a decent response to discuss the matter. But now reading blatant lies is quite :astounding. Please review what I have highlighted, the 'nutter' comment is the least of the issues. -- HafizHanif (talk) 07:17, 24 :November 2014 (UTC) HafizHanif, you're correct and I'm sorry; according to the tabloids and YouTube videos you want inserted into WP (see comment - [[146]] and the reference it cites [[147]], Boyd Bushman was talking about the "Pleiadian" space aliens secretly infiltrating the U.S. government, not Martians. I apologize I mixed up my make-believe alien species. I think the core point remains valid, though: calling a deceased non-WP editor who claimed "Pleiadian" space aliens were trying to infiltrate the U.S. goverment a nutcase is objectively factual and not a violation of WP:CIVIL. BlueSalix (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

More eyes on User:EoRdE6

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

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

I don't know if anyone watched, but after trying to sleep for a few hours and failing, I'm back up, a bit tired and frustrated but here, at least for a while. As far as I can tell, the block evasions finally ceased, at least for the moment. The user protested the duration increases imposed by me on his talk page, and I've addressed his points on the same page. He also says that he's "emailed an admin friend of mine who will look into it when he wakes up." That should be fun.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I received an email from EoRdE6 this morning. I granted him rollback rights a few days ago. I don't think I've had any interaction with him beyond that. I have attempted to clarify why he was originally blocked and the rationale behind the subsequent blocks. In his email, he claims the IPs were not him. I've reviewed the edits, and it seems quite obvious that it's block evasion, or someone he knows personally trying to aid him in getting unblocked. I've strongly encouraged him to refrain from editing outside his talk page. Blocking these IPs was certainly the right thing to do, but I'm not sure however about the increase of EoRdE6's block to the chosen duration. 31 days seems excessive. I think the one week was enough, but that's just my opinion. I trust Bbb23, I just wanted to offer my two cents. To be clear, I will not myself be responding to EoRdE6's still active unblock request. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, I suspected it was you because I saw the rollback grant. The disruption by the multiple IPs was significant. Thus, in my view, it went beyond simple block evasion. Also, the initial block evasion was obviously the same person as everything at ANI was expressed in the first person. Perhaps it's because I'm a jaded SPI clerk, but I simply didn't believe that the other socks (all in the same range) were not him but "friends" of his. And as I stated, even if it were meat puppetry rather than sock puppetry, both are sanctionable. Thanks for expressing your view. His initial block request was declined. He's on his second. As usual, he has a persistent habit of distorting policy. I've never seen such wikilawyering so badly done.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather see more addressing the behavior that lead to the block than debate over a discretionary length. I've closed the unblock request as such; it may be helpful to encourage him reflect on how he will change this approach than to spend more time subjectively pouring over discretionary guidelines looking for a "loophole". Kuru (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I find his distortions of policy to be troubling. When he was edit warring, he was specifying clearly unreliable sources to a BLP article he'd created. During the war, one of his edit summaries said, "just because a source isnt reliable doesn't mean it must be removed. please point me to a ruoe that says that" ([148]). I find that to be astounding in multiple ways.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Non administrator comment: For what it is worth, I can see a very valid argument that this editor is WP:NOTHERE. See this diff from an AfD: [149]. A user that can make that kind of inane comment (both the on topic and the off topic ones, actually) showing obvious lack of WP:CLUE regarding how Wikipedia works and then turn around a day or two later and rush in to AfC and sign up for that (since reverted thankfully) needs to have required mentoring prior to his return. How do you do that with any kind of limited block? Also, someone should check on the damage he may have done at AfC. He did promote several articles, but most are out of my areas of knowledge. John from Idegon (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

His rollback right should be rescinded. Troublesome editors should not be given any tools which can ease their abuse of the project, and they should lose them when they start making trouble. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

By all means rollback rights should be rescinded. Editor has some serious competency issues, not to mention his trying to game the system. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I have revoked the permission. While there was not blatant misuse of rollback, I don't really approve of what he's done with STiki, and given these other circumstances at this point I have my doubts he can be trusted with the tool moving forward. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I considered the same action based on trust issues, you beat me to it. Chillum 19:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

About Arthur Rubin (Admin)

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

---

Firstly, I would like to clarify that this is not a complaint, but a request for attention and help regarding some edits (reverts) by User:Arthur Rubin that in my opinion are questionable.

I came across Arthur today when I was looking at Special:PendingChanges. At the time, it seemed like an IP has restored an edit that Arthur reverted earlier. However, the problem was that I could not understand Arthur's revert, because the removed content was properly referenced and there wasn't any other explanation. The IP who restored the content seemed to be dissatisfied with Arthur, and wrote this in the edit summary: "WP:ADMINACCT WP:DE WP:WEASEL WP:INVOLVED Arb/Requests/Enforce.Archive142 wp:COI = Arthur Rubin Tea party movement Undid revision 635081712 by Arthur Rubin (talk)". Intrigued, I went to check Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive142 and found that the IP was referring to Arthur having been blocked for a week last year for some reason.

I then went to look at Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin, where I saw that he has reverted many edits that are constructive in my opinion, mostly using rollback (no summary) and sometimes using "Block evasion" as a reason. (Examples:removing wikilink here, removing reference here, removing wikilink here, and removing sourced content here) However, I cannot understand who is evading the block and why the user was blocked, so I asked him about the reverts on his talk page here. He responded, saying that they were the "same blocked editor" and directed me to User:Arthur Rubin/IP list which according to him listed "some of the IPs matched".

Looking at the list, I still cannot understand. 1)Who was the original blocked user? 2)Why was he/she blocked? 3)Why were many constructive edits from these IPs reverted by Arthur, when Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks says that "obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand"?

Furthermore, after searching for his username on Google, I found <youtube attack link removed> claiming that Arthur is an abusive admin. While I have no idea what the circumstances were at the time, it seemed like the maker of the video was dissatisfied enough to put in effort to make that video.(I did not intend to attack anyone)

I would like to ask for help with understanding the situation and perhaps a proper explanation as to why these IPs were blocked and why their mostly constructive edits were reverted.

Thank you, Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 09:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This sounds to me like a ridiculous conspiracy theory about Arthur Rubin, the Koch brothers and the Libertarian Party. Give it a rest already! JRSpriggs (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The maker of that video was blocked on Wikipedia before he made the video, and not by me. I think he was banned because of the video. There was talk at the Foundation of instituting a global ban, but, as far as I know, it didn't happen.

Someone needs to put together the history of the "Michigan Kid", but that someone is not me. He used to be based in the Kalamazoo public library, but that IP was blocked for 5 years because of a different abusive editor using the IP. This one wikilinks publication titles (arguably useful, but there is no consensus that it is ever a good idea), wikilinks random words (frequently violating WP:OVERLINK, WP:EGG, and the guideline about linking within quotations, which I can't find at the moment), adds global warming wherever climate change is mentioned (and vice versa), links and unlinks names according to whether a Wikipedia article exists (rather than whether a Wikipedia article should exist, per WP:REDLINK), adds inappropriate tags (often {{what}}, {{outdated}}, {{who}}), adds {{expand language}} tags without checking whether there is anything at the other article, adds {{ill}} tags whenever a redlink occurs and a plausible article in another language wiki can be found, adds raw links on talk pages without describing what might be useful from them (no longer in articles, for the most part, or in section headers, but still without context), adds text with references which are either not in the reference or not relevant to the article, accuses me of violating an Arbcom sanction which have been relaxed and usually on articles not related to the Tea Party movement, accuses the other editors who remove his edits of being a WP:TAGTEAM, and a few things I've forgotten. See User:Arthur Rubin#Global warming / climate change (from early 2011) and User:Arthur Rubin/IP list (from early 2012, maintained through most of 2012, but only sporadically thereafter), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Michigan kid (revisited) is the earliest noticeboard post I can easily find, although Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive166#User: 97.87.29.188 and 99.119.128.88 and 99.181.138.168 and 99.181.139.210 reported by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (Result: Page Protected) is a fairly early post. Perhaps NewsAndEventsGuy has kept a better log of the commentary, including block history and discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tony
A. If you don't use a modicum of patience during WP:Dispute resolution or in discussions at personal talk pages (see WP:TPG) other editors might question whether you're following WP:AGF. Specifically, I'm troubled by the chronology of your actions regarding Athur (AR) as seen here

• AR's talk 07:46, 24 November 2014 opened thread at AR's page
• AR's talk 08:10, 24 November 2014 asked a followup question at AR's page
• ANI board 09:36, 24 November 2014 Complained about AR at ANI in this filing (saying it is not a complaint) but without waiting for AR's answers to the reasonable 8:10am questions at AR's talk page.

I mean, give the other party a chance to inhale so they can reply, eh? If you assume AR had a good faith reason for his actions, why not wait for him to answer your questions posted at 8:10 before stirring up drama here at 9:36 (and without the benefit of his reply)?

B. You should be challenging myself and some others too, because we also revert the IP on sight. In my case, my personal politics are far from that of AR. This is an issue of combatting disruption and protecting community trust, not one of advancing a POV.
C. To your credit, when any ed runs across any entrenched problem for the first time it can be confusing.
D. That said, I'm weary of retyping the story for the benefit of every issue-newbie, so instead see User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak/archive41#The_Michigan_Kid and subsections.
E. To anyone who wants to really understand this, be sure to follow the various links above, and the links in the archived thread I just posted.
F. Nothing to see here folks, move along.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

See User talk:97.87.29.188 and that ip's block log for some history and insight into the problem back in 2011. I have also blocked various related ips used for block evasion and undone the ip edits - does User:Tony Tan 98 intend to conduct a google search on my username and report any dirt here? Methinks wp:Boomerang may apply - or at least a good trouting. Vsmith (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As I composed my reply, I too mentioned BOOMERANG, but then edited it out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a bit more here at my away account before I cleared the page and redirect to my regular account talk. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Anna.... I just get your version history.... I think you might have meant the top thread in this version NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Actually, I meant to give the history link to show how it went. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Come on, guys, Tony made a pretty well-formed good faith request for clarification here. Can we please not resort to knee-jerk slapping every editor who posts here? This has a reputation as a drama board for a reason. Ivanvector (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Tony's own evidence demonstrated very little good faith.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it's hard to see how linking to a YouTube rant against AR is necessary to a "well-formed good faith request for clarification." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've blanked the attack link from Tony's post above, we don't need that here. Vsmith (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

All I'm saying is there was no obvious malice from Tony's post, so maybe we don't need to harpoon everyone who posts here. Yeah he probably shouldn't have posted the Youtube link but it's not like he came here saying "look at this video!!!!!!! It proves Arthur Rubin is awful!!!!!! He needs to be banned!!!!!!11" and so maybe we can relax the bloodlust on this one. Arthur's right that someone should make up a "Michigan kid" LTA (I thought there was one? can't find it) but his IP list isn't all that informative to the uninitiated. Ivanvector (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

1 At a minimum, the timing of posting here (see my first comment) is evidence of poor judgment/discipline/patience and understanding of WP:DR and WP:TPG.

2 Until now, I did not know about or paid no attention to the WP:LTA project. There's much to be said for the advice in the nutshell bubble ("In the vast majority of cases, Deny Recognition and Revert block ignore are more suitable approaches."). On the other hand, at this point its hard to imagine how doing an LTA would create a bigger problem by giving recognition, and even if the process did create a spike in disruption, likely that effect would wear off but the LTA would continue to benefit the project the next time it needs to be referenced. Are there reasons to not do that?

3 (later) FOLLOWUP AR mentioned the idea in 2012 at that LTA talk, but got no reply

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The LTA I thought I saw was actually Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Music vandal from Greater Detroit, who may be the different IP blocked user who AR referred to above. Anyway it wouldn't take a whole lot of effort to turn AR's IP list into a proper LTA report. Arthur Rubin, would it be ok by you if we use that page and your summary above to draft an LTA case? (I've never done one, FTR) Ivanvector (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a different editor. If you wanna do LTA it's OK by me, but my opinion has no weight because I know nothing about the pros/cons of LTA. For more back story see User:NewsAndEventsGuy/Mich-IP. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if I gave the impression of not following WP:AGF and other policies. To be honest, I never meant for this to be an attack on anyone in any way. However, I was confused because I saw edits by AR (such as 1, 2, 3, and 4) that I could not understand. When is it a WP:OVERLINK, and when is it just a useful link? What's wrong with an editor contributing in only one way? (Adding info about climate change, global warming, and adding links?) I did read up on the links mentioned above, and I want to ask, are these edits being reverted simply because they are suspected to be from a banned editor? At User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak/archive41#The_Michigan_Kid, I see that AR himself has said that "I wasn't the one who initially blocked the IP, and the Kalamazoo Library IP was initially blocked because of clear vandalism by a person who is clearly not the person we are talking about." Since the same IP range is actually used by different editors, does the ban apply to him? Moreover, I have not found a straightforward answer to the questions raised by the IP at User talk:Anna Frodesiak/archive41#RE:_User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak.23The_Michigan_Kid, and that is further confusing me. The question I have is: Why are constructive edits being reverted? Granted, I don't really know what happened it the past very well, but right now I see many edits being reverted without an actual reason beyond "Block Evasion", when the block wasn't even initially placed on the same person. Before I sign my post, I would like to reiterate that I do not mean to attack anyone, but this situation is really confusing. --Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 00:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Dude, it's the same person. I've been tracking it for almost 3 years. If you can vouch for the constructiveness of any given edit then adopt it as your own. Besides User:NewsAndEventsGuy/Mich-IP which I already pointed out, see User_talk:NewsAndEventsGuy/Archive_2#Michigan_global_warming_external_link_spamming_IP which I overlooked until now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but I still don't understand. 1)"Block evasion": Where is the original block? Why was the block placed? If it's the same person, why did AR say it's a different one in the talk page archive I linked to above? 2)What's wrong with adding references that are external links to reputable sources, such as the New York Times? Even if that is all he does, is that harmful? 3) I can vouch for constructiveness for many of the edits, but I can't possibly track all the reverts. What I am worried about is why the reverts were there in the first place. I have given examples of a few such edits above, where I adopted a few edits as my own and there wasn't any more reversions afterwards, but why were constructive edits reverted without explanation simply because it came from a certain IP range? Was an automated script used to do that? Again, these are simply questions that I have, not an attack. Thanks, Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 02:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

After several good editors have supported what Arthur Rubin is doing in the above, you want someone to spend another half an hour providing a further justification. The answer is WP:DENY. Making a fuss about a troll is guaranteed to provide the stimulation they need to continue degrading the encyclopedia for another year. The best trolls make lots of edits, some of which can be argued to be helpful. Nevertheless, the only way to deal with them is WP:RBI. There is no set of rules which specifies the ideal response to every situation—it takes experience, and there is plenty of experience in the thread above to support Arthur Rubin's work. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

e/c<

request close The OP has explicitly stated there is no action requested, and has not demonstrated knowledge of the substantive content in links I've already provided in reply to his questions. If that content were cited when asking a question I'd probably take the OP more seriously. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I apologize for the trouble caused by this thread. I certainly hope that no one is seriously offended. After all the replies above, I think I see what has happened. Yesterday when I saw all the reverts of constructive edits I became confused. I was probably misled by all the posts that the IP has made, both on wiki and off wiki. I am not going to make more "fuss" about this, but I think it is best if somehow the explanation for these reverts could be posted somewhere so that no more users become confused like I did. Thanks everyone for all the explanations and help above, although I did not enjoy being heavily criticized for asking questions here. I did not target Arthur Rubin; I simply saw his actions first. I have never interacted with him before, so I don't see why there would a motivation for me to target him. Of course, I could have been more careful posting the link to YouTube that I found, but I did not intend any harm and I do not think that WP:BOOMERANG applies here, because I am not at fault myself for this problem. Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 03:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I have no problem with the archiving of this discussion, but I do not think you read my posts. I have read your links and even referenced them in my posts. Hence your "If that content were cited when asking a question I'd probably take the OP more seriously." is not a valid statement. Thanks, Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 03:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

disruptive editing again/ Robert pedley

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

---

this is the second time this person has disrupted my editing, the first time he insulted me[150] and had to apologize here at ANI. Today the individual in question has removed two more [151] btw this article indicates for US and west Africa and here [152] I am asking for a warning on this individual...thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is disruptive here? What kind of Warning are you expecting? Do you expect us to tell them not to revert you?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

no however, he has not given good reason the first time, which is incident 72 on the first link and insulted me. And today he reverted without a true explanation since what I cited is for west Africa, he indicated it was for US.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

the warning would be along the lines of using logic when reverting with references, on a prior occasion it was demonstrated he did not use logic when he had to offend me, today he did not offend but has not shown a logical base for his reversions.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. ANI doesn't handle content disputes. You need to either go talk to them or open some form of dispute resolution. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your time--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

a threat from colleague Legacypac

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

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

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

Legacypac has a long history of extremely aggressive interaction and a unilateral edit style that includes page moves and blanking against consensus in this specific topic area; he probably will drag you to ANI, he is a regular visitor here. If it's any solace, none of his reports result in any action: [153], [154], [155], [[156] etc., but he keeps filing them. He has previously been given a topic ban, but that didn't take [157]. He has been warned by PBS and countless others more times than anyone can count for unilateral page moves and page blanking. At this point it appears he basically has carte blanch so, unfortunately, we all just have to grin and bear it. I gave-up on editing these topics as the amount of time it took undoing unilateral page blanking/moves, and being screamed and threatened with the ANI cudgel just wasn't interesting anymore. I'm sorry you're the latest one to be on the receiving end of this. Honestly, you'd be better off just giving up and editing something else. I regret I don't have more up-beat advice to offer. DocumentError (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice of incivility and demand for honest and cited rebuttal

No, stop it now. Name-calling anyone (whether dead or alive) doesn't strength any argument, is possibly uncivil but no one is getting blocked over it right now as long as people stick to the deletion review discussion and leave us to deal with our regularly scheduled drama here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. User:BlueSalix, I think you breached civility guidelines in discussing the deletion of the Boyd Bushman wiki entry. Here are some examples of what you wrote: "You keep repeating this Nick Cook bunk" "still became the most brilliant scientist in American history before being assassinated by a Martian butt probe" "that alien nutcase" "He had a WP article that should have been purged long ago, but no one got around to it. Anyway, I don't care. This article is going in the trash bin where it belongs. C'est fin." "he was a self-aggrandizing nutter." this was written repeatedly after being asked to be more civil by others. "I didn't have time to go through the rest of this laundry list, but I feel it's safe to dismiss the rest of them if you weren't able to distinguish between RS and non RS in the first few instances." "'I could call Bushman a pedophile if I wanted" "'He had no career achievements" this is a blatant lie. I didn't include the instances BlueSalix contradicted themselves. I didn't include the way BlueSalix pushed new editors around by posting several things for them to read while ridiculing the subject matter,, seemingly attempting to infer them to be ridiculous for their efforts in keeping this particular scientist's entry. Since Wikipedia is a public forum and this discussion is open to the public, I think BlueSalix was inconsiderate of the possibility that family members of the deceased could be reading such cold and heartless comments about their relative. He does not know if one of the editors is in fact a family member of Boyd Bushman. There is more vitriol at the page in question, this is merely a preview. Thank you for your help administrators! --HafizHanif (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC) In the ANI you filed against me yesterday, Andrevan explained to you that one cannot invoke WP:CIVILITY on behalf of deceased persons. I notice, in today's ANI, you've edited your original filing to draw specific quotes of mine wildly out-of-context and create the appearance of scandal. I wish you the very best of luck in this project of yours. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. BlueSalix (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC) How about sticking to sourced information? That might be of service. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I don't think it's necessary to have brought this here, even though BlueSalix's language was unnecessarily over-the-top. However, I disagree with BlueSalix and Andrevan that WP:BLP does not apply to the subject of the article. See WP:BDP, which says that the policy applies to recently deceased people, and according to the article, Bushman died in August of this year, which is a little over three months ago, well within the shortest "indeterminate" period mentioned in the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I said, in the identical ANI filed against me yesterday, that referring to an individual who alleged shape-shifting "Pleiadian" space aliens from Planet X were infiltrating the U.S. government as a "nutter" in a deletion review discussion is both reasonable and a statement of fact. I stand by that. All other "quotes" by me posted by the editor are taken so wildly out of context that, in the absence of any diffs, I am making a conscious choice not to respond to them. BlueSalix (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC) (ec) We aren't talking about BLP/BDP but CIVILITY. The comments were all made addressing the subject but not in the article body itself. Hafiz is saying that BlueSalix is being incivil by saying the subject of the article was nuts because he was into UFOs. I don't think that is really incivil, since BlueSalix is discussing the content and not the contributor. The article was deleted and the subject is a deletion review. Andrevan@ 20:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Also, I would like to explain my use of the term "Martian butt probe" to describe the method of Boyd Bushman's alleged "assassination." This is colloquial phrasing rather than the more nuanced terminology of "Pleiadian interceptor harness" which is used among the UFO-supporters who have recently descended on WP (some editors unfamiliar with this [ahem] interesting sub-culture may see "Pleiadian interceptor harness" and think it sounds more reputable and less silly than it actually is - it's important we call a horse a horse). According to the shared mythos of the UFO conspiracy sub-culture, the interceptor harness is used by Pleiadians to insert into a human's rectum to extract DNA for a mass cross-breeding program whose objective is global conquest. Ergo, "butt probe" is an accurate and reasonable "common name" term. I used "Martian" in lieu of "Pleiadian" as I didn't think it really mattered what make-believe space aliens we were referencing; I naturally apologize to HafizHanif, Bbb23, etc., if they were offended by this and promise not to refer to Pleiadians as Martians in the future. BlueSalix (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC) This is great comedy :) Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC) This is a content war over a deletion review. The editor filing this and the previous report insists that the subject of the article is notable, and demands that all other editors must prove them wrong or else they cry incivility. That's not how it works, and they need to stop asking the other parent. Nothing worth admin attention is going to come out of this; I suggest closing immediately. Ivanvector (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#"NOTICE IF INCIVILITY" (sic) (BlueSalix filing complaint against BlueSalix, on behalf of HafizHanif) Seems like the ANI yesterday kind of said, "There's nothing to see here, move on." Don't really see anything here that's changed that? @HafizHanif: Do you wish to see someone get banned? I'm sure an admin can oblige.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC) My Point Legacypac, [[User:Serialjoepsycho|-Serialjoepsycho-], BlueSalix, Bbb23, Ricky81682, Andrevan, Ivanvector I appreciate the input, opinions and points made by everyone. Thank you. I keep reading lies made up by BlueSalix about what is being argued in the page in question but if one doesn't see for themselves they may simply believe one man's opinion over another. The point I was making was bringing attention to the use of terms used by this person and how it doesn't help in debating the issue. It isn't matter whether people believe or disbelieve ufos or anything else. That is not what I was arguing on the debate page and not the reason I came here with this notice. I am not here ( or at the deletion page ) to battle over including any mention of ufos in Boyd's entry. If one were to read the debate, several people have been asking for the notable segments of the man's career to be placed in the entry. Quite simple. He had an entry for seven years up until BlueSalix and others descended on his entry. This BlueSalix person uses ad-hoc and ad hominem arguments which detract and lead others to judge the merits of a scientist's career according to what he said in a youtube video prior to dying. This is bogus, unfair and is a failure to the whole point of Wikipedia. The continued barrage of adolescent meanderings were from the person notified of his uncivilized manner of discussion. And now more people having a laugh, and that's fine, but some of you happen to be ignoring the issue: someone's low-character patronizing of others, whether living or dead. One contributor adding to Wiki in good faith shouldn't have to battle with another who goes about their 'work' in this manner... makes one think twice about contributing any longer because this type of stuff leaves a bad taste and doesn't contribute to what we are all supposed to be doing here: contributing facts. Good day to all of you. -- HafizHanif (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

‎WikiEditor2016

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

---

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

Looking thru the history on The Fairly OddParents (season 9) history I can't see a solitary revert or edit by them. Nor can I see an RFC on the talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

User may have meant Phineas and Ferb (season 4) which they have edited and does have an RFC. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys, my sloppy mistake. Phineas and Ferb (season 4), yes. Fixed above. The problem began when the user showed up and started making changes like this one with the erroneous edit summary "Consensus to pair". There was no such consensus since the talk page discussion kept going in circles and I had to set up an RfC. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

They have violated 3RR on Phineas and Ferb (season 4). Maybe an admin can give a temp block and perhaps the SPI will have concluded before they get back. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: BTW, there is no issue with them removing your warnings from their page, WP:REMOVED, they can do that. Removal also tends to show that they have in fact read those.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Of this I am aware. I mention it more to illustrate their lack of interest in discussion in favor of their POV. Oh and here's a link to the SPI report for ease of viewing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I was wondering if that is what you may have meant. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• 3RR evidence [158][159][160][161]-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

+1 with this edit: [162]. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for 3RR. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:blueSalix seems unable to behave themselves in AfD.

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

---

Resolved

 – Stop refactoring comments, no action needed at this time.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:BlueSalix , who seems to be on a bit of a tear of late, is attempting to smear me within an AfD conversation[163] [164] [165]. When called on this behavior they deny that it represents any kind of civility problem. Given their recent history [166] I would suggest someone have a bit of a word with them and/or take action. Artw (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think you should use this [167] as evidence?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

And could you explain more about how their "Recent History" as you call it is relevent to your complaint?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you do a better job of that yourself. [168] Artw (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The volume of WP:CIVIL filings against me by UFO enthusiasts who have recently descended on Wikipedia to defend the honor of Boyd Bushman seems to have increased to such a cascade that I'm unable to keep up with all of them (such as this one closed by Andrevan among many others in the last day). I, therefore, defer from defending myself on this and the various others that are most certainly to follow. My fate is in the hands of Zog XXVI Galactic Overseer of the Pleiadian Starship Command. May I be smote with a Pleiadian Disruptor Harness if I have erred. BlueSalix (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW I am not a "UFO enthusiast". I really don't think attempting to discredit me by painting me as one would be on even if I were. Can we topic ban this guy already? Artw (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What topic would you like me banned from, Artw? BlueSalix (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@BlueSalix: Please see File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement-en.svg and keep it well above the ad hominem line (see also WP:Discussion). You don't need to attack your opponent's behaviour to make your point. Doing so is uncivil. @Artw: If you feel you're being attacked, don't respond in kind. Everyone happy? Ivanvector (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Not seeing any misbehavior, looks like a standard AFD discussion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, I did not mean to come across as ad hom, I meant to come across as dismissive. There's only so much time one person can devote to defending himself against a barrage of WP:CIVIL ANI charges loosely connected to the deletion review of the space alien conspiracy theorist Body Bushman (see the two previous CIVIL filings against me since yesterday) and my nomination of that article for AfD. You can appreciate if this apparent block shopping without end in sight by UFO enthusiasts determined to insert fringe theories and to kneecap anyone who stands in their way would be likely to make the subject of said campaign (me) a little testy. BlueSalix (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess this is as close to an apology as we are going to see, though I would point out that BlueSalix is not subject to a "campaign", he brought this entirely upon his head. I will be deleting the thread in question and hoping he does not repeat this behavior. Artw (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is most certainly not an apology and - while you are free to delete your own comments - you absolutely should not feel at liberty to modify or delete any of mine. BlueSalix (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the thread per WP:NOTAFORUM Artw (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You have absolutely no right to delete another editors input in an AfD, including my analysis of GNG and AUTHOR criteria [169]. BlueSalix (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't have the grounds to delete his comments. WP:TPO would be the guideline I do believe. Your unilateral removal is also simply bad form after you brought that here. Alot of what you removed seem very contextual to the conversation taking place in that AfD.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The conversation is actually a common one at afd's and talkpage. It's common if you have questions about the affiliation to ask because it helps determine conflicts of interest and motivations. That deals more with discussion of the topic not related to the encyclopedia. I've been through a few afd's of even my own article so I understand the frustration but remember it comes down to community consensus this one editor doesn't make the deletion decision. If the nominater doesn't agree forget them and work on convincing the other people. Please also see WP:REFACTOR. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

editor deleting my comments in an AfD

Issue: WP:TO Artw announced he intended to delete my comments in an open AfD. This included a pertinent and important comment regarding AUTHOR and GNG criteria that supported my opinion in the AfD. I proactively requested he not delete or edit my comments.[170] After receiving that notification, he then deleted my comments. [171] Context: This appears to be part of a mad-cap campaign by a group of UFO enthusiasts incensed by the recent deletion of Boyd Bushman (a man who recently made YouTube 'headlines' for announcing a conspiracy by "Pleiadian space aliens" to infiltrate the U.S. government) which I AfD'ed and which has been the subject of intense debate by User:FreeRangeFrog, User:LuckyLouie, User:Serialjoepsycho and others. Artw is the third UFO enthusiast to have filed an ANI against me in the last 12 hours; the previous two ANIs (seen above) were immediately shuttered by User:Ricky81682 and User:Andrevan. While it's usually fun holding the proverbial line in the sand of sanity on WP, this is one of the more extreme tactics I've seen employed by fringe theories editors. My analysis of AUTHOR and GNG was core to my AfD argument. WP will fall apart very, very, very fast once we get the green-light to start deleting each others arguments in Talk discussions. BlueSalix (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

BlueSalux's claims that I am part of a conspiracy against him are ridiculous, as are his repeated smears against me. I saw deleting the off topic conversation containing those smears as a way of getting back to discussing Wikipedia policy in the AFD after he had issued what amounts to an apology, but apparently not. Artw (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record I know nothing of the Boyd Bushman debate other than BlueSalux showing it off in the AFD debate. Artw (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

BlueSalix, Artw is saying he's not a conspiracy theorist, so let's AGF here. Artw, you cannot delete others' AFD comments. BlueSalix, can you strike the parts where you were commenting on Artw specifically and then can we both chill. Andrevan@ 00:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Harassment report

Hi Wikipedians

I blocked a couple of IPs last week following this report to AIV. From what I can remember, the user making the report felt as if the registered editor and the IPs were harassing them.

I blocked the registered editors and the IPs at the time and I emailed Krimuk90 and told them if the editor started harassing them through email during the block then to raise a report to ANI for assistance. I have just checked my email for today and found that the user has emailed me instead saying that the IP address 117.197.144.152 has requested a reset of their Wikipedia password.

Krimuk90 is now asking if there's anything else we can do. I've checked WHOIS and that confirms that the IPs previously blocked would appear to be connected to 117.197.144.152. I'm going to suggest to Krimuk90 that they change their email and Wikipedia passwords just to be on the safe side, I'm also going to suggest that Krimuk90 considers changing the email address that they have connected to Wikipedia.

However, is there anything else anyone can suggest? Or any further action Wikipedia can take? --5 albert square (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Albert for raising this ANI. The harassment has been ongoing even after the block, with this edit on my user page, after which the page was semi-protected. The user is also engaging in other disruptive edits on my talk page, such as this. With this user trying to access my account, I'm a little freaked out. I have already changed my password, but what I want to know if there is a permanent solution to this? Thanks. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Krimuk would you like your user and talk pages semi protected in the meantime?--5 albert square (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

My user page has already been protected. Protecting my talk page would be a good idea too. Thank you! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done indefinitely protected, that should resolve it at least temporarily. In regards to the message you left on your talk page, that's ok. Just drop a line to WP:RFPP whenever you want your user pages unlocked :)--5 albert square (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

New Jersey is NOT owned by one editor

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

This appears to be related to a series of edits adding Rhashonna C. Cosby-Hurling to the "people from" section of Linden, New Jersey. No comment on the addition itself, but from the look of things Alansohn is at 4 or 5 reverts in the last 24 hours on that article (one of those reverts was almost immediately self-reverted by Alansohn, but was followed by another revert). Magnolia667 is at 4 reverts in the last 24 hours. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I have backed away from this already after a self revert in an effort to find a place to keep a non-notable in the article. The material was relocated to the government section, where it properly belongs. Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If you look carefully at the Linden, New Jersey article, you'll see that User:Alansohn quickly removed from the list of notable people Rhashonna Cosby-Hurling, the first African American female elected to Linden City Council. Yet, he carefully passed over Cathy Dorin-Lizzi, a non-notable bowler who has been redlinked since Alansohn added her to the list SEVEN YEARS AGO! see [172]. Can we please bring some democracy to these New Jersey articles? Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I took the entry and shifted it to the government section, an appropriate shift for someone who is not notable. If there is an issue with the claim of notability for Cathy Dorin-Lizzi, a notable professional bowler added with an appropriate reference in an entry apparently made seven years ago, then it should be removed. Alansohn (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

And so it goes, the same old arguments and deflections. I'm sure you folks have seen these before, every time someone makes an edit to one of Alansohn's personal New Jersey articles. The real problem here, is it chases away other editors who have something valuable to add. Anyway, thanks again for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Democracy? I heard a rumor that Wikipedia is not democracy. That rumor suggested that wikipedia is based off consensus or some such nonsense.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday I created Foul Rift, New Jersey, and in less than 24 hours, Alansohn made two edits to the article. While all of us welcome constructive edits, Alansohn insists on adding "his" favorite map to the article. Unfortunately, his map is hard to see, with a tiny map-within-a-map, while the map I had added is easy to see. So, he increased the map size in the infobox to 400, destroying the look of the article. Is this my punishment for adding a new article about New Jersey? C'mon folks, please lend a hand. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

This is drifting into content territory now, which is out of the purview of ANI. You should continue this discussion on the talk page for Foul Rift rather than here. demize (t · c) 00:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have plenty to add to this discussion, but unfortunately I do not have the time today. I also formatted this discussion for ease of reading. I should have time tomorrow night. John from Idegon (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Collusion / Canvassing by User:Magnolia677 and User:John from Idegon

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

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

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

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

User talk page notice moved to main space talk page

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

---

An editor who has been harassing me and making what I believe to be personal attacks moved a warning to Talk:Pep Guardiola‎‎. I attempted to respond but the editor is being unreasonable and when I removed it, the editor restored it. Please intervene. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz Clear something up for me here. It seems like you are saying he copied something that you've said from his talk page to this articles talk page. Is that correct? Are you suggesting that some of the comments like those under the topic 'November 2014' that have your signature were not actually posted by you there?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, User:Walter Görlitz posted a notice on my talk page. As he has done several times when I have left him messages about Pep Guardiola on his Talk Page, I moved the notice to Talk:Pep Guardiola because it bears on the nature of our disagreement about what should and should not be included in infoboxes. I'm not in the habit of having this sorts of discussion, so honestly I was following his lead, and because it documents matters related to our disagreement regarding the article. Ironically, the nature of our disagreement is, at least at the moment, that I believe User:Walter Görlitz has provided no thoughtful or serious response *individualized to this article,* despite my repeated requests that he do so, regarding deletions he has made. As I have indicated, his appeals to "consistency" and "precedence," if taken seriously, mean that no improvements can ever be made to any article. It may very well be the case that if User:Walter Görlitz were to explain the deletion of relevant and accurate data from infoboxes with reference to these notions (leaving aside whether there is in fact the consistency and precedence he alleges), we could at least have a discussion on the merits. We don't seem to be able to do that. I reached out to an admin who thanked me (I really don't know how that works) because I had reproached Walter for his penchant for the imperative mood when speaking to me, which feels like bullying, with a note on his Talk Page (promptly erased). It hasn't stopped him from doing so. I wrote on the admin's user page User talk:Killiondude about the nature of our disagreement. Because I suggested that Walter had a proprietary feeling for these infoboxes, Walter labelled me "vile." That seemed a bit strong, but I have pressed on with the notion that his deletions merit a discussion of the very article in question, the geographic needs of its infobox, and not other articles, and not the putative consistency which he says exists (but which ... really doesn't). We can't get to that discussion, because he wants to discuss everything else, including, for example, having this discussion here. He says this is gossip because he wasn't present, which doesn't make any sense to me. None of us were present, but Walter was of course notified about what I said, and responded, albeit not on the matters of consequence to the article, only with a warning I never speak about him again. I honestly wish Walter would put his considerable talents to use in having a meaningful discussion about Pep Guardiola, and about whether second-order geographic units should be included in that very article, without being labelled a Catalan nationalist (a nonsensical idea for a park ranger from Alaska with no Iberian background of any sort) or a malicious gossiper or a vile person. But he's apparently decided to do this instead. That's a shame.

I will say that all of us makes me think that Walter simply wants to strong-arm me in giving way to his deletions without any effort on his part in defending them with respect to this article, and with the specific geographic context of this article in mind, without relying on the easily belied idea that these matters have been taken care of already through rules mechanically applied. That doesn't seem fair to me, even if Walter has a reason with regard to this article that is sufficient for him to prevail. He should have to articulate something besides "because I say so" wrapped in very dense Wikipedian language. RangerRichard (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

TLDR. RangerRichard Did you copy and paste his comments to another location? Did you do so in a way that makes it seem as if he was the one that posted it there? That what seems like what has happened.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No. I labeled the notice from Walter that he posted on my User Page, which I then placed on the Talk Page for Talk:Pep Guardiola under the subject heading "Recent Notice on my User Page." RangerRichard (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I should mention that the subject heading was initially right above the warning (as labelled "November 2014"), more or less as it appeared as well on User talk:Killiondude but as it was successively deleted, I added additional language indicating the materials below had been deleted. Twice. So there's greater distance between the "Recent Notice on My User Page" and the notice, which all the same still bears his signature. The only materials between the two items are my repeated counsel that he permit these discussions, which go far beyond his notice, to remain on the page to which they are extraordinary relevant (well, okay, relevant-- I don't know about extraordinary-- at the very least they document our disagreements).RangerRichard (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that my response to the notice as appears on Talk:Pep Guardiola also appeared on Walter's User Talk page initially, but he erased it from there. I thought it was important that there be a place where the noticed resided, and where my response resided, together, as these two items together are obviously relevant to our discussions on the article. So. That.RangerRichard (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

From 'Recent Notice on my User Page' to 'November 2014' all seems to be off topic. What I propose is that it be hatted. @RangerRichard: and @Walter Görlitz:, I also propose that you two discuss nothing more than content on Pep Guardiola. You do not discuss each other at all. I think this will end the issues between each of you> Do you have an issue with that material being hatted RangerRichard?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what hatted means, perhaps you could explain (really this is all very odd to me) but I am very eager to receive a substantive response supporting deletions here. That's my only issue, and the Talk Page is an endless recitation of that idea-- it's just me saying it over and over again.RangerRichard (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I removed (diff) the dubious material from Talk:Pep Guardiola. Disputes happen on hundreds of articles every day. Perhaps someone is right and other people are wrong, but nevertheless it is not satisfactory to use an article talk page in that manner. See WP:DR for the approved methods of handling disputes—those procedures do not include commentary about other users on an article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to be picky-- okay, I guess I do-- but that deletion is somewhat longer than the "hatting" of "Recent Notice on my User Page" to "November 2014." so I'm a bit confused. That seem acceptable to the extent we were removing the notice to me (hey, I'm all for that) and my responses to its deletion.RangerRichard (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well that's really the appropriate action. Read up on dispute resolution at WP:DR. Both of you discuss the content and not each other. ANI is for conduct issues not content disputes. The material removed was removed on the basis of conduct.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of repetition, but hey, I think we're passed that risk, our problem, from my perspective, is a process problem. Walter simply does not wish to engage substantively on merits for the deletions he's made with regard to this article in particular. He may be right, but simply feels that "consistency" and "precedence" obviate the need to for considering the article's geographic needs as far as its infobox goes in any serious way. Thus the continuation of our standoff. I've never been in a situation such as this, which is why I have asked others for help. I honestly don't know what to do when someone essentially says, I'm right, and I'm not talking to you on the merits of my deletions, and I'll divert your energy and time elsewhere so you'll eventually go away. That's where we are-- from my perspective. As I've noted before, I have never been in such a situation before. That is not a situation where I disagree, which is fine, but where the disagreement is never honestly and seriously discussed.RangerRichard (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I included the diff to make it clear exactly what I removed. Everything deleted was a comment about another user and should not be on an article talk page. Is this dispute about which of the following should be in the infobox at Pep Guardiola?

• Place of birth Santpedor, Spain
• Place of birth Santpedor, Catalonia, Spain

We shouldn't discuss content here, but the "Catalonia" does seem unusual—is it anything to do with Catalan independence? Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be about Catalonia independence but you do seem to have the gist about the infobox. But it does seem this can be closed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

War in Donbass

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

---

Can I have some admin eyes on the page there appears to be some edit warring going on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you can't. There isn't any edit-warring, only defence of the encyclopaedia's principles. Carry on, good fellows. RGloucester — ☎ 05:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who is right here all I have seen are reverts left and right going on, consensus can take time to achieve. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a saying about running to AN/I at every whim, Sir Knowledge of Kid. I fear that you may be taking an untenable position. It is sad, for you. RGloucester — ☎ 05:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, are you involved in this? No? Then quit being an obnoxious pest, running to AN/I to tattle-tale about some bullshit edit war that isn't actually happening. In the time it took you to write this up, we've actually managed to solve at least half the problem. Add to that the fact that you've had disagreements with some people here and one may, just may conclude, is that you're opportunistically block shopping in bad faith. Go away. Volunteer Marek  05:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow bad faith much? Any reason why you feel the need to cuss and swear just to get your point across? For the record no I am not asking anyone to be blocked I came here looking for a dispute resolution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

AN/I isn't for content dispute resolution, which a regular like you should know by now. Regardless, a five minute dispute certainly doesn't warrant such utter tosh as this. RGloucester — ☎ 05:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Could you be more specific? It's not immediately obvious edit warring in the revision history.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Effy770

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

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

Sigmund Freud

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

I've closed the RfC, with an implicit warning that further edit-warring against consensus will be met with sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Fut. It's frankly a mystery to me how it dragged out so long. Bishonen | talk 18:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

Dealing with personal attacks

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

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

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

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

I went to [[173]] for advice, which sadly resulted in another editor restoring the personal attacks against me.

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

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

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

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

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

I did revert Legacypac's refactoring of Skookum1's comments on the talk page. I do not believe they are blatant personal attacks that require refactoring. Since then Legacypac has stated that because I restored what he is calling personal attacks, I am just as guilty of making them as the editor who initially added them. -- GB fan 18:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#a_threat_from_colleague_Legacypac in anyway?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

His disavowel/denial following aside, there is common context which you will discover if you go through his usercontributions and a stream of contentious editing and actions and talkpage b.s. for nearly all of his wiki-career, you will also find his attempt to CANVASS for more support against me on the edit warring noticeboard a few days ago. A pattern of conduct including abuse of boards such as this one is very clear in his history, and "gaming the system" seems evident, including dragging this to ANI, or even launching edit wars in the first place as he has done re this matter, and the other. I'll be back later with various diffs but I'm tired of having this time-wasting nonsense and source-abusing/conflating ways take up my days.Skookum1 (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

It looks like the title has been changed to say "arbitary/questionable deletion of birthname and cites". The prior title did seem inappropriate. The content issue seems to have been moved to the an RFC. I think it would be a good suggestion to ask everyone to discuss the content and not other editors. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@GB fan: In my experience, you shouldn't restore a {{rpa}}-refactored comment if a user has indicated that they take it personally. Individual interpretations of personal attacks can vary, and this just fuels the fire more often than not (i.e. this thread). And Legacypac is right - if you restore a comment you bear the same moral responsibility as if you had made the comment yourself. That being said, I agree that Skookum's ad hominems were not that serious in the spectrum of abuse we come across here.

@Legacypac: My advice is if you are focusing on quality editing, you should continue to do so. If another editor is attacking you and getting under your skin, often you can defuse the situation by responding calmly, and if you find that you can't, you should step away for a bit. I admit that it's not great advice, but responding with your own attacks just escalates the situation and causes more trouble. Ivanvector (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: an ad hominem "attack" is a groundless one, my criticisms were based in his ongoing conduct on the talkpage and re the article itself (and others). They were not ad hominem...they were justified.Skookum1 (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No, an ad hominem is attacking your opponent's character instead of attacking your opponent's argument. It needn't be groundless, and very rarely is it justified, especially here. You did a fine job of discrediting the editor's argument - you did not need to resort to discrediting the editor. Ivanvector (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And if the person who originally added the comments indicates that they take it personally that they are accused of personal attacks? Which side in your experience do you go with? The one who was not attacked or the one who has been accused of personal attacks? I chose to restore it to the most unoffending version available, the one without the attacks. If I had restored actual personal attacks, I do bear responsibility but as I did not restore any personal attacks I do not bear any responsibility. -- GB fan 19:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully GB fan the only thing your edit did was reinsert the statements I consider personal attacks by reverting every use of the RPA template on the page. Maybe you thought you were doing something else but 100% of your contribution was actually inserting personal attacks. Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You are the only person that has said there are any personal attacks in there. Every other person who has commented has said they are not personal attacks. -- GB fan 20:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Only two uninvolved editors have commented -Serialjoepsycho- and User:Ivanvector and I'd suggest rereading carefully their comments. Legacypac (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

But you restored it to a version with the attacks, at least the ones that Legacypac interpreted as attacks. A better question is do those bits of text (whether they are attacks or not) serve any purpose in furthering the discussion? In my opinion, clearly not. YMMV. Ivanvector (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

That section, should be removed as it does not discuss article improvement, but it does not accuse you of lying about your citizenship. Skookum1 comments that he is not sure you are Canadian. He does not say you aren't Canadian just that he isn't sure if you are. You are reading things into comments that are not there. -- GB fan 20:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

How about we scrub that thread and then drop the stick? Talk about the content and not the people? That thread is inappropriate and does seem kind of WP:POINTy as a TLDR off topic rant about censorship to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Conflation/distortion of what others say is an observable repeat behaviour if you look deep into his usercontributions, as I did yesterday; conflation/distortion of what sources say is also a "habit". I never challenged his citizenship, I just find it strange that claiming being a Canadian is why he's never heard of American Legacy PAC, as we are regularly indundated with American political news and familiar with many such orgs....that he doesn't write on Canadian articles other than this one (other than the two mentioned re minor edits) and is bulk en masse working on American-oriented edits in Middle East articles also makes that claim harder to give any credence to. How is it that someone who doesn't know about US electoral politics is so versed in American foreign policy as to spend nearly his whole wiki-time working on that? He also said re that username challenge that he had different accounts on other wikis and wanted to combine them here, apparently as User:JadeDragon....but that name is available so, like so much else he says, that just doesn't make sense...this ANI is a "nuisance procedure" like so many of his others; and here he's conflating what I said, just as he has on the talkpage, and yet he misquotes and misuses sources all the time in his arguments/obfuscations. he's done it lots before; again, I invite you to look at his usercontributions and the many confrontational and disruptive matters you will discover there.Skookum1 (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

• You missed it, as did I, because he did not give it a section header as per normal procedure. As for the TLDR jab, that essay (not a guideline) is meant to be invoked only about articles and is not to be invoked on discussion pages (though it all too often is). What I see here is LP while claiming "I have never asked for sanctions here before" he has come to the edit-warring board repeatedly, or been brought there, and seem to file nuisance-procedures willy-nilly when confronted about page blankings/moves and disrupting discussions and more. Why else come to an ANI board if not looking for sanctions? Here's he's asking someone else to silence me since his own self-appointed censorship didn't work, but implicitly per that statement he does want sanctions against me i.e. to block/ban me so I'm not "in his way" or challenging his "agenda", the subject of which is easy enough to find by a review of his usercontributions. I'll be back later with diffs of the disruptive edits and false/misleading and POV edit comments on this article, and samples of his other "work" which show a too-consistent pattern.

I was already contemplating an ANI about "terror POV" editing at large, of which he has been an obvious and persistent part, but his own fondness for procedural gambits means he filed this against me first; for daring to challenge his one-sided interpretation of my criticism of his conduct about the page as "personal attacks", which they are not. Not the first time NPA has been mis-applied/claimed because of criticisms of editing behaviour and no doubt the last; but his heavy-handed editing of my post, followed by an edit war over it (after just having had a dress-down for edit warring in his previous ANI about me), is far beyond the pale of talkpage behaviour and mores. IMO he should have a topic ban on terrorism/ISIS/US military campaigns and what-not (see his usercontributions); he'd already had a BLP topic ban for a year. It seems that he's very much a one-trick pony kind of "contributor", but has been disruptive and hard to deal with since day one. This like his other ANI against me is a "nuisance procedure" and IMO meant to use up time and energy on the one hand, and to seek someone else to do what he cannot (censor me). The farce of his account of my conduct above I won't bother commenting on; and it's "TLDR" too.Skookum1 (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

another post about me in the article space. To clarify my statement above, I mean I have not sought sanctions against anyone in this thread - I came for advice and to clarify what procedures are available to me including use of the NPA template as reflected in my first post. I guess we should wait for the rest of the presentation. Legacypac (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I see no policy or precedent for these actions and believe they need to explain themselves publicly. 198.23.71.77 (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I can see Xaosflux's point. Why would an editor need editing rights if they never edited? Sounds counterintuitive to me. Epicgenius (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There have been problems with sleeper accounts of late. Not sure what his motive is beyond the account not being used but I am sure there is more to it. Chillum 19:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

198.23.71.77, given your familiarity of our policy and precedence do you perhaps have an account here? Chillum 19:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That is materially irrelevant and you know it. 198.23.71.77 (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

And that is called a "non-denial denial", a term which you may or may not know. More to the point: Why are you so interested in this? Is he zapping some of your own sleeper socks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mostly I clean up redundant autoconfirmed/confirmed and old tests that were left behind. Any admin is welcome to revert any of these changes immediately without consultation for the good of the project. Yes, some is BEANSy prevention. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

What harm are these rights doing? Why do you feel it is your right and responsibility to go around removing them? 198.23.71.77 (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) Considering that users aren't supposed to be given the confirmed right without demonstrating a need for it, and if the user does end up needing it they can just request the permission again, what harm is there in removing these rights? demize (t · c) 20:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, if any actual account holder has been hampered, I offer apologies, please leave me a talk message from your account and this can be resolved. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Good work. Keep it up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

LI do the same boring thankless job every few months on sites where I am an Admin. Why should unused accts be autoconfirmed? Good work User:Xaosflux Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

Legal threat here [174] concerning Brittany Maynard: associated account is Coconot (talk · contribs). IP and account are posting what they claim are the "truth" concerning her relationship with her family, entirely unsourced. Acroterion (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I will take Wikipedia to court if it does not [...] Yep, bright-line legal threat. A WP:DOLT analysis reveals that, indeed, the editor's contributions were entirely unsourced, and therefore subject to removal per WP:BDP. The argument that she was "survived" by people other than those mentioned in the article, and that failing to mention those people merits a legal threat, is unconvincing in my view. Particularly given our sources are very good. While I could see removing the sentence about her survivors as unnecessary to the article, it's not like it says she was only survived by the people named. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Blatant legal threat. Put him on ice until or if he recants and disavows the threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Now comes 1d4everlol (talk · contribs) [175] as well. I would advise them to take the matter up with the New York Times and People, but they seem to find Wikipedia a more accessible venue. I am busy in Real Life at the moment, so if someone will do what's necessary? Acroterion (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

All these have been blocked:

• Coconot has been indeffed for obviously having used the IP address for making legal threats,
• 1d4everlol indeffed for illegimate use of a second account
• IP blocked temporarily.

As Acroterion said, any issues should first be settled with the NYT and People and other sources that have allegedly reported wrong facts. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think 1d4everlol was a passing vandal who picked the wrong section for some harassment. It's also worth noting that the account and IP assert that Maynard is alive and that People is covering that up ... Acroterion (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Surprinsingly though, there is no connection in the edits between Coconot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 1d4everlol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), although the latter is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia so the block might be kept. But posting directly in Coconot's thread on the user talk page of Acroterion looks somewhat like an admission. De728631 (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears that Coconot (talk · contribs) is persisting on making legal threats on their talk page, despite the block - trying to negotiate terms for its removal by stating "If you do so, I will withdraw my threat of legal action." I have warned the user that persisting in making such threats can result in talk page privileges being revoked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Including some after you posted, but it has quieted down for now. But one more threat, and the user should have talk page access revoked. If an editor has legitimate concerns about a BLP, legal threats are totally the wrong way to go about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to avoid escalating the issue by blocking their talk page access, even though I notified them of that potentiality.

I gave one more try to explain the issue, as well as providing them with links to Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects and wmf:Contact us. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Please make a judgement whether a Single purpose account

It seems every editions from User:Piledhighandeep are about Greco-Byzantine topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Piledhighandeep&offset=&limit=500&target=Piledhighandeep. Some editions in non-Byzantine article are also focused on Greek or Byzantine [176],[177],[178],[179],[180], [181], [182],[183][184],[185], [186] Please check his editions and spa rule to make a judgement.

Speaking of single-purpose accounts, the above IP 64.134.166.90 (talk · contribs) has only posted once. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You should have informed Piledhighandeep of this discussion (which I have now done). As to the accusation of being an SPA, Piledhighandeep surely has a preference for Byzantine and Greek topics but I wouldn't call that an SPA. Some editors like to narrow their edit on a broad topic – like ancient Greece and Byzantium in this case – and also Wikipedia:Single-purpose account states that "if a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not mean the user is an SPA." De728631 (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what the problem is if they are an SPA? There is nothing wrong with being a SPA in itself that I can see.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There is of course nothing wrong with User:Piledhighandeep. To all appearances, he's a perfectly legitimate, good-faith and knowledgeable contributor, and certainly no single-purpose account (there's obviously nothing at all wrong with having a more or less specialized topic area one works in.) The IP who posted this complaint might need to be looked into though. Not sure if Piledhighandeep had the misfortune of having some run-in with some kind of banned sockpuppeter lately or why else he would have upset this IP editor so much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I upset now banned user User:Why should I have a User Name? with my very first edits to wikipedia (to baklava) when I signed up in July, and he accused me on my Talk page of being a "single purpose account." If I had realized when I signed up how contentious these Balkan topics can be on wikipedia I would not have been so bold as to start with baklava. After a long Talk debate, and my first initiation of an RfC, we reached a consensus in late September, which he did not seem to object to. User:Why should I have a User Name? was not banned until early November. I did not contribute to his banning, but prior to it he seemed to be upset in general with edits I'd make involving historical Greek connections. (His edits were heavily focussed on Turkish issues.) I understand the current nationalistic rivalries in that region, and I think I would agree with him that it is unfortunate that century-old history is still seen by both sides as having nationalistic overtones. Piledhighandeep (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Director

Very problematic user having long history of personal attacks, harassment, 3RR violation (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=Director&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=).

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

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

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

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

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

(Non-admin observation) User:Director doesn't appear to be trying to insult you or calling you a Serbian Nationalist. The "recent upsurge of nationalism" does have a connection to the debate though, since the debate is about the naming of an article with what appears to be fairly strong ties to Serbia (judging simply from a cursory look at the debate itself). Those ties mean the motive (or possible motive) behind the move is important to take into consideration so that the article can remain adherent to WP:NPOV. While I personally might disagree with the assertion that the proposed change there is POV-pushing, it is an issue for the editors of that article to consider. demize (t · c) 21:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

For the outcome of the 3RR complaint filed by User:Aleksa Lukic about Split, Croatia please see this link to the complaint. User:Director and User:Tzowu were warned, and the article has been protected for a week. I think Aleksa is complaining about a remark that Director made in the move discussion at Talk:Croatian War of Independence#Wrong title. When Balkan nationalist sentiment on Wikipedia exceeds the normal bounds the remedies of WP:ARBMAC are available. EdJohnston (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Didn't I just apologize?? I did not intend to insult you, I'm not sure I really did, but if that's how you perceive it - I'm sorry. If you recall I supported your initiative - it was not my intention to denigrate you personally in any way. As for whether a continuation of your malicious revenge-seeking for some perceived insult would constitute WP:HOUNDING, that will be left for the community to determine. My advice would be to find a more useful pastime. -- Director (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Aleksa Lukic: I would recommend you drop the stick here. Director appears to be more than willing to work this out civilly, so I would recommend continuing this discussion on one of your talk pages if you absolutely must. If you continue to escalate it to here, then please be aware that it could easily boomerang on you. Director, it would be advisable to remain civil and avoid further allegations of wikihounding. The best thing to do here is to drop this, and if that can't happen then you should hash it out civilly on your talk pages. Discuss the issues that you have (if any), avoid shouting allegations, and avoid escalating it to ANI again. demize (t · c) 16:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Jewelpet Vandalism, it's getting out of hand

First of all I am almost going to Dementia due to serious problems arising but the matter is this, there are an endless influx of vandalism in every single pages related to the Jewelpet franchise. All of them are done by a lot of anons (User talk:103.14.60.18, User talk:71.110.121.200, User talk:103.14.60.77, User talk:103.14.60.13, 203.215.116.130, User talk:125.212.121.126, 108.180.169.162) trying to do what, just insult a wikipedia article and make it look bad?? I am doing a lot of reverting but this is getting out of hand because they keep coming back and always, always add things that aren't accepted to Wikipedia policy. Please do something about this, I don't want to kill a puppy from all of this chaos!--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Blackgaia02:You can request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. This will stop anons from editing. see below That being said, I took a quick look at the edits made since September to Jewelpet (anime), which is the page you seem to be talking about here (based on your recent edit summaries). Some of it seems a bit careless, for example the person that made these edits should have used the show preview button, but none of it stands out to me as vandalism. Would you please elaborate on what edits in particular you consider vandalism, and why? --Richard Yin (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that this is coming from a person who's never heard of the franchise in question. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that you've requested full protection for the article. You are of course aware that full protection will stop you from editing the article? --Richard Yin (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of this, thought I really need those vandals to stop ruining the article itself, especially if I suspect that the vandal edits are coming from one banned user. Some anon edits are ok, I just despise vandal edits adding nonsense categories and entries.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, does this considered not vandalism? No, even new users know this.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are you requesting full protection and not semi-protection if all the problem users are IPs?
(And some of the IPs you list as "vandals" appear to be good-faith editors. In particular, 71.110.121.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) looks awfully like a constructive contributor.) Sideways713 (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

IBAN violations by The Rambling Man, further evidence

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

---

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

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

diffs re TRM's disruption

Apparently the last ANI was entirely ignored, as were User:Newyorkbrad's warnings today to TRM to stop the personal comments: that you should stop sullying this page with gratuitous personal comments As a sidenote, the personal comments on this page have to cease and these edits and their edit summaries of TRM's: oh dear Jayron oh, what a surprise do what Brad says, he's Arbcom after all you're the pest which show a pattern of unnecessary incivility. Note also this comment by User:SemanticMantis on the Ref Desk talk page: I don't know what you do elsewhere on WP but when you seem only show up on the ref desk to disparage said desk. Let us note that on his user page, TRM first blanked it in response to this complaint, then restored it with the comment he'd be away for two days, during which he himself expects a block: "restore and add note regarding intermittent availability, should i be blocked in absentia" Meanwhile, on his talk page he dismissed (and deleted) notification of the ANI case and his fellow editors and admins with: "more hilarity, more circus games, i'll continue to make decent articles while the parade continues" And on Newyorkbrad's homepage (NYB has expressed his wish to remain impartial) TRM describes himself as "disagreeing" and me as "abusing": "It'd be rewarding to see how such esteemed members of the hierarchy treat content editors who just vocalise their disagreement, while completely ignoring others who directly abuse people." That is, he is just talking civil, while I am attacking him and admins are ignoring me? When NYB merely asks for civil discussion, TRM responds "if you didn't just wade in and act like a schoolmaster" This sounds like a confession and a retreat mixed with, "It's not me, it's Medeis and the admins." See "you're the pest" above. μηδείς (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC) I'm loathe to respond to these kangaroo proceedings, but given the plethora of false assumptions and incorrect assertions I see (yet again), and given the absolute stone cold intensity with which some users wish to see me "punished", I felt compelled, even today, my son's first birthday, to say a couple of things. I (as well as many many others) have become sick and tired of the self-centred approach, the "why always me?" claims, the incorrect assumptions being hurled around so often at ANI. Some users wish to have their cake and eat it, as evidenced in the multiple responses to the last time I was dragged here. I'm certain if Jayron or NYB have a real problem with me, they are more than capable of doing something about it themselves. Jayron and I frequently have robust discussion, no-one dies and everyone survives to the next time. NYB on the other hand appears from time to time to believe he can sweep into ITN and do exactly as he pleases (usually regarding posting poor quality articles on recently deceased Americans from the movie industry). Indeed, NYB's insistence on threatening to make illegitimate posts has been rejected by four, maybe five different admins in the past. When it comes to ITN, he's just an editor, nothing more. Regarding the policy issue, some users need to be continually reminded that claiming specific policies at ITN is actually factually incorrect. We have policies, guidelines, essays etc. There is a clear difference in the significance of each of these, it's worthwhile understanding that. Finally, I added the holiday notice to my page because, yes, I'm taking my son out for his first birthday and wanted people to know that I'd be unlikely to respond to the current pack of misrepresentations, leave alone any more incorrect claims which may be dug up throughout the day. I restored some of the content with something of an ironic edit summary. Sorry if some users didn't understand that, I must try harder to ensure our "global" audience gets it. Finally, unlike one of the bogus claims above, I have never named any user as being "abusing". If some users wish to assume it to be in reference to them, that is entirely their problem, and they should try hard to address their insecurities. It was, in fact, with reference to those editors who swear at others, who edit war with them etc. If a user believes they meet that profile, bingo. Have a good day all, I'm going to the big smoke for lunch with the little 'un. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Looking at the first accusation re the interaction ban violation (that this edit was a direct response to Medeis), it doesn't look to be the case. I read the response as being directed at Masem, and actually supporting what Medeis said. Number 57 13:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Of all the diffs above, two are allegedly violations of the IBAN. The rest are alleged incivility, to other editors than μηδείς, and pretty tame by the standards we see here. Am I right? Of the diffs regarding the IBAN, I'm struggling to see the violation in the first one - TRM and μηδείς are making similar points about the lack of policy, but I'm struggling to see it as TRM interacting with μηδείς. The second one might be construed as a violation, I guess - responding to NewYorkBrad who was responding to μηδείς. It's not exactly smoking gun material, though. I've a great deal of respect for both these editors, and a TBAN for both from ITN would be a great loss to ITN. But it seems that the IBAN hasn't helped cool things down between them. Any suggestions for other ways of cooling things down? GoldenRing (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC) There is no justification for a TBAN. First, there's no complaint against me, no diffs, and no reason to ban me, since I have not commented once on TRM, while he has on me, as well as reversions, etc. Second, TRM is perfectly capable of doing good work on ITN, all he needs to do is stop addressing me. Third, any such TBAN would be pointless, as we still both edit many overlapping pages. The solution is clear and simple: enforce the IBAN that's already in place. μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I'm not seriously suggesting a TBAN, just thinking out loud about how to cool the situation down. It needs cooling down, on both sides. This is the second time this has ended up at ANI in recent times, both times because you've perceived a violation of the IBAN where other editors have said either the violation is not clear or that you have to work very hard to read it as a violation. And this report has a long list of diffs completely unrelated to you or the IBAN tacked on. It reads a lot like you're on the lookout, just waiting for the slip up that you can bring to ANI and get him blocked/banned. On the other hand, TRM'S response is not exactly conciliatory. Both of you remain unprepared to work in a collaborative, collegial way, then. Ideally, tips both take a long, hard look at yourselves (not each other), let the past go and get on with building an encyclopedia which, so long as you don't cross paths, you both do well. Since that seems unlikely to happen, sadly, I'm trying to think about other ways of making the situation less explosive and, largely, coming up empty-handed. GoldenRing (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Since I was summoned, I might as well make some brief comments. It would be nice if TRM tried to influence discussions by the strength of his arguments, and could also quietly let other people have opinions which differ from him. It's only the ad hominem diversions that create a problem, that and his deliberate attempts to poison the well against people who don't hold the identical opinion he does. Otherwise, I don't really care what happens. TRM makes himself more and more irrelevant the more he behaves in uncooperative ways. It would be nice if he could become a more effective person who was able to actually create the important changes he wants to; but his treatment of others prevents him from being successful in ways that would benefit the encyclopedia. --Jayron32 14:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC) ^I'll support this. I only know TRM from the ref desks, and it seems he could be a big help there, but he doesn't choose to. That's fine, we spend time where we want. Whatever his abilities and skills are, it seems that TRM has managed to step on a few toes. Then again so has Medeis. If I could hand out sentencing I would give TRM and Medeis both a trouting, remind them both to respect the IBAN, and hope that they learn that a more cooperative attitude would make both of their efforts more productive. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC) You people created your own monster. The Rambling Man, a productive editor and an admin, is perfectly justified in expecting the Rule of Corbett (i.e. productivity means you can be as rude as you like) to apply to him as well, and I can't say I blame him. The only difference is he doesn't appear to have the squads of acolytes and fawning admins ready to fall on their swords in his defense. What a joke! --Drmargi (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC) No, the rule defines a "valuable contributor" as one with acolytes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC) I won't be able to comment at length or research the diffs for about 12 hrs from now, but the issue here really is violations of the iban by TRM. The incivility is just part of the pattern. There have been previous iban violations by TRM, and a previous ANI that documented them in October. I'll search the archives tonight. The "for the fiftieth time" and quotation of the word policy in the edit above was directed at me. He quoted me, and my occassional use of the word policy has been a bugaboo of his apparently for over a year now, hence his "for the fiftieth time" statement. I'll look for these comments tonight, can someone tell me how to search for the use of the word policy by TRM on the ITN nomination page only? I find searching the history of that page very difficult. Bottom line, TRM has repeatedly been warned not to interact with me and continued to do so, I have made no comments regarding him. He should be treated like any other editor would who violated an IBAN. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Several people above have agreed that TRM is too snarky (add me to that list), but is there any chance that you could stop to contemplate that what TRM said about policy is totally correct? He did not address you, and writing "policy" is just a standard use of scare quotes. Being snarky is a problem. But so too is failing to grasp fundamentals such as use of policy. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are the previous violations of the IBAN by TRM:

(1) "indeed" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=631102015&oldid=631101365 (TRM comments agreeing with my critic at ITN vote)

(2) "certainly no clear consensus at all" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=630788021&oldid=630787879 (TRM reverts my Ready tag, quoting my comment on consensus)

(3) "good consensus" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=630706886&oldid=630706589 (My comments noting consensus, of which he referred to, showing his awareness of who tagged the article)

(4) "please be careful and do not skirt the ban further or I'll block you" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Rambling_Man&diff=608799381&oldid=608797815 (Bishonen's warning to TRM he be blocked immediately on any further violation, I am quoting it here so you don't need to read the markup)

Bish's warning to TRM:

"Picking at your IBAN

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

"Of course, you've warned her too, right, for her "indirect comments" directed clearly at me? No. Once again a perfect demonstration of your one-sided view of this. And sorry, she removed my edits on Giger first. Do me a favour, get someone else to do your edits here as I'm sick of your undying love and defence of her." The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"If there are such edits by Medeis, why don't you tell me about them? I'd appreciate knowing these things. Vague allegations are less useful." Bishonen | talk 06:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)." [This exchange was later deleted by TRM with no response--Medeis]

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

Medeis, please, please stop claiming that any update recommendations are policy. As you have been told on a number of occasions, they are simply guidelines, there's a distinct difference. And no, there is no RfC, nor does there need to be one. There was a discussion on the removal of the arbitrary numerical update guideline on the talkpage here. The Rambling Man (talk) 3:16 am, 14 November 2013, Thursday (1 year, 12 days ago) (UTC−5)

Oh dear, try again, look closely!!!! (And for the fifth time, there is no policy, it's only ever been a guideline....) The Rambling Man (talk) 1:21 pm, 14 November 2013, Thursday (1 year, 11 days ago) (UTC−5)

For the sixth time, this is not a policy. There is no RD policy. There is nothing demanding an RfC to change the wording of the guideline. I do suggest you get to grips with terminology: a policy is something that must be adhered to... The Rambling Man (talk) 5:09 pm, 15 November 2013, Friday (1 year, 10 days ago) (UTC−5)

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

• This section (and my comment) should be removed and Medeis advised to drop the stick. Why should people have to pick through this mess to determine whether anything new has been added? Topics at ANI do not need to be formally closed—the matter got a fair hearing and there was no consensus for action. If there is a problem with someone mentioning that "policy" is wrongly used, the Wikipedian solution would be to stop mentioning it incorrectly. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to strike your comments, Johnuniq but it was falsely asserted that TRM had not addressed me with his "for the fiftieth time" comment on "policy", and I have given direct diffs to his previous comments, as well as direct diffs to his previous direct comments on other issues, his reversions, and warnings about his behaviour. TRM is entirely unable to respond with any evidence that I have addressed him, moral equivalence in this case amounts to negligence. This is quite clear-cut, and if you don't want to read the diffs than simply withdraw. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It is possible for people to dominant places like reference desks but that is a lot harder at ANI. Your mental model that ANI is a place to get opponents blocked is only partially correct—in addition, if it is seen that someone has unhelpfully been using incorrect terminology (by repeatedly referring to nonexistent policies), that will be exposed. Why are you not engaging with that issue? How does your comment address "Why should people have to pick through this mess to determine whether anything new has been added?" Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose indefing Medeis and The Rambling Man (listed alphabetically) is out of the question? Could we site ban one on odd months (e.g. Jan, Mar..) and the other on even? Any other ideas??? NE Ent 03:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Just lift the IBAN, they seem to be happier arguing with each other. Count Iblis (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

* Whole heartedly agree It's pretty obvious Medeis is trying to get Rambling Man blocked or banned. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have explicitly argued against any sort of ban, and asked for a warning block, which TRM himself expected might be the result of is latest action. TRM is otherwise a very good contributer. Putting words in my mouth is not very helpful. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• (ec)I simply want the violations to stop. I basically had to waste the entire holiday season last year retting the iban in place, yet it's not enforced. According to the Iban we are not to refer to each other directly or indirectly (or revert each other, etc.) Given the violations are all one-sided, I think it's clear some action by this board is warranted, if only a warning note on TRM's talk page.

If editors here are going to say that "for the fiftieth time there is no policy" had nothing to do with me, why should I not show that "for the fifth and sixth time there is no policy" was one of the last things TRM said. Suggesting I be banned from ANI is, frankly, offensive. If I play video of my neighbour throwing trash over the fence into my yard I don't expect to annoyedly by the police that its only a little trash, and he only does it once in a while.

I really have nothing else to say. I would appreciate a ruling as to whether I can place an ani warning on trm's talk page in the future if necessary, and if I need to do so now, or if it would constitute an iban violation on my part. A note can be placed on my talk page, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Anon hogging Iranian military articles, possible disruptive editing

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

Bullying, owning, meatpuppeting, and more!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

breach of topic ban
The following discussion has been closed by Future Perfect At Sunrise. Please do not modify it.
Acroterion chose to ban me for "your observations on the subject's sexual behavior", which was limited to observations that unethical conduct had occurred. I wrote that cheating had occurred, which is unethical conduct and in direct contradiction to the article's statement that "unethical conduct by (the subject) had not occurred" and painted the subject as an innocent victim. Additionally, Acroterion has stated that "(Visitantehumanoide was) blocked for speculating about the private sexual behavior of someone who has been extensively harassed, primarily for being female in a male-dominated culture" (refers to the subject). It is worth noting that the subject of the Arbcom notice, Tarc, was insulting and baiting me in the Arbcom request I was banned for, with such statements as "SPAs, like you, have come here to ensure that your minority point-of-view is jammed down the reader's throat. Fortunately, this isn't reddit or somethingawful or wherever you came from; we have standards and rules here to uphold." and "I have made a conscious effort lately to not be explicitly profane on-project, but at times a little steam-releasing is warranted, and all this was was me beginning a post to a user's talk page with "Eh, bullshit".". I was later banned, first for BLP violations and then, after Acroterion realized he had not followed proper procedure to initiate such a ban, for the Gamergate sanctions. It is also worth noting that he later changed his story from "observations about sexual behavior" to "I do not see an equivalent level of battleground behavior to yours, which has been going on for several days.". Despite this, several other users were engaging in similar baiting on the Arbcom page, yet Acroterion saw it necessary to only enforce sanctions against me. Additionally, I later discovered Tarc has been in direct contact and abused his preferential treatment to give favorable coverage to subjects related to Gamergate. He has also proven unwilling to enforce sanctions for WP:BLP violations regarding (the subject's) boyfriend. Despite the boyfriend being referenced by name in earlier iterations of the Gamergate article, Acroterion states "I take no action on the content: nobody is named, and it is clear in the article that (the subject)'s detractors are the source. You are the one linking (the subject)'s boyfriend to the allegations and taking pot shots at people's sexual behavior." I do not appreciate this assumption of bad faith, as I was clarifying that unethical action had occurred against the boyfriend, who in my opinion was emotionally abused and a victim. I request Acroterion be barred from enforcing any further sanctions concerning [the subject] and Gamergate, as he has proven incapable of separating his views concerning the matter from his duties as an administrator. I also request all sanctions he enforced concerning the article be reviewed.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC) This appears to be WP:FORUMSHOPPING on content issues that have been discussed repeatedly on Talk:Gamergate controversy. That ArmyLine has an opinion which disagrees with the broad consensus of reliable sources on this matter is interesting, but of no consequence to Wikipedia, which does not operate based on editors' personal opinions but on the conclusions of reliable sources. Acroterion did not block Visitantehumanoide, Dreadstar did. The fact that Acroterion recognizes that we need to be sensitive about how we present living people in the encyclopedia is cause for commendation, not condemnation. Exactly what BLP violation do you claim exists in re: the article's discussion of Eron Gjoni? He is currently mentioned in the article, as the author of the blogpost which sparked the firestorm. Given his publicity-seeking behavior in widely spreading his claims about Zoe Quinn, he can hardly be considered an unwilling participant in the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC) The final paragraph written by NorthBySouthBaranof is a blatant violation of BLP and I request it be scrubbed from the history by an admin and the offending user be topic banned. Specifically the last sentence which speculates about the motivations and actions or Eron Gjoni.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Err, no. Everything I said is supported by reliable sources, notably this interview Gjoni voluntarily conducted with Vice, in which Gjoni states on the record that I wrote a blog to warn those who will be romantically or professionally involved with her (usually both) that they should exercise caution around her. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Yet I fail to see where anything he is doing is out of a desire for fame or publicity. Requesting a topic ban for NorthBySouthBaranof and also for User:Ryulong for restoring this blatant violation of BLP.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC) NorthBySouthBaranof's statements regarding Mr. Gjoni are supported by reliable sources in use across the project. Just because they're negative does not mean it's a BLP vio.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Perhaps you need to read what I said again, slowly. I said "publicity-seeking behavior." When a person publicly posts a 3,000-word "screed" about their relationship drama on the Internet, complete with personal information and then posts links to that blog on a variety of other Internet forums and chatrooms, that is seeking publicity for themselves and/or their allegations. I said nothing about "fame." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC) This is the sort of behavior favored editors are allowed to get by with. Note I did not ask for NorthBySouthBaranof's opinion nor did I notify or include him in this report.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC) The "sort of behavior" which involves responding to a thread on ANI? I was unaware that you were granted the right to determine who may or may not respond to public discussions on a community noticeboard. Moreover, the above user is subject to an active topic ban on this subject, and the only exception is a properly-formatted appeal of the ban, which this frankly doesn't appear to be. Rather, it's an assault on the admin who placed the ban, along with other users. The above user should be, at the least, warned for violating their topic ban. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC) This is about your attack on me in the earlier statement. Claiming that "(I have) an opinion which disagrees with the broad consensus of reliable sources on this matter is interesting, but of no consequence to Wikipedia, which does not operate based on editors' personal opinions but on the conclusions of reliable sources." is an unsolicited assumption of bad faith and a personal attack.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Noting that a person's opinion disagrees with the consensus of reliable sources is not a personal attack under even the most stretched interpretations of WP:NPA. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC) I don't appreciate your unsolicited "noting", particularly when it has no relevance I posted.--ArmyLine (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Looking further through this, I come to the conclusion that this posting is in itself a breach of the earlier topic-ban, since it (a) goes far beyond appealing ArmyLine's own sanction or any of the other legitimate purposes that are regularly exempt from topic bans, (b) contains accusations against other editors unrelated to ArmyLine's own sanction, and (c) repeats the offending allegations about BLP subjects for which ArmyLine was banned in the first place. I will therefore be hatting off this thread and blocking ArmyLine as an enforcement action. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I was going to comment that the topic ban seems perfectly valid and no good reason to reconsider it has been given. The enforcement block by FPaS is quite correct, since both the OP and later posts went far beyond a reconsideration request. Fram (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to the real problem here, Armyline was -never- notified of any discretionary sanctions for Gamergate or for BLP.]] So as a result, the topic ban does not exist because the topic ban was imposed without the editor ever being notified of any sanctions relating to Gamergate or for BLP. A notice on the talk page does not count. They need to be formally notified. The block and topic ban should be overturned as a result. Administrators are not allowed to impose sanctions out of process. Tutelary (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they were. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a new battleground for involved parties, it is a forum for uninvolved parties to evaluate this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This block is as inappropriate as the underlying sanction. In regards to Future's points: a) Challenging the general administrative conduct of the admin who imposed the sanction does fall within the scope of a legitimate appeal. b) The accusations against other editors appear to be part and parcel to the questioning of the general administrative conduct of the admin and thus fall within the scope of a legitimate appeal. c) Stating that Quinn cheated and that cheating is unethical conduct is not a BLP violation, given that many reliable sources mentioning the cheating allegations ([187] [188] [189] [190]). Even the emotional abuse aspect to the allegations is covered ([191] [192]). Only other comments by ArmyLine in this discusson seem to concern an alleged BLP violation by North, so I fail to see why those subsequent comments are cause for a block either. Seems to me that Future and Baranof just wanted an excuse to shut this appeal down.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC) * Agreed The Devil's Advocate is correct. The block is wrong, let's reverse course on that. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti The block is wrong for that, and for the fact that Armyline was never made aware of sanctions, a prerequisite for application of them. Future Perfect has reverted TDA's application of this under the enigmatic 'don't mess with my log entries'. The fact that Future Perfect has done this twice now shoud be noted, first with Titanium Dragon and now with Armyline. Tutelary (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Technically, the log was just in the wrong spot. Army's topic ban was enacted through BLPSE rather than the GG/GS, because only the former could be applied to Army given the lack of notification about GG/GS. I moved his log of the block to BLPSE. Future is just being a dork.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Gamaliel, these comments are directly related to the above. Hatting them is inappropriate. Specifically, reading the template for the hat template, it refers to follow the refactor advice, which says at WP:REFACTOR If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. Consider this my objection. Tutelary (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Your objections have been noted. Now please stop disrupting this thread and allow uninvolved editors to discuss this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

More selective enforcement

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

Mark Bernstein has accused others of colluding off site too, multiple times too yet I see no topic ban for him as of now. Diffs located here: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement#Statement_by_Tutelary_2 In any case, I don't want to get too off topic. The block for asking to examine conduct of an administrator is out of line. The fact that he is blocked just demonstrates the power dynamic that administrators have over other users. This is the appropriate avenue for review of administrator conduct. Instead, he gets blocked for a flimsy topic ban by an administrator who didn't even notify him of sanctions of BLP or even Gamergate. The conduct issues not even discussed. Tutelary (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Then report him FFS. That's what the enforcement page is for. And ArmyLine was banned a month ago "for one year from edits and discussion regarding GamerGate under BLP discretionary sanctions". Just because that's not the new GamerGate specific set of general sanctions does not mean he should be unblocked due to this loophole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

We have reported him, many of us numerous times. The problem is that no one wants to enforce the sanctions on editors who are perceived to be on a specific side of the issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Has any one of you actually opened up a thread at WP:GS/GG/E on Mark Bernstein or not?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying we should? Are you going to get your side to act? Are the dozens of diffs at the existing thread not enough to act? Can you only act on a specific thread being opened, or is reporting in the proper venue enough? Tell me, how much red tape must we go through to get bad actors sanctioned? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could act on some of these things if all of you didn't start using every goddamn single thread on every single page to fight your GamerGate war, and then when we finally sort through it all to act on something, we have to go participate in another thread complaining about the actions we took, which then also degenerates into another GamerGate war. Do you have any idea how many hours Dreadstar and Future Perfect and EdJohnson and I and others have spent on your ridiculous squabble? Gamaliel (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that an administrator sees their fellow editors as fighting a 'GamerGate war' or saying they've spent many hours on their 'ridiculous squabble' is apalling, maybe even WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Tutelary (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. Gamaliel (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you just insinuate that I'm a sockpuppet? Tutelary (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not enough if certain editors are still avoiding sanctions. This isn't "my war," so stop assuming anything about my motives beyond wanting to be able to see this project move past it. You've had the diffs in front of you for days, maybe you can explain why you're not acting on them? You have enough time to hat discussions you don't like, after all. Maybe it might actually free up some time for more useful pursuits if some demonstration that the rules are being enforced equitably was in place? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume nothing about your motives, all I can see is the evidence of the constant squabbling from both sides. I have spend many hours this week dealing with this matter. If you want me to devote more time to a particular aspect of it, then stop spreading this edit war around multiple pages and threads so I can concentrate on one thing. Gamaliel (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Then why hasn't MarkBernstein been dealt with? As far as I can tell, I brought the diffs to the correct place, and you have clearly read them because you selectively read diffs listed about me. Are you saying what Ryulong is saying, that I need to start a whole new thread over there for it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Because I have to deal with this thread and everyone's disruptive grousing, and with the thread complaining about Cobbsaladin, and the ArbCom case, and the emails that I'm getting from everyone, and a thousand other things. My time is limited. Stop opening a thousand goddamn complaint threads and you'll get what you want. Gamaliel (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The thread has been open for days. You have even commented on it. Your time is limited, fine, mine is as well and I hate that I even bothered to dip my toes into this topic at all. You'd probably get less "disruptive grousing" had the situation been dealt with responsibly by you or anyone else up to this point, though. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I'm saying put up or shut up. Make a thread on the enforcement page calling out people for their violations of the general sanctions just like you feel they're doing to you. Prove through process that there's unfair treatment when you try to go tit for tat.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a thread, it's under the Masem accusation. If we're at the point of the bureaucracy where we need to repeat the allegations again, fine, but how incredibly stupid. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it a formal attempt at sanctioning him or is it just a boomerang attempt under Masem's sanctioning request?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you just want me to make some bureaucratic move. Got it. That's probably why you haven't been sanctioned either, I suppose. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

disruptive editing on Spanish conquest of Chiapas

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

User just posted here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Spanish arrival to Chiapas. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As a first step, I've moved the page back to the previous title and protected it as Spanish arrival to Chiapas is clearly grammatically incorrect. I will leave an explanatory note on the editor's talk page as English appears not to be his/her first language.  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Phil. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

EngcolLab191480 and more conflict of interest

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

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

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

Threat to edit war

Requesting review of my actions.

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

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

Good block. He was at four reverts and threatened to continue. -- GB fan 19:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)