Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Personal attacks alleged

(Retitled to "Personal attacks alleged" from non-neutral "Personal attacks by QuackGuru". See wp:talknew. --doncram 13:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC))

QuackGuru has engaged in personal attacks. In violation of AGF and misrepresenting me and my edits. Contrary to warning diff he continues to post links to a closed WP:AN/I section that was closed no consensus in an effort to discredit me. The attacks are not on point, but personal, not directed to the topic, but me. This has no place on the talk pages of WP articles.

• His latest including a link to the closed WP:AN/I section in the edits comments. diff diff
• Previous linking of the section closed WP:AN/I in edit comments. diff
• He even uses a user page to hold the information so he can easily paste it. diff
• He has placed the link in comments on an admin's user page, and the edit is a pure attack.diff
• He has placed the link in the comments and the attack on a request for page protection that I made. diff

Edit March 10, 2015 (added 5 more diff's below)

• So not to get lost in the long discussion. QuackGuru on this page made another more serious harassing post towards me on my disability here. This is an ongoing pattern.
• Another link to the section in comments to discredit me diff
• Another link to the section in comments to discredit me diff
• Another link to the section in comments to discredit me diff
• Links to the old AN/I section and misrepresents the nature of it to discredit me. diff (note: 4 difs added by AlbinoFerret in this dif and this dif today Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC))

This has to stop, There are serious violations of WP:EQ including misrepresenting, AGF, and making the discussion on the other editor and not the topic and WP:HARASS for the persistently trying to discredit me over old and resolved WP:AN/I sections. Asking him to stop has done no good. Smearing another editor should not be done. AlbinoFerret 03:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So the first dif is "User:AlbinoFerret claims "You have not discussed one edit in the 19k characters you inserted."[1] But I did discuss sources User:AlbinoFerret deleted.[2] The response was "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[3] That is not a specific objection for excluding relevant information. User:AlbinoFerret is not here to improve this page IMO. how is deleting numerous reliable sources improving this page? QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)"

I am not seeing anything ANI worthy there. Sorry Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru, thanks for pointing out I had the wrong diff. I have struck out the wrong one and placed the correct one. AlbinoFerret 03:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• This comment "WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless" by User:AlbinoFerret makes me wonder if a topic ban WP:Boomerang would be useful though. See how consensus is that WHO is one of the best medical sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Bringing concerns to a noticeboard is what they are for [4]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That discussion already happened in the WP:AN/I QuackGuru keeps linking to and is now 5 months old. It is a content disagreement, and this focus of this section isnt on content, but the persistent personal attacks by QuackGuru. The noticeboard is only one place out of many, and it was the noticeboard for page protection, not a place to level personal attacks or discuss editors. AlbinoFerret 03:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Can someone please point out the personal attack? I do not immediately see the insult being directed. I think we are nearing 150 days of daily edit warring at this article so I recognize the tension. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree BR, I don't see WP:NPA here. I do see unhelpful behaviour, not unidirectionally, including WP:IDHT, WP:Battleground and WP:NOTHERE. I fully understand AF's furstration at QG's massive undiscussed edits on a controversial topic, usually I find with reasonable content in them but lots of dross that doesn't add to the article as well. I also understand QG's frustration with AF undoing what is a large amount of work. But QG is persistently trying to discredit AF over old and resolved ANI threads. I don't know what can be done to reduce the tension at the e-cigarette family of Articles but I think some form of sanctions need to be handed out to those making it harder for productive collaboration to happen. SPACKlick (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think sanctions might be the way to go here since there are multiple problem editors. Many editors left and unwatched the article as it became toxic. Considering how often e-cigs have come up at WP:RSN where decent medical sources always seemed to be challenged by the same group of editors, I'm concerned there may be significant POVs running the discussion. The more problematic POV seems to be being critical specifically of sources that are critical of e-cigs. There are behavior issues tied to how editors are dealing with content, so it doesn't seem like it's easily addressed here at ANI where people will say it's just a content dispute and ignore the behavior problems within it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry While it is not classically defined WP:NPA it is WP:HARASS and the two are very close. AlbinoFerret 14:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• QuackGuru, it would be better to please keep this diff collection on your own computer, not Wikipedia. Thank you. Otherwise, I don't see harassment here, and certainly not personal attacks. I agree with Doc James there's nothing for admins to do. Bishonen | talk 16:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen So, its ok to smear another editor by bringing up old AN/I sections, even those that were closed with no consensus of wrongdoing. Even on article talk pages and others in an attempt to discredit and smear another editor? AlbinoFerret 18:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Bringing up what you have stated before is not a smear. Possibly a topic ban of User:AlbinoFerret would improve things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I do think you may be right, that at least a temporary (perhaps 3 month) TBAN from electronic cigarette articles would be good for AlbinoFerret's equilibrium. This is an issue where advocates are running well ahead of the evidence, and this is necessarily a source of friction and controversy. The Wikipedia articles are a classic case of WP:TRUTH. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with considering a temp TBAN. I had a discussion with AF on my talk page awhile back [5] about them being too locked-in to the topic and not being able to step back. Looking at the current situation I do think it would be helpful to both AF and the topic if they had a break. The previous ANI on AF specifically said there was no consensus at the time on an action, but that is very different from saying there wasn't a behavior problem. I think AF definitely has the potential to approach things more evenly (this conversation did give me some hope), but they really need to step out of their single topic and get experience in less contentious topics since their posting history looks like a WP:SPA right now.Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not a WP:SPA, I edit other pages and have other interests. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James, The whole other section was a smear campaign, started by you. All based on content disputes. Had it resulted in a finding against me, perhaps it could be used here. But it didnt, and talk pages of articles are not the place to try and bring up dirt on another editor. AlbinoFerret 21:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Some of what Albino says is valid, in that this is the proper forum for bringing the list of diffs - not article Talk pages or admin Talk pages. Deploying the list in that way is harassment-y and I think QG should be warned to address behavior issues in appropriate venues going forward. However I don't agree with anything else Albino has written. (particularly his claim that it was not valid to link to the ANI section concerning a topic ban against him; we all know that many ANIs lose focus and become sprawling, uncloseable messes, as that one did. There was plenty of solid feedback on Albino's behavior in that ANI, however, and linking to it is OK.) Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• it appears that QuackGuru has not taken down the page tracking Albino's behavior yet, despite being advised to do so by an admin, which is not good. QG, it is fine to build such a list but you have to deploy it and then get rid of it. You may have not been ready to use it but your hand is forced now. So - either just delete it, or post it here with a request for admin or community action against Albino, and then delete it. But either way, it should go. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Bishonen, I put a hat on it for now. Is this good enough for now or do you still prefer I blank the page. I'm not done with it. This will go to arbcom if admins don't do anything soon. QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Quackguru see WP:POLEMIC - it is OK to compile a list of behaviors in your userspace but you must use it timely. That is why i said that your hand has been forced, and you have to use it and lose it, or just lose it. It seems like you have enough there to request the community to topic-ban, and this is the place to do that. The last one could have potentially succeeded but it was lost in that totally sprawling ANI. But i will get out of the way and let bish answer. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Quackguru, for you to blank it yourself would be an acceptable compromise, from where I stand, between the hat and putting a speedy tag on it. Blanking isn't a problem, is it? The material would still be at your fingertips via the history. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC).

A short time ago I did blank the page. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Block for QuackGuru

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

---

QuackGuru has a long history of blocks and banns log including a past block for personal attacks and harassment. He appears to be a WP:SPA that focuses on controversial medical articles. Past short banns and blocks have done no good. I proposed a indefinite block or alternately a one year block. He has engaged in harassment WP:HARASS again. His actions to remove some of the harassment dont go far enough, the edit summaries are still there as well as the attacks on talk pages. AlbinoFerret 13:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret proposed the same thing before and that went nowhere fast. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#Block_or_Ban. A return WP:BOOMERANG will resolve the issue at hand. QuackGuru (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I endorse an immediate block for QuackGuru for this edit. I note that QuackGuru regards me as WP:INVOLVED per this section of his talk page. It lists a collection of dubious statements and untrue allegations against me, and has done since December 2014 in violation of WP:POLEMIC. If QG has issues with me I request that they address them in the proper way. While I do not accept that I am INVOLVED here, I do request that another admin make the block. --John (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru has no right to comment on AlbinoFerret's private life whatsoever, let alone assume he's lying about things QuackGuru can't know anything about. I've warned him. Bishonen | talk 19:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC).

How many warnings will QG get for harassment? AlbinoFerret 13:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the same amount of WP:ROPE you've been given to continue your obvious advocacy. BMK (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Obvious advocacy? You are incorrect. That is a baseless false charge. AlbinoFerret 15:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Really, a "baseless false charge"? If that is so, it is one that is accepted as true by a goodly number of very experienced editors who voted in support of a topic ban for you. Your advocacy isn't in the least covert, it is, as several have commented, easily recognizable. BMK (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to count the total number of past warnings against QuackGuru, so I'll simply list the notices given recently:

• 16 December 2014: A notice by admin Adjwilley was given for ignoring administrative advice and attacking an administrator
• 3 January 2015: A notice by admin Rjanag was given for plagiarism
• 3 February 2015: A warning by admin Shii was issued for edit warring
• 5 February 2015: A warning by admin Kww was issued to QuackGuru for attacking User:Middle 8 in bad faith

I suppose one could give QuackGuru another warning and remind him not to ignore administrative advice or attack editors, as has been done many times in the past, but I don't think such an approach would be helpful to the community (or the administrators). This editor was blocked many years ago for canvassing via email and making misleading accusations, and it appears that with every successive administrative warning, his disruptive behavior continues to worsen and escalate. -A1candidate 16:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition I think that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:QuackGuru may give light into QuackGuru's activities on electronic cigarette in the recent past. It has not gotten any better. Arguing round in circles trying to get a press release used for medical content, making 20000 character edits in private with no notice or discussion on the talk page. AlbinoFerret 16:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that QuackGuru's ownership of articles is highly detrimental to the consensus building process and I note that he had been previously warned (and blocked) for making edits without first seeking consensus but am not surprised that he continues to ignore all administrative warnings. -A1candidate 16:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You folks have a nice little circle going on here, a walled garden of mutually supportive comments, mostly between SPAs with the same objective in mind. Only problem is, every comment just makes the groups' general lack of objectivity even more obvious. BMK (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not an SPA, and I suggest you strike out that comment. -A1candidate 13:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Since I'm just back from a sepsis-enforced break I don't want to step in and make what would be a controversial block, especially in a situation where an uninvolved admin decided to just warn you for it, but Quack, that was unnecessary and under different circumstances (and if I'd beaten Bish here,) I probably would've blocked you. If you do something similar in the future, I probably will. You do a lot of important content work, but there's really no reason to make such a comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support immediate block - This recent comment by QuackGuru was clearly targeted against an editor's personal life. The edit summary was highly inappropriate, inexplicably cruel and plain disgusting. Given that the comment was made on the administrators' noticeboard where editors should be particularly mindful of their own behavior, and that QuackGuru had been previously warned and blocked for long-standing patterns of personal harrassment and disruptive editing (see block log and recent warnings), I think a much longer block might be necessary. We are not dealing with a new or inexperienced editor, but a disruptive, long-term editor (account created in 2006) who knows enough about Wikipedia's guidelines and policies but continues to ignore them ad infinitum. A1candidate 13:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support per A1candidate. That comment from QG was beyond the pale. Considering his long list of blocks for the same type of behavior, I would hope such a block would be longer than a day or two. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • A1 and WV please pay attention - above an admin has already said they took action for that comment. That incident is done. A1 I understand you both would love to get rid of QG b/c he fights quackery but. In any case this attempt to pile on and override an admin is as unseemly as QG's remark. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC) (amended per Winkelvi's objection below. my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC))
    • There's nothing wrong with QG fighting quackery, except that he does it while violating a series of well-established behaviorial guidelines. His attempt to enforce a topic ban on me does not give me much hope that he will ever change his behavior. -A1candidate 22:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Jytdog, HOW CAN YOU EQUATE A SLUR with a call to sanction a slur?! It's entirely appropriate to debate whether a stronger sanction is warranted given the repugnance of what QuackGuru said; it is nauseatingly out of bounds. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Middle 8 I'll answer although the question seems more rhetorical than actually looking for an answer. I agree the comment was out of bounds - I was the one who hatted it. I also agree it was foul. I disagree with calling what he did a "slur" as he didn't insult AF based on his disability - instead he called AF a liar. It was a low blow, stupid, personal attack based on nothing; very bad judgement on multiple levels, especially in this context. I do see whipping up hysteria over a stupid comment, and trying to use that to gain momentum for a block, in the midst of a very badly framed case, as cynical and manipulative. So yeah, as unseemly as QG's remark, on a different vector. You may recall that I voted in favor of your RfC/U, even though it too was malformed. I think QG is very vulnerable to topic or even site banning based on a very clear record of bad behavior. he functions as kind of a "beserker" on fringe topics where you have alt med or other kinds of POV-pushers opposing sound MEDRS usage, and he goes right up to the line all the time, and over it, not infrequently. Just like he does at the e-cigs articles. I don't like to edit where he is working and leave ... but when he shows up things are pretty far gone already. Anyway, if you look at how this thread started, the case against QG is even more badly formed than your RfC/U, and that one failed too. (I said so way above, before you joined the discussion here) This one does not cut it. I am baffled as to why someone hasn't framed a clear case against him already. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Jytdog, yes, rhetorical. You see it as bad and I see it as terrible. Calling someone a liar about their disability is for sure a slur ("an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation"), and it was gratuitous, dickish and cruel (see my comment below to Ched). We'll have to agree to disagree on the import/properness of A1C highlighting it here; my view is that it's not just about this case: given the well-known context of QG's long and checkered history, it's unacceptable, mean-spirited. In any context on WP it's an 8/10 on the NPA scale (where 9 is the N-word and 10 is falsely calling someone a pedophile). A line was crossed. One just doesn't do that to people.... especially in a situation where collegiality is expected. I agree with your other comments, and if/when a stronger case is brought, I am pretty sure that said diff will feature. I may bring it to Jimbo's attention anyway. One does not screw with someone over their disability, including accusing them of lying about it ("disability policing" is corrosive); disability is hard enough as it is. Revolting. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 20:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC) edited20:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    • "I understand you both would love to get rid of QG b/c he fights quackery" Jytdog, what the "eff" are you talking about? I haven't encountered QC before seeing this AN/I (that I'm aware of) so I have no idea what kind of "quackery" he fights (I'm not even sure what that means). Your accusation is out of line, but certainly not as out of line as QC's comments about AF. He has a long block log that testifies to his history of bullying and harassment. Your comments imply he's performing a necessary service to Wikipedia that we should all be grateful for. The truth is, Wikipedia is a WP:CHOICE and would do just fine without any of us. AGF and NPA, however, is not a choice -- it is required. In my opinion, your attempts to dismiss what he said by trying to assign ulterior motives to those who are supporting a block based on those comments are disgusting to me personally. I hope we never have to connect in WP again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Winkelvi my apologies for lumping you with A1. That was sloppy of me and I apologize. I struck above accordingly. Again, my apologies. We actually have crossed paths briefly. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Fine, I accept the apology, Jytdog. For the record, the crossing of paths comment was in reference to QG. I appreciate you striking the comments that included me, however, I still am not okay with your defense of QG and the reasons for said defense. It seems there is a suggestion that QC's contributions should outweigh the fact he questioned and mocked someone's disability status. Not acceptable, in my view. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks that is gracious of you. i think you are still misunderstanding my perspective - pls see my comment to middle8 above. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (oy, forgot a crucial "mis". additional note. i do agree that the remark was disgusting. really i do. Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC))
• Support - I completely agree with weeding out quackery, but there are enough people willing to do it without QuackGuru's uncooperative, bullying style of editing. It looks like he's had plenty warnings and chances to improve his behaviour, but he clearly has no intention of doing so.--37.201.58.102 (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support block per John Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future -- making clear my priorities. !vote changed, preceding comment added, QG-specific parts of below comment struck 05:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Set aside the other complaints; John is right that accusing someone of lying about their disability deserves an immediate block. It's a gratuitous slur, and worse than a lot of people probably realize: "disability policing" is real and corrosive. This cuts deep in ways that perhaps only people affected by disability can fully grasp. While QuackGuru may not have been aware of "disability policing", he damn well should have known his accusation was afoul of NPA, especially with a long block log and eight years of editing. Still, o Our standards should reflect growing disability awareness. Some may dismiss my comments as cynical since I've clashed with QuackGuru, but I find this triggering and it transcends WP politics. I apologize to Bishonen (who declined John's suggestion to block) and others for suggesting below that merely warning QG shows softness and callousness, and am hatting my (largely) hot and ABF comments just below. Still, John is right and we shouldn't tolerate such attacks. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 23:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

collapsing excessively hot and ABF comments made in reaction to personal attack
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
*Great -- now Wikipedia is going all callous about NPA and slurs based on disability. Apparently NPA means nothing as long as the attacker is well-liked, the attackee is not, and the attack is on a relatively invisible, disadvantaged group. Quackguru just insinuated an editor was lying about having a disability. Are you people that tone-deaf? If ANY editor had said what QG said about race or sexual orientation or gender, they'd be blocked or banned in a heartbeat. The only thing worse is outright stereotyping. Disability rights, as a movement, isn't taken seriously compared to other rights movements; we see this everywhere, great job Wikipedia. If SOME of the other editors here had said what QG said -- especially to a "favored" editor -- they'd be at least blocked, even though QG has a longer block log than the large majority of editors whose conduct comes up for review. And should know better, has edited for over 8 years.[6] WP's double standard on NPA is now de facto policy, as is the "ends justify the means" attitude. As if the antidote for "civil POV pushing" is incivility, no matter how offensive it gets. Yes, I've been on the other side of content disputes with QuackGuru but this goes way deeper than that because it's about disability. I have direct experience with it (in multiple ways; it's intense, exhausting, takes away opportunities every day -- it is what it is but at least show some respect). And I've seen how damaging it is when self-appointed "disability police" challenge others' disabilities. Being disabled is hard enough without all the cluelessness and bullshit people lay on you. Nauseating hypocrisy: a warning is all that's given [7] despite the magnitude of NPA violation, and in spite of the block log and years of editing. (And as usual, QG removes the warning right away [8][9].) At least User:John gets it; [10] from your comments, most of the rest of you admins don't. OK, enough. The double standard is sickening, and the tone-deafness to disability just makes me numb with rage. Great job, people. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC) copy-edited 13:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Striking; my intent with hatting was to strike the whole thing, but now that I'm striking so as to be exactly clear about my intentions, I'll leave one part.01:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. QG partakes in low-level and/or borderline transgressions on a regular basis, then occasionally, often when he thinks he can get away with it he ups the ante and completely oversteps the mark. The fact that QG went and made that comment kind of vindicates AF's original claims that QG was personally attacking him. QG thought things were going his way and that a WP:BOOMERANG was heading towards AF so he chanced his luck with more blatant attacks. Looks like he'll probably get away with it as well. I'm not going to recommend anything is done with QG, I'll leave that up to less involved editors but I do know from experience that QG is an impossible editor to work with and that he is not interested in consensus, never has been, probably never will be. People say he fights quackery, but there are plenty of editors that fight quackery that do not have long block logs for personal attacks, harassment, disruptive editing, edit warring, etc. Unfortunately many of these editors, whom I have a reasonable degree of respect for, seem to support QG.Levelledout (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW comment. QG has been around for a long time. I think there's a huge "WP:IDHT" issue with them, but I don't think it's deliberate. Anything related to "disabilities" is a very sensitive topic, and with good reason. Yes, QG is very tendentious by nature, and it can be very exasperating. Personally I had a few very long conversations with QG long ago, and I came to one conclusion: I don't think there's an ounce of intent to hurt anyone in his efforts here. Yes, .. he tends to go through things here with blinders on - but I don't think there's any intent to do harm in him. If you told QG "you hurt my feelings", he would spend hours digging up diffs and links to prove that he didn't. QG is doing his best to help the project, but I doubt is has ever crossed his mind to NPA/attack anyone. Just IMO. — Ched :  ?  16:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I too, tried to have a conversation with QG long ago. That apparently did not work out, and he eventually acknowledged the futility of such an approach by stating in the edit summary that he was "not interested" to listen. His most recent attempt to enforce a topic ban on me right after I opposed his attempt to ban AF is disingenuous, to say the least. -A1candidate 16:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I do understand your frustrations, and I wish I had an answer for you - but I can't think of one. There's a huge resistance to anything "fringe" related on wikipedia. The project secures itself in fact. Until you can actually prove that the earth is round - it will remain flat. That's just the nature of the beast. The best I can offer is this: don't tilt at windmills, recognize brick walls when you see them - and don't beat your head on them, and take comfort in your own beliefs - even if other's don't share them. — Ched :  ?  17:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments there Ched, I probably shouldn't have brought intent into it since its the conduct issues that ultimately matter.Levelledout (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Ched - I too had the impression that QG was fundamentally benign for some time until I saw his mean side. For example, WP:DICK, mocking other editors: Mallexikon: "I think you clarified this very nicely.'; Quackguru: "I think I clarified this very nicely.". He's also held a grudge toward me that started after I co-signed an RfC on him (which was concurrently brought with a thread at AN). Since then it's been POKE and BATTLEGROUND (below) despite multiple olive branches attempts [11][12][13][14] (which he just deletes from his user talk).

• Wikistalking: 10 petty examples [15]
• GAME-y/KETTLE accusations: characterizing edits I made as bad when he did the same thing [16]
• Repeated, baiting, disingenuous "questions" about COI despite an explanation right in my signature line (Middle 8 (contribs • COI)) and multiple good-faith answers: (asked | answered twice); (asked); (asked | answered).

The above is not innocent. But it doesn't matter; NPA and CIVIL are to be applied only selectively, apparently.

So, no, I don't accept that QG's slur against AlbinoFerret was anything other than an attempt to mock and discredit them. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 18:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (struck sentence 02:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes suppression of legitimate discussion regarding QG's conduct on their talk page to avoid detection is yet another issue, I have an example of that: "archive - drama over". Edit: Another, better example, of plain deletion this time: diffLevelledout (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose here (for now) and take to ArbCom instead. Given that QG's behavior is so heavily tied to other editors and their actions in the topic, his behavior would seem better evaluated at ArbCom instead along with the suite of e-cig issues. The case below this seems to be much more standalone, but QG's actions are so intertwined with other editor's actions and mired in controversial topics it would seem a more methodical look by ArbCom would be more appropriate than a knee-jerk reaction here. People end up dealing with a lot of crap when dealing with fringe or advocacy type editors, so some of that does need to be disentangled in the topic. That being said, I do think QG can go too far sometimes. We don't afford people with disabilities any special privileges over anyone else here, and talking about AF's situation is going to be tough no matter what. WP:NOTTHERAPY has been brought up in that regard, but that's really as far as any conversation about disability should have gone. Since action has already been taken with regard to QG's comment on whether AF is disabled or not, are more systemic look at behavior at the article and with users is needed to really discuss the appropriateness of a block. I don't see that here at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

He has been previously banned by Arbcom for similar behavioral issues and POV-pushing patterns. The Committee concluded that there was no apparent progress in QG's approach to editing. That was back in 2011. We are now in 2015, but has anything improved after four years of leniency and good faith assumptions? -A1candidate 18:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Chastising QG for a lack of progress in an area where essentially no progress has been made is a little one-sided, though. If everyone that attempted to warp our articles in favor of pseudoscience was simultaneously and indefinitely banned, wouldn't that do far more good?—Kww(talk) 20:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That would do far more good if you take into account QG's repeated attempts to claim that mummified tattoo marks "conform to acupuncture points". How is that not a blatant act of pseudoscience advocacy against prior consensus? -A1candidate 22:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Levelledout .. understood. I think perhaps given the scope of all of this, that it is beyond what Ani is tasked to do Perhaps the WP:RFAR route is the best option. — Ched :  ?  19:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose ArbCom action should be undertaken. There has been much contentious editing from all sides. Blocking isn't going to resolve the issues. Jim1138 (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The question of why this has not been elevated long before this... Jim1138 (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I said it above and I will say it again here. I think a good, PAG-based (not emotion/rhetoric-based) case could be pretty easily made, with about a couple hours of work finding difs. This case, is not that case, and thinking about a closer looking at !votes above, it does not appear that there is PAG-based consensus for a block here. In my view, the notion of punting his case to arbcom is just that - punting. The same work would have to go into it then, to make the case, so why not just do it here? (Arbcom cases don't happen by magic - diffs have to be brought, etc) So withdraw the mess above, and start a new, clean, well-formed thread, if it really matters to any of the supporters. (AlbinoFerret is the one who brought this: I believe he is the only who can withdraw it) Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

So you agree that there is reason to block him but it needs to have a pretty bow on it. AlbinoFerret 12:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret your reply is of a piece with your general lack of alignment with, and understanding of, how WP works. The community doesn't take action based on emotion, and we don't edit or resolve content disputes, based on what somebody likes or doesn't like. This isn't facebook. We have policies and guidelines that express the community's consensus on things, and we strive to edit based on them, behave based on them, and resolve disputes through reasoned discussion based on them. Reasoned and discerning WP:CONSENSUS is the very heart of this place. Hand-wavy "he's a dick" complaints don't go anywhere, and don't deserve to go anywhere - they don't provide a basis for rational discussion of the issues.Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with Doc James and Jytdog. And I'm not asserting Quackguru has done nothing wrong! But yes, this is whipping up hysteria over a stupid comment. Cloudjpk (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

A stupid comment? It was an attack. A low blow, and it follows attempts to discredit and harass me elsewhere. I should be surprised that anyone could come up with a defence of his actions, especially the one here on this page. You and the two editors you mention want a slap on a wrist, but only for an editor who edits with you, and who's edits you agree with. Had this been a first time, perhaps but we are way past first time as shown by QuackGuru's extensive history of harassment, edit warring, and other violations. AlbinoFerret 12:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Has been warned [17] And has acknowledged. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can get as annoyed as the next person with QG, but this does not merit a block (at least not one more than 24 hours); a warning (if anything) would suffice. Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Any derogatory comments about a person's health, or accusations that a person is lying about their health, is contrary to Wikipedia policy. As such, a block of some sort is clearly warranted - though I would find a lengthy one to be draconian, a moderate one is likely in order here. Collect (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I am heavily involved in the topic at hand having spent a long time editing the e-cigarette article pretty heavily and having clashed with QG and AF. I think in the case of both editors the battleground that e-cig has become has brought out a negative side to their WP editing, in AF it's leaning towards ADVOCACY and leaning towards SPA as it becomes more and more a focus of attention, in QG this is found in WP:OWN and IDHT. The regularity with which QG makes edits without discussion on the Talk pages of e-cig articles, even though he knows that any edit on that page is likely to be contentious, makes it clear he's not looking for consensus but the article as he sees it. I also see competence issues in many of QG's edits which could do with a bit of copy editing for structure and repetition before they go live. A topic ban, in the short term, may make things better. I certainly think the page cannot improve with QG there. But the root problem is that e-cig, and the daughter articles, are battlegrounds where a lot of people are shouting, and nobody's [well not quite nobody] listening. I don't know whether ArbCom can do something to help in this matter but while banning QG from the page will reduce the amount of problems there it won't solve the root. SPACKlick (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block or send to ArbCom. QuackGuru continues to make personal attacks, despite being warned as recently as a few days ago. In this edit of a couple of days ago QG attacks the conduct of several editors including myself and demands that answers be provided to them. WP:PERSONAL is quite clear that this is not allowed and that article talk pages are not the place for conduct accusations and smears. However, the worst thing about QG's conduct is the that they are not interested in consensus. Building 20k edits (about 1/3 of the article size) in relative privacy and then dumping them into articles without notification let alone discussion is consistent with this. Attempting to discuss matters with QG on their user talk page generally results in them suppressing the discussion by archiving or deleting it (or parts of it that they don't like), e.g. [diff1] [diff2]. QG of course has a very long block log and has also had been sanctioned by ArbCom in the past so has been given numerous chances to improve their conduct and shows little signs of doing so. I considered whether to make this post at all given that I am a highly involved editor. However this doesn't seem to be an issue for other editors, some of which have supported QG. As I have indicated I would have no issues with ArbCom taking a look at the wider picture.Levelledout (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • really baffling to me. The first dif you provide is just a Talk discussion (QG arguing against the bizarre claim that MEDRS says only reviews can be used and excludes statements by major health organizations); the 2nd is fine (per TPG it is OK to delete others' comments from your own Talk page) as is the 4th (people can archive their talk pages as they wish). The Arbcom diff is old history (that should be brought up in any carefully brought case and has already been mentioned above). I really don't understand why folks are not framing a clear case showing violations of behavioral policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))

The case against QG is rather clear cut in my opinion Jytdog and I respectfully disagree with you. Yes the first diff is an article talk discussion, that's my point. Content is irrelevant here as is whether QG is right or wrong about any content claims he makes. QG makes conduct allegations on the article talk page such as accusing editors of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Some of the language they use is just plain rude and actually borders on a breach of WP:CIVIL. Whether or not QG is technically allowed to delete individual comments from their talk page is hardly the point. Remember that they do not own their user talk page and that part of its purpose is for legitimate discussion of their conduct. I have only ever had two discussions (as far as I can recall) with QG on their talk page and on both of those occasions they have either deleted or archived the discussion or parts of it in order to prevent it from continuing. I was fully aware that the ArbCom diff had been mentioned, doesn't mean that it isn't relevant to the point I was making.Levelledout (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Summary: QuackGuru made an extremely stupid remark that he should never have made, he was roundly chastised for it repeatedly by parties from all sides, and an admin warned him not to do it again on pain of being blocked. The End.

  The rest of this is just advocacy-driven hysteria, obvious e-cig advocates and fringe science advocates trying to take out one of their opposite numbers in a content dispute, in retaliation for the suggestion of a topic ban for one of them. (That suggestion of a topic ban, incidentally, came before QG's remark or this sub0section, which AlbinoFerret shoved in here above the topic-ban section, out of chronological order, so that people reading the thread would get to it first -- an extremely good example of the kind of WP:BATTLEFIELD tactics being carried on by the e-cig advocates. [See his edit here). No admin is going to override the original admin's warning with a block, that would be, in effect, double jeopardy, so this entire section is just useless and should be closed by an uninvolved party. BMK (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, not everyone who !voted "support" is a e-cig advocate or a fringe science advocate, obviously, but the campaign to ban QG and the hysteria surrounding his remark is indeed the work of those advocates. No collusion is implied concerning the actions of those advocates - I'm certain there's no need for them to discuss between themselves taking out one of their primary antagonists. AlbinoFerret started the ball rolling, and his colleagues joined in. BMK (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The original complaint was made by Albino Ferret against QuackGuru alleging personal attacks. Therefore that's what was being discussed at the top of the thread and would seem the natural place to put the Proposed Block for QuackGuru. To claim that the thread not being in exact chronological order is going to affect the way that people vote is well, ridiculous. People might see one or the other first but it doesn't matter. Also, you argued particularly passionately that the proposal for AF was not driven mainly by involved editors and yet apparently QG's block proposal is an "advocacy-driven hysteria" "campaign". Strange.Levelledout (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Each of your responses in this section and the one below adds to the clear conclusion that you are not the neutral party you claim to be. BMK (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

OK well that is a baseless accusation that uses weasel words (I'm not the neutral party I claim to be because... just because). It's one way of neglecting to respond to reasoned argument of course, but not one that I appreciate or that I will be engaging with.Levelledout (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Any open-minded uninvolved editor will see precisely what I mean, despite your Wikilawyering. BMK (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence for serious accusations, not unsubstantiated insults. You should probably also read WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT.Levelledout (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"Disability policing" is real, and damaging, and an issue on Wikipedia: see the unsolicited comment on my talk page from an editor concerned about that exact thing. For obvious reasons, I wish someone other than me had posted about it (or that someone other than QuackGuru had made the offensive comment). I'm done commenting in this thread on the merits of a block but "disability policing" needs to be taken seriously on WP. ... P.S. Just to make my intentions clear I've changed my !vote above to "Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future". [18] --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 04:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC) added P.S. 05:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Editors are blocked when bad behaviour needs to be prevented; editors are not blocked as punishment when there is very little chance of a problem being repeated. QG has acknowledged the error, albeit not very clearly, and there is no reason to debate the issue—if there is a repeat, QG will get a lengthy block; if there isn't, a block for a single bad comment is not warranted. The comment is not part of a series of similar issues. Johnuniq (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq -- I read WP:BLOCK specifically before commenting. In a case like this, per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT, #3 would apply: some offenses are so bad that we block automatically. (#2 could also apply when an editor has a tendency to push the envelope: they may not make this mistake again, but a block may get their attention. But #3 is the main thing.) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that your considered opinion as an independent editor with a good understanding of Wikipedia's procedures, or as an acupuncturist who is very keen to have QG removed so you can promote your product unimpeded? Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Very much the former, which I think should be obvious in light of my !vote change to: "Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future". [19]. Look just a little bit above and you might even see that I mentioned this previously. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 11:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Middle 8, I'm not sure if you've seen the conversation starting after this comment by AlbinoFerret [20], but it does appear that AlbinoFerret is trying to justify their focus on e-cigs because of their disability (or extremely misunderstanding BMK's point). I'd prefer the topic of disability never even entered the conversation and focus solely on behavior here, but this kind of justification really concerns me. This is very different from questioning whether someone actually has a disability, so are you suggesting we shouldn’t question this kind of behavior I’m describing, or moreso not do what QuackGuru did specifically? This becoming a really strange situation. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: Not all that strange, really. The case against AlbinoFerrett as a SPA and civil-POV-pushing advocate is quite strong, and he's feeling the need to counter it with whatever he's got. So, even though he called for sanctions against QG for bringing up his physical disability, he obviously feels no compunction about using that physical disability as an explanation for the amount of editing he's done on e-cigarettes. What he seems not to understand is that by comparing oranges to oranges -- i.e. by dealing with percentages of his own edits as opposed to comparing the count of his edits against those of other editors -- that factor is eliminated, and has no bearing on the question. Whatever his physical disabilities are is irrelevant, because they exist when he edits an e-cig article and still exist when he edits an article on any other subject. So when I report that 67.07% of his article edits and 85.08% of his article talk page edits are on the subject of electronic cigarettes, there's no way in which any disability enters into those stats. BMK (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I just dont like numbers and innuendo being used to discredit me. AlbinoFerret 17:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kingofaces43 - QuackGuru's insult/innuendo that AlbinoFerret was lying about being disabled was completely gratuitous. All AF had said was, essentially, that their post count in the e-cig area is high partly because they're disabled and thus at home and in front of the computer a lot. There was no reason to dispute this and it was dickish and invasive to do so.

Note: I think AF's volume of posting by itself doesn't require apology, so their disability is actually irrelevant in terms of examining their edits. What matters are the kind of edits and where they are made. Re the kind of edits, I've expressed concerns over AF's persistently not grokking MEDRS. Re where edits are made, BMK is correct that what is germaine to SPA and WP:ADVOCACY is not how many total posts AF has made about e-cigs, but rather what percentage such posts comprise of his total mainspace edits. ... That said, even if AF's disability is ultimately irrelevant to this inquiry, the baseless accusation that they lied is still wrong. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Meta-comment, seed for possible essay: Disability among editors on Wikipedia needs to be addressed with common sense and respect; it should neither be used for twinkie defenses nor as a way to discredit people in any way -- including suggesting that a person is lying about it. As lie-accusations go, this is an especially bad one. When a person is simply asking for a reasonable accommodation, and not attempting to justify gross incompetence -- or is simply mentioning their disability by way of explanation of their editing style (as AF was, in above case) -- the burden they are imposing is low. Therefore it would be stupid to demand proof, and more stupid (and dickish as well) to accuse that person of lying about their disability, with no basis and with such low stakes; cf. "disability policing" (which may be one of those things, like getting called an epithet, that sounds bad but which you have to experience to know what it's really like). I hope that our norm becomes one of rejecting "disability policing" in any form. Demands of proof are bad and outright lie-accusations worse. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I pretty much agree with you entirely. No reason to ask of actual proof, but in cases like these I'd prefer not to even worry about disability and just chalk up relatively innocuous editing quirks as just that, and if something truly disruptive, it's disruptive. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose QuackGuru questioned a personal comment made by AlbinoFerret which he should not have done. But, in my judgement, this comment does not rise to the level of a block/ban. For the record, QG did not reveal or attempt to out AF in any way. Counsel him to use caution and move on. JodyB _talk 12:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block, but QG should face some admonishment for the disability-questioning comment. This is probably something that should be referred to ArbCom. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as it looks like QuackGuru was fairly neutral in what he added, and all of it was well cited. I agree that that was a very offensive comment he made, but he already received an admin warning for it, so I would consider it closed. If, however, QG does continue with personal attacks, especially of that nature, I would support a block or a referral to ArbCom. Iwilsonp (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret

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

---

User:AlbinoFerret is making a lot of comments and edits to e-cig related pages. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/AlbinoFerret&offset=&limit=500&target=AlbinoFerret See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:AlbinoFerret for previous behaviour issues. AlbinoFerret tried to hide Environmental impact section from a reliable source from the page. He eventually tried to delete some of the text.[22][23][24][25][26] AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] AlbinoFerret claims "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[35] But AlbinoFerret has not given a specific reason to exclude relevant information about safety. WP:COMPETENCE is not the issue IMO. AlbinoFerret has turned the e-cig pages into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. AlbinoFerret is not the only problematic editor at these pages. Some of the e-cig enthusiasts are not here to improve the e-cig pages. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#E-cig_editors for background information on this. Something needs to be done to prevent this from happening over and over again. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Those were edits in a content dispute. Some of them over 2 months old. This is not about content, but your actions on talk pages. AlbinoFerret 21:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is also about you deleting relevant content you find offensive. AlbinoFerret has a repeated pattern of trying to delete pertinent information about safety. AlbinoFerret is unable to formulate a logical reason for excluding the text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That is a misstatement. There are valid reasons why the content was removed all covered under talk page sections.Here is a huge one. But this isnt a content dispute, this is a discussion of harassment that happened because you decided to smear me on talk pages. As for WP:BATTLEGROUND, I think you have done enough with building over 19000 character in edits in secret for a month, not discussing any of it on the talk pages, and then adding it, and reverting it back in. On such a contentious article, that should never have happened WP:CAUTIOUS In fact looking at the pages history, you are still planning more because of recient additions, but none of them have been brought to the talk page. AlbinoFerret 22:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Albino you are digging your hole deeper by making spurious complaints. per the userpage guideline WP:UPYES it is totally fine to draft article content in userspace. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Its not spurious, but the basis of WP, Consensus. But there is no consensus in building 19000 character edits in private, and making one 16k edit at once. There was no discussion on the addition, no post on the talk pages directing the other editors to it to look over. This has been done before on the main e-cig page. Granted there is nothing wrong with building edits on a sandbox, but a edit that is 1/3rd the size of the page should have been discussed. WP:CAUTIOUS AlbinoFerret 22:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

QG, you should request some specific action that you would like the community to take - make a proposal and let folks react. You have been around long enough to know that just saying "something must be done" (passive voice) will get you no where fast. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think an indef topic ban is most appropriate rather than a short-term topic ban. It is clear that User:AlbinoFerret is not here to improve the e-cig pages. QuackGuru (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Really, and what evidence exactly do you present in support of that? Other than the fact that you have disagreements with AF over content which is neither here nor there, I can't see that you've stated any whatsoever.Levelledout (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• support indef topic ban AlbinoFerret is not here and is WP:TENDENTIOUS. And this has been going on for a long time. And I see no reason to believe it will improve. Many chances have been given and few have been taken. It's time for this to stop. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support I would support a one year topic ban. Hopefully in that time evidence will become more clear and the topic less controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Doc James. BMK (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support one year topic ban for Albinoferret. There are many issues here and AF is disrupting any genuine attempts to improve the articles, so much that it is bordering on WP:SPA. AF has previously done good work on other articles and I believe AF's and everyone else's time could be spent much better. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This is nothing more than a content dispute. With diff's gathered over months showing a content dispute. All of which have talk page sections dealing with the content link1 link2 link3. The only thing this will accomplish is silence a active editor from the article that disagrees with some content, that press releases diff should not be used for medical content or problems with the sources. In fact one post above me, Doc James, lists a reason for banning me is that "Hopefully in that time evidence will become more clear and the topic less controversial.". AlbinoFerret 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Albino "the evidence" that Doc James is referring to, is medical evidence about risks of e-cigs. I know that a huge focus of yours, has been reducing the amount of what you call "speculation" in the article... but what is, in fact, statements about the unfolding medical consensus on risks. What he meant is that when the science is more solid and the scientific debate settles, there will be less controversy, and that in a year you should have even weaker grounds on which to be disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is speculation. From the Chang, H. (2014). "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes" source, the topic of the section you linked to "No studies specifically evaluated the environmental impacts of e-cigarette manufacturing; issues related to use of resources, assembly, nicotine source, tobacco cultivation and global production". Unfolding evidence? More like a lot of opinions to me, not based on anything, and the lone "review" of its kind. Because apparently it didnt review any studies as it says none exist. Its given its own section? Huge WP:WEIGHT issue here. Being the only source of its kind, what it reviewed is, basically nothing. This is a perfect example of a content dispute, and diffs 157-161 in QuackGurus post above, which are about three months old. AlbinoFerret13:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say that the fact that you wrote the above, is a perfect example of your persistence in objecting, repeatedly and over a long period of time, to the inclusion of reasonable and well sourced content about health risks being added to the articles, by editors who are very experienced in dealing with health matters in WP. That you bring this up again, even here and now, is exactly why I support the topic ban. You know, I looked and looked, but I couldn't find a diff for this, but didn't you write somewhere that you care about this so much because your wife really needed to quit smoking and tried and tried and couldn't, and it was e-cigs that finally helped her do it? If I have that wrong, I apologize. Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say to that, that everyone is entitled to their opinions. But consensus is how WP is edited. Others have reasons to include this in the article, where it has stayed for the last three months or so. That does not mean I dont think its a WP:WEIGHT issue. It means that its included even though I think it has a weight issue. What you dont have is actions pointing to advocacy. You have a difference of opinion on content. AlbinoFerret 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think DocJames can likely speak for himself but anyway Jytdog, the "unfolding medical consensus" is basically that the short term risks are pretty low and that the long term risks should theoretically also be low. The only "speculation" is exactly how low the long-term risks are. If you are saying that in a years time it will be proven that e-cigarettes are more harmful, well that is just basically crystal-ball stuff. We shouldn't really be discussing content here, but since it seems to be being used as evidence so it seems somewhat necessary. Just demonstrates that this is a content dispute really.Levelledout (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

nope you are missing the point; this is about Albino's behavior. i won't belabor this. Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support in my view the prior proposal to topic ban AlbinoFerret (which I supported) would have succeeded, except it turned into a sprawling mess and was closed out of hopelessness. This one is squarely focused. AlbinoFerret is a WP:SPA who wages an WP:ADVOCACY campaign favorable to e-cigs, and has been relentless in opposing the addition of well-sourced content about health risks. That pattern is clear from difs above and in the prior ANI. I do not intend this to be cruel, but he has said he is housebound and edits WP to keep himself sane (which I am very sympathetic toward) but still, WP:NOTTHERAPY - and especially not when, combined with advocacy, his editing is disruptive. (I had said this to him directly before.) He is the paradigm of disruptive advocacy on this article. WP is vast - let Albino edit elsewhere and not disrupt this topic any more. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I am far from a SPA, I am a member of WikiProject Citation cleanup and also edit Bitcoin. As for WP:NOTTHERAPY, sane as in keeping active, you can only watch so many daytime talk shows or soap operas. AlbinoFerret 00:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

hatting personalization of the discussion. Out of bounds and distracting from focus of Albino's behavior Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:AlbinoFerret say his motivation is to to help bring what is known about tobacco harm reduction to the article and hopefully someone will find it useful and lessen the damage they are doing to themselves. That is contrary to the mass deletion of reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Your leaving out the part "My motivation is to help bring what is known about tobacco harm reduction to the article". Bringing out what is known about something is (through reliable sources), I hope, the goal of every WP editor. AlbinoFerret 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC) User:Jytdog, User:AlbinoFerret claims he is disabled but he previously said I know, but I am working as an election judge in early voting so I cant do as much as normal, I normally work out of my house so I am at the computer all day. I will be putting my position in later today. Does anyone really think he is disabled? QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC) I do get out every so often, and helping short term as a election judge is something I try to do. You would be surprised at the number of disabled people who work as election judges. I would be happy to send to an uninvolved admin a letter from Social security stating I am disabled. AlbinoFerret 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per Jytdog. I don't have a strong opinion about the duration, but a year seems about right. Bishonen | talk 00:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC).

Changed my mind about the duration, per Kevin Gorman below. I support an indefinite ban with the option to appeal after a year. Bishonen | talk 13:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

• Oppose The situation has to be understood in the context of the protracted, bitter content dispute that is e-cigarette articles. It has already been said several times that topic-banning AF would help. Yes it would help, it would help those editors that have been in a content dispute with AF for months on end. I think almost everybody who has supported this proposal so far is either moderately or highly involved in the said content dispute. I think that AF has raised some genuine issues here, did in fact originally raise some genuine issues on the article talk page with QG going about things in a covert way and dumping 20k edits into articles without so much as notification. QG attacked AF on the article page which according to WP:PERSONAL is not allowed. For this to be turned back round on AF is very harsh and unjust I think. It also seems to be almost entirely without substance.Levelledout (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Considering that 57% of your edits (257/450 - with 233 to Talk:Electronic cigarette???) are to articles or talk pages about electronic cigarettes, it seems not impossible that you are a SPA as well, perhaps one with a COI. BMK (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Since when is a roughly 50/50 (haven't been bothered to check the exact amount) split between e-cig and other articles considered a single purpose account? What about editors that edit medical articles far more than I actually edit e-cig articles? Or is that perfectly OK I take it? Your COI accusation is spurious, groundless and you have no right to make it. Helps deflect some attention and blame though I suppose.Levelledout (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

So, you don't think that 57% of your edits going to one very specific subject – electronic cigarettes – and 43% going to a variety of other topics is an pretty good indication that you're here primarily to edit about that one subject? I would beg to differ, I think it's a damn good marker. It's not like your 57% is going to some broad area, like military history, or New York City or films, it's going to electronic cigarettes.

Like Bishonen, whose comment is just below this, I don't believe that any of my edits has been to articles on that subject (but I could be wrong, with over 150,000 edits you do lose track of a few in the course of almost 10 years), but I know advocacy when I see it ... and I've got pretty good radar for SPAs and socks as well. 16:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've already told you what I think so I'll leave it at that for now. I'm not sure what you having made 150,000 edits and being on Wikipedia for 10 years has got to do with anything either.Levelledout (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You "think" almost everyone who has supported the topic ban is involved in the content dispute? Please don't hazard tendentious guesses about things that could be checked with a little research. Here, I'll help you with one item: I for my part have barely heard of e-cigarettes. I'm supporting the topic ban because I can recognize advocacy, at least when it's as obvious as this. Bishonen | talk 12:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC).

I did not do an in depth analysis before I posted of course, nor can you reasonably expect me to before every post. But I do know that of the posters above QuackGuru (the proposer of the ban) and Doc James are highly involved and Cloudjpk, CFCF and Jytdog have all contributed to e-cig articles and have tended to be on the opposing side of the content dispute to Albino Ferret.Levelledout (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, actually, we can expect you to do some due diligence before you make claims about other editors' motivations. BMK (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said clearly enough for you to understand I knew with a reasonable degree of certainty that 5/7 editors were involved all along. I thought it was probably 6/7, hence "almost all" which was an approximation. Nobody was mentioned personally and it turned out to be 5/7. Big deal. Can we move on from this nonsense now please?Levelledout (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's "nonsense", it your nonsense, not mine. Are all the supporting editors below also sworn enemies of AlbinoFerret? If not, doesn't that change your !vote, since it was based on the supposed involvement of the supporting editors? And since you're on the other side of the debate as an SPA, should we discount your !vote as you would like us to discount those editors above who you say are involved?

No, what was nonsense was your initial comment, which appears to me to have been disingenuous. BMK (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Despite the fact that you obviously do not accept this, I am entitled to my original opinion. I stand by it and with all due respect, do not care what you think.Levelledout (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

hatting discussion no longer relevant with indef blocking of sock BMK (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
comment removed per WP:EVADE @InfiniteBratwurst: So, you took your 56 edits and your vast 9 weeks of Wikipedia experience and went looking into other editor's block logs in order to come here, !vote oppose, and poison some wells with the dirty little secrets you uncovered there? (How does an editor with 56 edits find out about block logs, anyway? I was here for quite a while before I heard about them.) You complain that the editors supporting the topic ban are involved in a content dispute with AF, but you don't mention that the article you have edited the most. with more than double the edits of the next-most article, is Safety of electronic cigarettes, that its talk page is the one you've edited the most, the seoncd-most being Talk:Electronic cigarette -- but I assume you'll tell us that, unlike the other editors commenting here, you are uninvolved, you are totally neutral, and your vote is in no way influenced by your personal views. Everyone else's is, of course, but not yours. BMK (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC) comment removed per WP:EVADE Wow!!!! 9 weeks here, less than 60 edits, and you cite an obscure essay from Meta. The closing admin should note with pride what an extremely knowledgeable newbie InfiniteBratwurst is!!!! BMK (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC) comment removed per WP:EVADE Oh, I think pointing out your very interesting, if short, history is quite constructive indeed. BMK (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC) User:Beyond My Ken, InfiniteBratwurst is actually CheesyAppleFlake. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:CheesyAppleFlake. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC) comment removed per WP:EVADE QuackGuru if there is a case to be made, please make it at WP:SPI and post here. Otherwise please don't add distraction. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Yup once you have SPI confirmation you can discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC) BMK, you've been around since 2009 (aren't you an admin, and weren't you an Arb?) At any rate why are you still this rankly clueless about commenting on content not contributors? Is NPA just deprecated? You've done this before [36] -- what is your problem? You know very well that some editors make CLEANSTART accounts and that is their business. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC) @Middle8. Wrong on every count. I've had an account here since June 2005, started editing shortly before that as an IP (see this for the thumbnail of my history). I've never been an admin (perish the thought!), don't want to be an admin, will almost uncertainly never be an admin, and would be an absolutely lousy admin if someone forced me to do it. And, of course, I've never been an Arbitrator. I have no idea who you are thinking of, but it ain't me. Comment on content, not contributors? Sure, in general, great concept, but this is the place where the community examines behavior, and not just the behavior of the subject of the thread. If someone pops up to comment with an editing history that looks very much like they're a SPA, or have a COI, edit with a distinct POV to push, are someone's sock, or were canvassed on- or off-Wiki to participate, those are facts that need to be brought forward, because they can (and should!) mitigate the value of that user's comment. It's completely valid to point that stuff out, and as long as people continue to take advantage of Wikipedia to promote whatever it is they're promoting, whether or not they're paid for it, I'm going to keep pointing it out. BMK (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC) BTW WP:CLEANSTART may be one of the most abused Wikipedia policies around. Any user who is making a clean start should be obligated to say so when questioned with good reason about their editing, and to report to a CU of their choice the name of their previous account to be checked to be sure they aren't evading a block or are a sockpuppet of a banned editor. A clean start should never be a license for serial misbehavior, which is what I'm afraid it most probably is utilized for. BMK (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC) I must have you confused with some other editor, sorry. Yes, an editor's history matters to an extent if counting !votes, but otherwise their comments rise or fall on the merits. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 04:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Whatever good AlbinoFerret does tending the electronic cigarette articles is outweighed by the persistent puffing-up of e-cigs as safer than apple pie. Since September 2014, AF has made 2000 talk page comments at the three e-cig articles, and 250 comments here at ANI—it's time to look for other topics. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Please provide the diffs where I said they are safe as apple pie or any place where I said they were completely safe. As for edit counts, anyone who looks at the logs knows I rarely make complete edits, I always correct them or add to them, on average taking 4 edits to make a comment. I have tried to preview more, but total edits show nothing. AlbinoFerret 15:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Send to ArbCom - This has been going on from time to time for months. This is the sort of content dispute compounded by conduct issues (tendentious editing) for which a full evidentiary hearing by ArbCom works better than letting the loudest editors at a noticeboard establish consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon i hear you that this may end up at Arbcom but that is a step of last resort. The way this place is set up we are meant to handle what we can at lower levels. I think there is a reasonable case for a topic ban for Albino - this is not about "loudest" but rather based on a clear focus on the behavior of one user. Focus (hard to maintain here, I know) is essential. Please reconsider. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support (Disclosure: AF has supported sanctions against me in another ongoing RFc. But I have supported a topic ban for AF on this topic on several previous occassions). The problem here is that many of the editors on this article are here to advocate for electronic cigarettes rather than being here to build an encyclopedia. I think AF is basically a good guy, but it is not healthy for the encyclopedia to have editors who spend 8 or more hours a day focused on making sure that a single article projects a specific POV. I'll add that I would support a similar topic ban for any editor for whom edits to electronic cigarette articles comprise more than 60% of their total edits over the last 3 months. Its not personal, its just that this article has attracted too many editors who are there to promote a specific POV. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per the reasons stated by Levelledout. This is part content dispute and part piling on by those with a particular POV. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Not involved in the articles themselves or the content dispute aside from commenting on a few posts brought to WP:RSN. I wouldn't suggest any longer than a year for a ban though as it's generally better to give people a chance. The idea that this is just a content dispute so the behavior issues should be ignored is extremely disingenuous. There are also involved editors here who oppose the ban on grounds of it being a "content dispute", but behavior problems are behavior problems whether there is a content dispute or not. It's apparent there is a problem here with AF considering how much they focus on the topic. One could argue whether they fit the criteria of an WP:SPA or not with brief edits in a couple other articles, but there is definitely advocacy apparent here. Uninvolved editors here are seeing that problem, so I'd highly suggest weighing that when determining community consensus. I do agree with Robert McClenon that the topic will probably need to be considered at ArbCom at some point, but this is one user that keeps coming up and seems like it could be handled here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Very weak support There are probably enough behavioral problems amongst many editors that an arbitration case would be the best way to settle this. Otherwise, I think a topic ban is an acceptable bandaid, though I'd argue for a shorter duration, like 6 months, and revisit a more long term solution if the behavior resumes. AniMate 20:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban of one year for Albino Ferret from discussing the subject of Electronic cigarettes on any page in the English Wikipedia. The reason is largely the one given by Bishonen (overly intense advocacy). Possibly one or more other users will need a topic ban too. Cardamon (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of 3 months (preferred) or 1 year from articles on electronic cigarettes, broadly construed, but not indefinite. AF shows some signs of wanting to edit other articles, let's see some evidence of constructive contributions outside this topic area. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is clearly a content dispute with both sides unwilling to reach a compromise. The "evidence" presented by QuackGuru isn't very strong. One could also take Bishonen's argument of WP:ADVOCACY and apply it to QuackGuru, since his recent contributions suggest that he has been engaging in a campaign unfavorable to e-cigarettes. As far as I can tell, none of the diffs violate any of Wikipedia's policies. I do see a strong case for banning QuackGuru though: This comment by QG is clearly targeted against AF's personal life, and the edit summary is not just inappropriate, but also inexplicably cruel and disgusting. -A1candidate 11:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

!vote above doesn't deal with Albino's behavior but rather attempts to focus on QG's- classic rhetorical move. This is a proposal about Albino's long term disruptive behavior as evidenced in the prior ANI (which lost focus) and additional diffs above. Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

None of the diffs presented violate any of WP's policies, as far as I can tell. -A1candidate 13:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

again hatting squabble between 2 main antagonists here Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, this is not clearly a content dispute as A1candidate suggests. A1candidate is repeatedly making blanket reverts of reputable organizations and reviews.[37][38] This disruption of blanket reverts by A1candidate should not be allowed to continue. A1candidate, I recommend you take a voluntary short-term topic ban from the page. A1candidate, are you going to continue make blanket reverts? QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC) One might want to look at the size of the edits (18,711 characters) trying to edit in sources that were the topic of a (still ongoing) RFC. That at the time was almost 1/2 the size of the existing page. The comments on the edits were directing people to the talk pages. This wasnt blanket removal, this was a few editors (QuackGuru, CFCF, and Cloudjpk) trying to force a mammoth edit on the page during a discussion of the sources used. Looking at the history makes it all the more clear. This is purely a content dispute. Where one side wants to discuss things, and others just want to get it in. AlbinoFerret 18:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Remember the talk page discussion? I wrote "User:AlbinoFerret, you were asked "Are there issues with the sources or the summary of said sources?" So far you have not specifically explained which new sources are a concern to justify your blanket revert and there is a clear consensus for the the positions of the organisations."[39] You repeatedly deleted a number of sources including reviews without any logical reason. User:AlbinoFerret, do you agree you are going to stop making blanket reverts? QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC) @QuackGuru, please stop making these baseless accusations against me. I'm surprised that you would want to enforce a "voluntary short-term topic ban" on me, given that I have made minimal contributions to this the article so I am not sure what that would achieve. -A1candidate 18:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC) @QuackGuru, This is a constant problem, WP:IDHT. I answered you why I thought a press release was not usable. link and that sources that are WP:Tertiary should not be used for medical content. These sources (the subject of your second set of diffs) were already on a sister page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Where they are appropriate, this isnt removing content and blocking, but a discussion on the location WP:ONUS. This is a fine point of WP, and I dont think you get. Your link to a blanket revert is part of the mammoth edit I posted on a reply ago, You made an almost 20000 character edit to a controversial page with no discussion, after planning it for almost a month in a sandbox without discussing it at any time. Again taking WP:Tertiary sources from the sister page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Where they have never been removed. If you look in the edit comments, you will see I quoted WP:CAUTIOUS and noted that no discussions have happened. There is even a talk page section started by me on the topic. AlbinoFerret 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban having reviewed this whole mess over the last half hour. My only 'involvement' with e-cigarettes was thinking someone's looked hilarious at Wikimedia DC's GLAM bootcamp. As is generally the case with tbans, Albino would still be able to raise the situation before arbcom if desired. I don't think a time limit has a purpose since plenty of people just take an editing vacation until their tban expires and come back just as problematic as they were before, but AF could appeal it in the future after spending time productively contributing elsewhere on WP. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Good point. I agree, indef with the option to appeal is better. Bishonen | talk 13:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

• Could you show me a single diff (as presented by QuackGuru) that actually violated an established guideline? -A1candidate 13:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• See WP:BATTLE for a start. My own view is that both editors should be topic banned. You, yourself, could stand to read and reflect upon WP:IDHT. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because two people are involved in a battle doesn't make both of them are aggressors. I do not see any single edit by AF violating a policy or guideline. -A1candidate 14:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose witchhunts and general attempts to silence opponenets. Someone needs to stand up to this nonsense.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

distraction; not focused on Albino's behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))

How is resisting the POV-pushing by QuackGuru a form of advocacy? Please explain. -A1candidate 14:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of at least a year. I am uninvolved with the topic. To the best of my recollection, I have never edited anything to do with electronic cigarettes, but I can recognize disruptive behavior in support of a POV when I see it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not convinced there have been any policy violations, or BF editing, or PAs that would constitute firm measures for behavioral issues. I see disagreement, and certainly hope disagreement or an opposing view doesn't warrant a block or ban these days. Atsme☯^Consult 23:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

the difs for long term behavioral issues are clear. I do understand, Atsme, why you be sympathetic to someone opposing the application of MEDRS, since you would support having positive content on the cancer-fighting powers of amygdalin in WP, using sources like naturalnews, per this. You, at least have been doing that only on Talk, and have not been editing warring over it for months now, as Albino has. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The only warring originates with you Jytdog, as demonstrated by your behavior here and now with a PA against me for expressing an opinion where I'm supposed to be expressing an opinion. Unfortunately, your biotech POV is imposed on editors wherever you go. Please try to understand WP:FRINGE is a guideline, not a policy. Atsme☯^Consult 13:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support for the same reasons as the last forty-'leven times this topic-ban proposal has come up. Closing admin should pay careful attention to whether some of these !votes are from SPAs or near-SPAs and are possibly voting on subject matter as opposed to behavior. Zad68 03:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support, perhaps a month, then another chance on a short leash. Per this and others, does not (or will not) understand MEDRS; should by now. Not the only disruptive party but disruptive nonetheless. (Note also QuackGuru's repugnant slur against AF, where he accused AF of lying about their disability. Should be an instant block for that, lengthened by aggravating circumstances: block log, experience). Oppose> - Looks mainly like a content dispute to me, with the conduct issues on both sides -- no way can just one side of the e-cig wars could be accused of WP:OWN and WP:TE. And lest process trump content, from what I can see the dangers are being exaggerated unduly and relative to conventional cigarettes by QuackGuru et. al., and AlbinoFerret and others are correct in trying to limit this POV-pushing. No, I don't like some of AlbinoFerret's exaggerations and misunderstandings of policy here (re which e.g. Jytdog has commented). But However, I see that at least two of the editors calling for a topic ban (and among the quickest to do so) are also heavily involved in the impasse/polarization in this topic area. All the kettles need to simmer down; suggest 1RR/week for all concerned or something like that. Mentorship/probation for AlbinoFerret on the stuff mentioned (especially MEDRS and WP:OPPONENT) when they come back. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 15:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC) changed !vote, added a bit 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Middle 8 this thread is focused on AlbinoFerrets' behavior. Things like this end up at Arbcom when the community fails to manage them. The most common way the community fails is that it loses focus when discussing complex issues or disputes. (you have seen that happen, as when you brought an RfC/U against Quackguru). There is no doubt that AlbinoFerret has been a key participant in the longterm battleground. Many, many diffs showing that. The community can handle disputes like this, if it focuses. If you want to start a thread on some other individual involved, please do so. But please do not distract from the issue at hand. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, Jytdog. (And it's interesting how many of the editors who contributed so tenaciously to the loss of focus in the QG RfC are suddenly so able to stay focused on AF, yet lose focus when it comes to QG. One would almost think there was systemic bias afoot.) Looking at the merits: Which diffs? Going from QG's thread-starter, the two links to ANI threads are weak [40][41] Re QG's other diffs: Just because AF removes stuff QG added is not prima facie evidence of misconduct -- far from it; I see a lot of UNDUE. AF's removing the WMA however is not good. And I see a pattern of OWN in both QG and AF, worse in QG. Is that it? Where can I find a good, concise summary of the most obvious diffs? Or maybe you or someone could just paste in the five worst ones? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 16:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

update: OK, although the evidence in the thread-starter first ANI is weak, I see more that you and others provided in the comments (yours: scrolling to: "Support topic ban - Albino has gone on a tear now..."). Having a look now. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, your example (of AF writing about pharma companies lobbying to have e-cigs treated as medical devices) would indeed be a compelling instance of twisting a source [42] (just as Mallexikon showed QG did with GERAC, which you were one of the only editors to grok). Except: AF explains [43] (supported with diffs) that the passage they wrote was originally sourced to a different source [44] that the passage indeed summarized accurately. (I don't care for his ABF-ing and calling your characterization "twisting" of what happened, but they wouldn't be the first to run hot under pressure on a drama board.) I'll keep looking. If there's a smoking gun -- besides fighting over including WMA, which is bad, but alone not imo worth a ban either -- I'm not seeing it. I see general TE (which is at least as bad with QG); I don't see it as over the top: is this a situation like QG where those who know AF well gnash their teeth in frustration but have so far failed to build a strong case? If not, can you help, and point me to the good evidence? It's a lot to go through. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 20:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for considering more carefully. QG's first link above - Albino's contribs, demonstrate he is a SPA on e-cigarettes; this is not ambiguous. Per WP:SPA, SPA editors are often agenda-driven. The next link is the old ANI case, and I see you are digging through that. I'll just pick one diff from there (of what are many) namely this, where AF's edit notes was "emove older study that newer ones find answers to", but what we did, was remove a source (a review of the literature) that described the lack of good evidence for harm reduction and risks of e-cigs, dated 2013, and moving up 2 practice guidelines, one dated 2014 and the other dated 2013, which each recommend e-cigs for harm reduction. (note he left the 2013 ref... why, in his reasoning?) but in any case these are different kinds of sources (and there has been tension in project Medicine about how to WEIGHT practice guidelines vs reviews of the evidence) and they don't cancel each other out. The reasoning was bogus or incompetent, but the effect was to eliminate what AF calls "speculation" about the risks. That is the crux of his agenda in those articles. That ANI case was back in November. If you look at the next difs provided by QG, you will see that agenda being enacted in each edit. Using article-comment notation to hide the "Environmental effects" section (mostly about risks) with edit note that "it is trivia"' removing facts about risks stated in WP's voice on the basis that they must be attributed (that is how pejoratively he has come to view discussion of risks - that it is so perjorative that it must be attributed)... etc. He is a disruptive and persistent presence. Hence the topic ban. Which looks like it will succeed, so far. I think it is objectively on point. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

yeah the thing about lobbying was really frustrating. [[45] his original source] was an opinion piece and of course we prefer straight reporting over opinion pieces (he could have cited the opinion piece, attributing it, yes). but what we really got my goat was that the NYT reporting (the more reliable source) was unambiguous in emphasizing the victory of the e-cig lobbyists. so twisted. and adding the rhetorically self-righteous stuff about the COI of pharma with their lobbyists... when all lobbyists are nakedly self-interested. just... argh. on that whole thing. But of a piece with the pattern of relentless pro-e-cigarette editing. its the pattern. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, AF clearly doesn't/can't/won't grok MEDRS and there is a pattern. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 20:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

side discussion that went sideways and has become distracting in-fighting Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Middle_8 Am I perfect, No. Have I made mistakes, yes. Have I learned from them, I think I have. What you have here is two examples Jtydog has found. What he doesnt have is a pattern of me repeating those mistakes. The first diff is from October 2014, I had taken almost a year off from editing wikipedia, and almost 6 years since I was active. I had never editied a page with medical rules. I made a mistake and replaced a source and edited out a comment. I learned from that experience and have not done that again. As for using WP:TRIVIA In November of that year, well the reason Jtydog can find it so quick is he was the one who misused it on me first. Was it a mistake to not research its use first? Yes, have I done the same things again? No. AlbinoFerret 23:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC) But there is a pattern, cf. the diffs QG has at the top, and they're not only undue weight (though I agree this has been a problem and commend you for pushing back, within reason). QG's first diff after "AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources": [46]; those are MEDRS, and you really should know that by now. Sorry, but MEDRS is one thing I don't IAR on. Take a break (short I hope) and come back, and grok MEDRS and try to take to WP:OPPONENT to heart and lung. Wishing you well. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 00:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Middle_8 You may want to look closely at the World Lung Federation, at the top of the page is a gold bar clearly labelling it a press release. I am not the only editor that was against using WP:Tertiary sources for medical claims. There is even a ongoing RFC on the subject. Until that edit they had only been used on the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes sister page, both of which were one time part of the Health section of Electronic cigarette, split off at the same time by Doc James. Up until QG's edit there was a defacto standard/agreement of only using reviews for medical claims on e-cig pages (read the first link), thats why the RFC was started. AlbinoFerret 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC) There NEVER was a consensus to use only using reviews for medical claims on e-cig pages. We don't have different rules for e-cig pages. There is a long standing WP:CON to include other sources including WHO, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the World Lung Foundation. See Electronic_cigarette#Position_of_medical_organizations. Also see Electronic_cigarette#Harm_reduction for other sources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that are not reviews. User:AlbinoFerret, claiming that only reviews can be used for medical claims runs against WP:MEDORG. The RfC resulted in WP:SNOW. See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Positions. You also deleted other sources including a formal policy statement. After you could not delete the reliable source you then added context that was inappropriate.[47][48][49] See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_1#Original_research_2. You, User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, and User:Levelledout appeared to be against using the formal policy statement written in a peer-reviewed journal for medical claims. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_21#Policy_Statement_from_the_American_Association_for_Cancer_Research_and_the_American_Society_of_Clinical_Oncology. Your last edit to the safety page was to delete even more sources including a number of reviews. So what is your reason to make a full revert back to an old version while delete a number of sources including reviews? We want to know the WP:TRUTH. QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC) The facts are clear as can be, if anyone looks at the article when it was copied over from the Electronic cigarette article. Before you started editing it on your own because of the activity on the main page kept us busy. You started adding non review quality sources for medical claims. You will notice that reviews and formal policy statements in peer reviewed journals (review quality) are all that existed. AlbinoFerret 02:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Let's review according to your diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625 See WHO: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-WHOPosition2014_8-0 See US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-FDA_nitrosamines_13-0 See The UK National Health Service https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-nhs_17-0 These sources are not reviews but they are reliable according to WP:MEDORG. QuackGuru (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from e-cig related articles. Per Bishonen, I see obvious advocacy. Assuming good faith, I feel that both the articles and AF would benefit from him spending his wiki-time on other topics for the foreseeable future. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose action against AlbinoFerret or QuackGuru via ANI - This should go to Arbcom. Considering the e-cigarette dispute keeps popping up at ANI and has apparently gone on for so long now, and also considering there have been concerns raised regarding conduct of multiple users, this should go to arbcom where evidence can be carefully evaluated by those uninvolved. Seems binding solutions are needed at e-cegarette.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This thread is focused on AlbinoFerret's behavior. We can manage this at ANI if people bring clear cases and responders focus on the question at hand. Here, it is AF's behavior. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))

• Procedural oppose There are two main culprits in this current shitstorm. If the community lacks the cojones to sanction QG, who is the main culprit, and is content to let him off with a weak "warning" (how many warnings is that now?) it is against natural justice to sanction AF. I tend to agree with the view that arbitration will be the way forward here. A lynch mob at AN/I probably won't do it on this occasion. --John (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Question: I see several people opposing a topic ban on the ground that the whole QuackGuru – AlbinoFerret thing should go to RFAR instead. Is anybody actually planning or working on an RFAR submission? John, BoboMeowCat, Robert McClenon, for instance? This question is not meant as criticism, as nobody is obliged to spend time on anything on Wikipedia beyond what they want to, and filing RFAR's is a bugger, with the diffs and so on. Just, it would be convenient to know, and may affect the outcome of this thread. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC).

I have the same question, and I don't think any of the "procedural opposers" have any intention of filing on ArbCom. I do not think this issue is a QG/AF issue, but rather the immensely problematic editing history of AlbinoFerret, whose entire edit history since September 2014 is the most egregious example of relentless disruptive WP:SPA advocacy I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for at least six months to a year. His edits and endless disruptive discussions on the subject are simply far too POV and tendentious, disrupting the progress of the entire subject and the articles it encompasses. It does seem like blatant advocacy. Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a draconian solution at this point - especially since the air is rather full of smog because of misbehaviour by QG at this point. Suggest that such issues at that point be addressed to the Arbitration Committee, which will slow down everything in all likelihood. Collect (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The diffs are all presented and the question is clear, with respect to AlbinoFerret. Please take the time to focus on AF's behavior, which is the topic of this discussion. Thanks. There is a separate (malformed) section for QG above. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))

• (Non-administrator comment) I am heavily involved in the topic at hand having spent a long time editing the e-cigarette article pretty heavily and having clashed with QG and AF. I think in the case of both editors the battleground that e-cig has become has brought out a negative side to their WP editing, in QG this is found in WP:OWN and IDHT, in AF it's more ADVOCACY and leaning towards SPA as it becomes more and more a focus of attention. The large proportion of AF's edits being on the Talk pages of e-cig articles rather than the article themselves reflects, in my eyes, his attempt to bring some form of consensus to article improvements rather than riding roughshod over the opinions and policies of WP. A topic ban, in the short term, may make things better. I certainly think AF taking a vacation from the article may be good for AF's stress levels. But the root problem is that e-cig, and the daughter articles, are battlegrounds where a lot of people are shouting, and nobody's [well not quite nobody] listening. I don't know whether ArbCom can do something to help in this matter but banning AF from the page will not reduce the amount of problems there. SPACKlick (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per InfiniteBratwurst. I used to be involved, but haven't edited any of the articles in several months. I've been slightly active on their talk pages, though. EllenCT (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Infinitebratwurst's !vote was not based on looking at the diffs of AlbinoFerret's behavior and thinking about them in light of PAG, so that !vote should not count for the closer, and neither should this one. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))

• Note. It's been a problem previous times that this has come up that those involved in the dispute separate into obvious camps but are pretty vocal. Out of curiosity I checked the history of the users posting in this section and their edit count on whatever e-cig talk page had the highest edits (doesn't indicate time of involvement):

AlbinoFerret: 1641; QuackGuru: 630; Cloudjpk: Not available but has edited at the article a bit 141.; Doc James: 490; BMK: 0; CFCF: 151; Jytdog: 91; Bishonen: 0; Levelledout: 233; InfiniteBratwurst: 10 (relatively new w/ 77 total edits); Johnuniq: 13; Robert McClenon: 0; Formerly 98: 148; Winkelvi: 0; Kingofaces43: 3 (RFC and RSN post replies); AniMate: 0; Cardamon: 0; JzG: 0 ; A1candidate: 22; Kevin Gorman: 0; Two kinds of pork: 0; Cullen328: 0; Atsme: 0; Zad68: 203; Middle 8: 0; RexxS: 0; BoboMeowCat: 0; John: 0; Softlavender: 0; Collect: 0; EllenCT: 84.

Obviously I'm not suggesting to ignore those involved, but I always lose track of who's actually been involved in the article whenever this comes up here, at RSN, etc. Figured it might be helpful for others trying gauge the situation too. If not, just more text and numbers for the wall. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's the same data presented in a different way:

• AlbinoFerret: 1641
• QuackGuru: 630
• Doc James: 490
• Levelledout: 233
• Zad68: 203
• CFCF: 151
• Formerly 98: 148
• Cloudjpk: 141 (note: fixed)
• Jytdog: 91 (note: fixed)
• EllenCT: 84

 

• A1candidate: 22
• Johnuniq: 13
• InfiniteBratwurst: 10 (relatively new w/ 77 total edits)
• Kingofaces43: 3 (RFC and RSN post replies)

 

• AniMate: 0
• Atsme: 0
• BoboMeowCat: 0
• BMK: 0
• Bishonen: 0
• Cardamon: 0
• Collect: 0
• Cullen328: 0
• John: 0
• JzG: 0
• Kevin Gorman: 0
• Middle 8: 0
• RexxS: 0
• Robert McClenon: 0
• Softlavender: 0
• Two kinds of pork: 0
• Winkelvi: 0

BMK (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I wanted to try to keep it as condensed as possible, but I normally don't tinker with tables here, so I didn't think of that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wonder why you left Cloudjpk's data out? They have 112 edits (80.576% of mainspace edits) to e-cig articles and 176 edits (100% of talk space edits) to those articles talks. In total 83.965% of Cloudjpk's edits have been to e-cigarette articles. Significantly more than even AlbinoFerret. SPACKlick (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The edit count cool was acting really wonky when I tried to search Cloudjpk's history. It essentially said the user had no edits whatsoever yesterday, which I knew was incorrect. Today it looks like it is working now. No idea what causes that, but I've heard to tool can act funny sometimes. I've updated the info on my post and made the minor change to BMK's table as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I am involved in the articles, but not to the extent the raw numbers show. On average it takes 4 or more edits on a comment for me to get it right. I seldom make a perfect edit or comment and leave. Any view of the histories will show this. I think that numbers only tell part of the story. AlbinoFerret 22:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You are not "involved" in the articles, you are ***INVOLVED*** with the articles. Articles on e-cigarettes make up the first (Electronic cigarette - 466 edits, 55.47% of your total article edits), second (Safety of electronic cigarettes - 82 edits, 9.7%} and fifth (Legal status of electronic cigarettes - 23 edits, 2.7%) in the list of articles you've edited most, making up a total of 67.97% of your article edits. The list of article talk pages you've edited has Talk:Electronic cigarette as #1, with 1641 edits, 69.35% of your talk page edits, Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes as #2 (293, 12.38%), Talk:Legal status of electronic cigarettes as #5 (72, 3.04%), for a total of 85.08% of your talk page edits (that includes 7 other edits on the subject in archives.)

These numbers -- 67.07% of article edits and 85.08% of article talk page edits -- most certainly live in SPA territory. It's clear what subject you're here to edit, and crystal what your position is on it. That's the "obvious advocacy" that several very experienced editors have commented on, and that's why a topic ban is appropriate. BMK (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your label as a SPA. I tend to post more to articles I'm interested in, nothing strange there. Your raw numbers tell nothing and I disagree with the spin. I would also like to point out that slightly over half of my editing is on talk pages. Discussing and trying to make the articles better. If you take into account the number of edits I make to a specific edit or comment, it isnt that large. You seem to have some attraction to this section, and seem to post an awful lot here. AlbinoFerret 01:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

My calculations show that AlbinoFerret has made over 2890 edits on the topic of e-cigs to talk pages (or noticeboards) since 30 September 2014—over 17 talk-page edits per day for 164 days. That is beyond enthusiasm and is unhealthy for other editors, particularly in a contentious topic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

How many of those were to the same comment or edit? How many editors you are comparing me to are disabled and sit at their computer because they cant easily leave the house? AlbinoFerret 01:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: If QuackGuru cannot, and should not, bring up your physical status in his arguments, then you, also, should not cite it as a mitigating factor -- not that it makes any difference, really. Presumably you have the same difficulties while editing an article or talk page on e-cigarettes as you do when editing an article or talk page on some other subject, so the percentages I cited above, which are not "raw numbers" -- 67.07% of article edits and 85.08% of article talk page edits on the subject of electronic cigarettes -- have nothing whatsoever to do with your physical state. Please don't bring up that red herring again. BMK (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thats wrong, QuackGuru made harassing statements about my disability. But its a fact of life, one you obviously dont want discussed because it shows that your numbers have no basis for comparison. What you have are large numbers and innuendo. Please point me to the policy or guideline that speaks on the number of posts one is allowed to make.

They are raw numbers because they dont take into account the number of edits I make to the same comment or edit. Your comments are bordering very close on harassment if not going over the line by trying to say that my physical status has no bearing on my editing here. It is something you cant possibly have knowledge of.

Number of posts do not equal advocacy. AlbinoFerret 02:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you not understand percentages? Unless you edit e-cig articles differently than you edit all other articles, the numbers are not raw, they're relative to your overall output. BMK (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Since you ignored this, I will ask a second time. Please point me to the policy or guideline that speaks on the number of posts one is allowed to make. Number of posts do not equal advocacy WP:ADVOCACY neither do percentages. AlbinoFerret 12:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, percentages are a good measure of advocacy (and SPA) by showing that an editor is focusing too much on one topic. Using a percentage would account for your tendency to make copy edits and simply show what area you edit the most relative to your total contributions here. There's really no arguing with those numbers. Physical disability should be playing no role in this specific conversation because it should not be making you focus so much on one topic like this. It's one thing to have a lot of time available (which we've discussed on my talk page), but it's that your time is concentrated into one area that is the problem people have repeatedly brought up here. Maybe you're not seeing that, but BMK is actually being pretty well reasoned above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that I am editing an article that is interesting to me, and that some people want me to edit other articles more. Where might I find the policy or guideline that says you must edit x number of articles? I dont think editing articles that dont intrest me is something that should be forced. When I find a subject I find interesting, I edit the article. But I think you are misapplying advocacy. Advocacy isnt posting to much to one article. AlbinoFerret 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Gimme a break, AlbinoFerret. A lot of my edits consist of correcting my own typos or copy editing my own comments to make my thoughts clearer. That is common. But any objective uninvolved editor can look at the totality of my edits, and they will conclude that I am a generalist editor. Then, they can look at the totality of your edits, and they will see with crystal clarity that you are here to advance a certain point of view about e-cigarettes. Please do not try to deny what is obvious to any intelligent objective person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No, they show I post a lot. I have been editing Bitcoin for a month and have made 216 edits to the page and talk page. About 7 a day, when I am interested in a topic, I post and discuss it and try and improve the article. I am not here to advance a specific point of view on e-cigarettes, and the number of posts doesnt prove that. (added afterwards - This no intelligent person is starting to sound like No True Scotsman argument) AlbinoFerret 02:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in marginal topics like e-cigarettes and bitcoins, so I don't feel like reading this megillah. Can you show me a link where QuackGuru harassed you about your stated handicap? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Since you asked, its easly found under his topic with plenty of discussion on the topic, but you can find it here. AlbinoFerret 03:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bugs: See the section above this. My synopsis: QuackGuru make a remark that he absolutely shouldn't have, was roundly criticized for it by editors from all sides, and got warned by an admin who told him if he did it again he'd be blocked. The End.

Oh, wait a minute... the e-cig and fringe science advocates seized on it as a sideshow to distract everyone from the proposed topic ban against AlbinoFerret, inserted a new section calling for QuackGuru to be blocked above the topic-ban section, out of chronological order (so innocent editors would come across it first) and have been trying their best ever since to whip up a frenzy to block QG, not only because he is one of the stalwart editors preventing fringe science from infecting WP, but because it helps keep people from focusing on the topic ban necessary to prevent AlbinoFerret from continuing his advocacy for e-cigarettes. Up there (the section above) is a sideshow, down here is the real deal. BMK (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru's comment was rude and condescending, and shouldn't have been said. But it's possible he's thinking back on some users we've had who claimed to be handicapped (ItsLassieTime comes to mind) and it was one of that prolific sockpuppeteer's many lies. So it's not unreasonable to have suspicions like that. But it's best to keep those suspicions to oneself until or if an appropriate time arises. However, disabled users shouldn't expect any special treatment, and in fact they probably ought not even bring up the subject. "TMI". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's better for people to keep unsavory information like that in the closet.^[sarcasm] Or, wild idea, we could afford people with disabilities reasonable accommodations (as is done in many civilized places to varying degrees) and not be dicks to them, including not engaging in "disability policing". --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not about keeping "unsavory" information "in the closet". It's about not using one's handicap as an excuse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, AlbinoFerret didn't bring up his disability in such a way as to suggest he should be excused for anything. If I recall correctly, QC did bring up AFs disability, and did it in a manner that was intended to discredit AF, distract, and wave a red herring like a giant flag at a sporting event. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that, that's just an example or scenario that can happen and it's why users ought not be bragging/complaining about their handicaps. QG seems to have seen something in Ferret's comments that suggested he might not actually be handicapped, and the memories of abusive users like ItsLassieTime may have overwhelmed QG's good sense at that point. There are better ways to explore that question than QG did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw what happened when it happened. QG did it to discredit AF. What's more, AF has never "bragged" about having a disability. It doesn't matter what QG saw/thought/or had a memory of. His comments were beyond the pale and WAY out of line. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, AF has been mentioning their disability in what appears to be justification for the editing habits not too far above. [50]. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

off-topic discussion of User:QuackGuru; belongs in subsection above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh, wait a minute... the e-cig and fringe science advocates seized on it as a sideshow to distract everyone from the proposed topic ban against AlbinoFerret Have you actually read the discussion above? QG is a problem editor. People seized the discussion of a problem with QG to advocate trying to fix the problem with QG, some people leapt on the one comment (That I personally think should have been a straight 48 hour block but it's now dealt with) Others are discussing his edit history and while there may be some fringe science and e-cig advocates in there, there are also editors who want to see articles present accurate sourced information in readable English rather than garbled walls of repetitive text. The original post was about QG. QG tried to use boomerang to distract from the issue of his own editing behaviour.SPACKlick (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC) I've concluded that the best way to have any productive discussion of QG's conduct -- or that of any disruptive editor who is perceived as being on the "right" side of content disputes -- is for anybody perceived as being a fringe-sympathizer to refrain from calling for sanctions. (Sorry for shouting in bold itals; I didn't want BMK to feel alone in using that style ;-).) Go ahead and collect diffs and present them; just keep it as uncomplicated, neutrally-presented and red-herring free as possible, and let others decide what to do with it (and needless to say, let someone else initiate the process: this needs to be done properly and not rushed). That will pre-empt the incorrect/disingenuous/GAME-y objection that "it's just fringe-pushers who want him sanctioned". AFAIK this has never been tried before. There are, IMO/IME, just enough objective editors on WP that some will still look at the evidence fairly and !vote accordingly. And if none do, it can be fairly assumed that it really is only fringe-pushers who want sanctions. In QG's case it has always, from the very beginning, been about 50% perceived-fringe editors and 50% perceived-neutral ones calling for sanctions. It really is true that the louder perceived-fringers complain, the stronger QG's position becomes, and this will only get worse with time (as will QG's shenanigans as he becomes emboldened: we're already seeing this with five warnings in three months). The community really should have learned this in the past from similarly disruptive/woo-bashing editors (whom I'm not going to mention by name now because they're more or less behaving themselves). The philosophically-inclined should ponder wu wei. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 13:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just a reminder, this section is about imposing a topic ban on AlbinoFerrett due to his obvious advocacy in the 67.07% of his article edits and 85.08% of article talk page edits on the subject of electronic cigarettes. BMK (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Since you ignored this above, I will ask a third time. Please point me to the policy or guideline that speaks on the number of posts one is allowed to make. Number of posts do not equal advocacy WP:ADVOCACY neither do percentages. But since you like percentages, the edits above that QuackGuru posted to try and show a problem account for only 0.02% of my edits to e-cigarette articles.. Those edits were reasoned, discussed, and not the product of advocacy. AlbinoFerret 17:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Even assuming that AlbinoFerret's conduct is not advocacy, the edits linked above and conduct in this discussion suggest that some distance from this topic may have a healing effect on someone with a lot of energy and dedication to give to editing Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as a clear example of persistent advocacy. Moral support for whoever has to read all the way to the end of this whole huge mess of a thread. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, for a month at minimum, for advocacy and so that AlbinoFerret can move on from this and contribute to the project. All the time we are wasting arguing here is time that we are not spending helping Wikipedia expand. Based on his actions and the personal attacks made over this, I don't think that AlbinoFerret can contribute in a neutral way to the E-cigarettes article, for now at least. Iwilsonp (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (involved editor) Originally i intended not to comment, because the pile-up of involved editors was already bad. But now it seems that i have to: By !voting to topicbanning AF, on the premises presented, we are creating an environment where editors will not dare to disagree with editors like QG, no matter how wellfounded the arguments to disagree are, or how little QG actually responds to good faith objections on the talk-page. We are also sending the signal that: Do not dare to only edit areas that you are interested in, because you will get banned. Do remember that being an SPA is not against policy, being interested in a topic is also not against policy..... Because no matter how we slice and dice it, the main argument here is not that AF is breaking our editing policies, or his POV, but instead that he is not conforming to some editors view of how multifacetted you must be to pass the bar. This is not the encyclopedia that anyone can edit anymore ... it is the encyclopedia for people who conform to certain characteristics. --Kim D. Petersen 11:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: I do not see policy violations to back up a ban. --Kim D. Petersen 11:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

hatting discussion no longer relevant with indef blocking of sock BMK (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
comment removed per WP:EVADE You've only been here since December. How do you know anything about someone's alleged "long history" of anything? Unless you used to edit under a different ID? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC) comment removed per WP:EVADE Since you have no more than 100 edits in your two-plus months here, many of which appear to be advocating for e-cigarettes, I assume the rest of your time here has been to try to figure out how to get rid of a user who stands in your way? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC) comment removed per WP:EVADE I'll take that as an affirmative. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC) comment removed per WP:EVADE Keep telling yourself that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC) comment removed per WP:EVADE

• User:AlbinoFerret repeatedly added nowiki tags to the Electronic cigarette page 9 times. The first nowiki tag was on 17:12, 23 October 2014. The last nowiki tag was on 19:37, 20 December 2014. Not sure why this happened. QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You might check this out There is a bug in the visual editor. One of the reasons I stopped using it was because it was so buggy on my Linux distribution. If you look at the history instead of doing a date to date search, each of those edits comes up with the "Visual editor" tag on the edit comments. There is nothing between those tags, its basically a tag and another closing tag with no text. This is a AGF problem, nothing between the tags, not asking me about it anywhere, and it the result of a bug in the editor, but right away jumping to negative motives. AlbinoFerret 19:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's something interesting. If we accept for the moment, for the sake of argument, the premise that "involved" editors, from both camps, are too prejudiced to cast a !vote in a neutral fashion, then we should look more closely at the opinions of the presumably uninvolved editors, the ones who have no or very few edits to the e-cig talk page.

As our data source we can Use Kingofaces43 list above, and add to it the four !votes which have been posted since: Mendaliv (0 edits), Opabinia regalis (0), Iwilsonp (0) and Kim D. Petersen (780). We throw out all the high-numbered editors, which leaves us with thisL

• A1candidate: 22 - Oppose
• Johnuniq: 13 - Support
• InfiniteBratwurst: 10 (relatively new w/ 77 total edits) - Oppose (struck per WP:EVADE)
• Kingofaces43: 3 (RFC and RSN post replies) - Support
• AniMate: 0 - Very weak support
• Atsme: 0 - Oppose
• BoboMeowCat: 0 - Oppose via ANI
• BMK: 0 - Support
• Bishonen: 0 - Support
• Cardamon: 0 - Support
• Collect: 0 - Oppose
• Cullen328: 0 - Support

• Iwilsonp: 0 - Support
• John: 0 - Procedural oppose
• JzG: 0 - Support
• Kevin Gorman: 0 - Support
• Mendaliv: 0 - Support
• Middle 8: 0 - Support
• Opabinia regalis: 0 - Support
• RexxS: 0 - Support
• Robert McClenon: 0 - Oppose - Send to ArbCom
• Softlavender: 0 - Support
• Two kinds of pork: 0 - Oppose
• Winkelvi: 0 - no !vote

• Oppose - 8, including three based on procedure or venue
• Support - 15, includng one "very weak support"

So of the presumably uninvolved editors who !voted, 65% (15/23) are in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. If you want to throw out all the editors with any edits at all, that takes away 2 supports and 2 opposes (13/19) for a 68%. True, one of the supports is "very weak", but bear in mind that three of the opposes are based on procedure or venue, and not on the merits of the case. Throw those out (the "very weak" and the procedurals) and you've got 80% (12/15).

So it seems anyway you slice it, the uninvolved editors are in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret.

But what about an overall state of the discussion, counting all editors whether they're involved or not? Then you've got 21 support !votes and 13 oppose !votes. That's a 62% majority in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret, not all that different from the percentage of the uninvolved editors.

Of course, the closing admin -- and I really think it had better be an admin in this case -- doesn't count the votes (or, at least, doesn't just count the votes), they evaluate the strength of the various arguments as well. I'm well aware of that, so there's no need to remind me. But the count is still helpful as it gives a thumbnail representation of the state of play at this moment. BMK (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• InfiniteBratwurst has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of FergusM1970. Therefore, these results change:

• All uninvolved editors: 68% (15/22) in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret
• All editors commenting: 64% (21/33) in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret

With no new recent comments, I believe it's coming to the point where an uninvolved admin should closely evaluate this sub-thread and determine whether a consensus exists for levying a topic ban concerning electronic cigarettes on AlbinoFerret, due to his obvious advocacy in favor of a pro-e-cig POV. BMK (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There is strong support for a topic ban. Numerous editors support a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. For example, please read the comments above by User:Cloudjpk, User:Doc James, User:CFCF, User:Jytdog, User:Bishonen , User:Johnuniq, User:Formerly 98, User:Cardamon, User:JzG, User:Kevin Gorman, User:Cullen328 User:Zad68, User:RexxS, User:Softlavender, User:Mendaliv. Only a voluntary break from the topic area is against the community consensus. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret. QuackGuru (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru, You've had your say. Please don't WP:Bludgeon. I took the liberty of removing the <big> tags from your comment. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Notification. I started an ArbCom discussion since this is going nowhere. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground on e-cig articles. QuackGuru (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• QuarkGuru archived this sub-thread, but I have re-opened it. Although he started this, it is not his property, and the views of many editors, both pro- and con- have been expressed, and should be evaluated collectively by an admin. Also, QG has a conflict of interest in that he opened an arbitartion request, which is unlikely to be heard as long as these threads are open. BMK (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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

KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret

Not helpful ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Of course KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. That's because User:KimDabelsteinPetersen has also made many controversial edits to the safety of electronic cigarettes page. Let's review some of KimDabelsteinPetersen's recent edits. Revision as of 13:05, 30 January 2015 This edit deleted text and sources from two reputable organisations. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Positions. The sources are reliable per WP:MEDORG. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Discussion on positions. The sources are reliable per WP:SNOW according to the current discussion. Revision as of 13:11, 30 January 2015 This edit deleted text and sources from two reputable organisations again. Revision as of 11:20, 26 January 2015 This edit mainly deleted text from a formal policy statement written in a peer-reviewed journal. Revision as of 19:20, 7 February 2015 This edit mainly deleted text from a review and text from reputable organizations. Revision as of 06:27, 25 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS. Revision as of 10:00, 25 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again. Revision as of 22:47, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again. Revision as of 23:46, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again. KimDabelsteinPetersen does not see policy violations to back up a ban. KimDabelsteinPetersen, aren't you also deleting a lot of sources against WP:MEDRS? This diff shows AlbinoFerret is making many counterproductive edits and deleting of a lot of reliable sources. KimDabelsteinPetersen is also deleting a lot of reliable sources which suggests he/she is promoting a certain favorable POV for e-cigs. Should KimDabelsteinPetersen also be topic banned? KimDabelsteinPetersen has earned a topic ban from the e-cig pages IMO. Does the community prefer a topic ban for KimDabelsteinPetersen for 6 months or one year, an indef topic ban, or just a warning or no action? QuackGuru (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Can I assume from the title, that is "KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret", that the intention is to punish KDP for voting the wrong way by topic banning them? There is no wrongdoing in the diffs you've provided I'm afraid, most of them appear to be reverts on the basis that ongoing talk page discussions, RFCs, have not yet concluded or principles such as WP:BRD, all valid ones of course.Levelledout (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC) KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret because he/she is also making a number of controversial edits, including deleting numerous reliable sources that he thinks was okay to delete at the time. But it is not reasonable to continue to delete pertinent information about of the safety of e-cigarettes. Both KimDabelsteinPetersen and AlbinoFerret are the main problem editors IMO. There is also a discussion at Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Removal of mammoth edit. No reasonable argument has been made to delete so many reliable sources after over a week. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Kim stated her "involvement" at the very beginning of her "oppose". I don't see what's to be gained by this sub-thread. — Ched :  ?  22:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Community authorized discretionary sanctions for Electronic cigarette articles

Proposed: The community authorizes discretionary sections for all articles related to electronic cigarettes, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working within this topic if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to: page banning, topic banning, semi-protection, pending changes protection, or blocking any editor so warned. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.

• Support as proposer, and thanks for Hasteur for the verbage. This dispute has devolved, and would benefit from some extra attention to get it sorted out. DS should expedite this process, and, in my mind, is sorely needed. HiDrNick! 20:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Does Hasteur support this too? I would think so, given that he edited it for you, but I would like to check. Iwilsonp (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No, no. Sorry, I should have been more clear. I just cribbed his wording from the Gamergate community sanctions. I didn't intend to imply his endorsement. HiDrNick! 21:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Well after the fact (no User Pings or talk page notices) Couple points: Make sure there's an appropriate log page to log the warnings/sanctions. Make sure there's a venue for editors to neutrally report what they percieve as violations in the sanctions without calls of ADMIN-shoping. Hasteur (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as this is not the solution to the ongoing deletion of reliable sources. Admins don't need this to topic ban an editor anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support as proposed, as E-cigs are in any case a contentious enough subject that this kind of dispute is liable to flare up between another few editors (not just QuackGuru and AlbinoFerret) in the future, and this would let an admin deal with it without this sort of mess all over ANI. Iwilsonp (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Although I suspect it will end up at WP:RFAR before it's over. — Ched :  ?  22:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Unfortunately this is unlikely to lead to anything substantial. There are a number of WP:SPA or near-SPA accounts involved and this would only limit the time needed to address issues, but the problem would still remain. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - The proposed discretionary sanctions could be avoided with an immediate block of QuackGuru for multiple counts of disruptive behavior in the above sections. If discretionary sanctions are authorized, it is likely that QG will look for a new topic area to disrupt and antagonize a new group of editors before being brought back to this noticeboard, as has happened countless times in the past. -A1candidate 22:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment We have proof of meat puppetry among these articles. We know that the e-cig manufacturers are unhappy with the medical community's position on the known and unknown health effects and safety of e-cig. One advocacy group has contacted my university to attack me personally. We need to make sure that we uphold high quality sources. Not sure if this will make that easier or harder since some involved are using throw away accounts / SPA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have proof that AlbinoFerret, or any of QG's perceived opponents, have engaged in meat puppetry? Most probably not. -A1candidate 22:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes User:FergusM1970 linked to his twitter feed which include his efforts at meat puppetry Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose not sure this will help . Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• Question - I only recall discretionary sanctions being put in place by ArbCom, I can't recall a solo admin or the community doing it. Can someone provide a precedent where the community placed discretionary sanctions on a subject? (Not that the lack of precedent necessarily means it can't be done, but it would certainly make it easier to stand up, should this receive a consensus.) BMK (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing! You're looking for Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community-authorised_sanctions. HiDrNick! 01:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That was very helpful. BMK (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per CFCF. BMK (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - After careful reconsideration of the issue, I am changing my !vote based primarily on the comment of Robert McClenon and some of the information provided by Bishonen. I still believe, though, that a topic ban for AlbinoFerret would be the best first step in guaranteeing that the e-cig articles are balanced and NPOV, which to me is the primary concern, more so than the "atmosphere" of the editing environment. BMK (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Question - if editors misbehave despite warnings, then uninvolved admins can sanction them anyway, right? -- so what does this add? Is it a way of saying "don't worry, sanction as needed, it won't be seen as controversial"? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 14:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly. For example, without discretionary sanctions (DS), administrators lack the authority to topic ban editors, and may only block editors in a limited set of circumstances outlined in the blocking policy. Once DS are authorized, administrators are given much more latitude to enforce community norms around a particular topic. Furthermore, sanctions placed under DS cannot be undone without a clear community consensus (or a motion of the Arbitration Committee), while ordinary blocks can be lifted by any uninvolved administrator. I think that about sums it up. HiDrNick! 14:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Middle 8, for my money the big difference discretionary sanctions make is that they allow a single uninvolved admin to topic ban an editor (on their own discretion, hence "discretionary" sanctions). Much easier than schlepping the person to ANI and trying to raise consensus for a topic ban, indeed perhaps a bit too easy in this case. I'm dubious about instituting DS here. Admins should probably be more ready to block disruptive editors in the area, something they can do without DS. (Take that as a weak oppose.) Bishonen | talk 22:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC).

• Support - There have been too many threads about electronic cigarette, and community discretionary sanctions will work as well as ArbCom discretionary sanctions to get a few contentious editors off the article. If the community doesn't do this, the ArbCom eventually will, because this will eventually go to the ArbCom if the community doesn't impose general sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Robert McClenon's arguments above. I still think that ANI is a fine place to bring clear, well-formed cases for anything related to these articles, but these sanctions should help calm things down. Good thinking! Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support it can only improve the environment. All too often things are reremoved or readded without discussion, and discussions are being ignored or answered with non-arguments. And i'm not talking about a particular "side" in this. If the article is to be improved, then it will require editors to cooperate, and seek consensus, instead of acting on their own, and a strong oversight may just force editors to do so. May end up in some blocks/bans - but if that is what it takes, then that is the way forward. --Kim D. Petersen 02:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Weak support partially agree with KimDabelsteinPetersen. I also think that anything is likely to be better than some of stuff that has been going on at ANI recently which doesn't reflect well on any of the involved parties. However Striking my initial weak support for an oppose in light of comments from Middle 8 and Bishonen. Was never quite sure about this, but in light of those comments I agree and don't think that this would be the best way to proceed. Whilst there are probably one or two problem editors out there that no doubt need dealing with, I'm no longer convinced that ANI does not remain the better method for doing this. I also would have thought that getting the involved parties to work together would be just as important. Which would perhaps mean article restrictions in addition to editor restrictions such as a 1RR rule for instance.Levelledout (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Notification. I started an ArbCom discussion. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground on e-cig articles. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(That request has since been declined.) HiDrNick! 12:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support E-cigarette is a battleground. It will remain so for a long time because of content disagreements and lack of discussion. The main article has been protected multiple times. When its protected very little discussion happens, and edits are stockpiled for the next round of problems. AlbinoFerret 03:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support per AlbinoFerret. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Unless the tide changes, it looks as if this thread is moving towards a consensus in favor of community-imposed discretionary sanctions. I would like, however, to address the closer of this thread: please do not be tempted to think that closing this in favor of that consensus -- if that is what you find -- obviates the results of the sub-thread above concerning a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. That is, if there is a consensus in that thread for a topic ban -- and I believe there is -- it should be enacted, whether or not discretionary sanctions are approved or not in this thread. Failing to impose a topic ban if there is a consensus for one simply puts off the problem to another time, and possibly yet another repeat of this discussion. True, discretionary sactions would allow an individual admin to impose a topic ban on AlbinoFerret if the admin thought it was required, but the mere possibility of that occurring in the future should not negate a community consensus for a topic ban for AlbinoFerret here and now. BMK (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Moot, since the topic ban thread was closed first. BMK (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The difficulties with these articles are intractable at the moment and the editing environment is uncollaborative. Community-authorised discretionary sanctions will be insufficient, because of all the AGF and second chances and other handwringing that drives away editors with good judgment and maintains our high levels of Dunning-Kruger effect across the encyclopaedia, but they're probably better than nothing.—S Marshall T/C 13:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Question. Where do editors report an editor who is causing problems when the community-imposed discretionary sanctions are enacted? QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• My understanding is that any admin can impose sanctions under DS, so I suppose you can either bring it to an admin of your choice, or you can post a thread on AN/I. BMK (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe this question was asked before about sanctions in general. There might be some specific guidelines to follow. QuackGuru (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Notifications & sanctions will be logged on a subpage of Wikipedia:General_sanctions. Since any uninvolved admin can impose sanctions, you can bring it up here or ask an admin directly. HiDrNick! 23:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. This has been a battleground for months, and both sides are entirely convinced that they alone bear The Truth™. Add the toxic influence of WP:SPAs and a combination of vested financial interests, an intersection with pro-cannabis activism and outright craziness out there in the real world, and you have a perfect recipe for never-ending drama. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see a way around this. we can move quickly to quality editing of the articles and put some of this bureaucracy behind us. JodyB _talk 00:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support: The articles related to electronic cigarettes are basically a battleground. There are simply too many disputes without speedy resolution related to this topic, and disputes are not being resolved properly in this topic area. Esquivalience ^t 23:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment – I'm not sure whether sanctions will be established or not, but I've created a template page for you guys to get them up and running if it they are. The page is located at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Electronic cigarettes. If the sanctions are not approved, simply delete the page. Otherwise, fill the information as appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 23:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support for numerous reasons mentioned above and per AlbinoFerret.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, because this will not get to the root of the problem, which is the number of relentless obvious WP:SPA e-cig manufacturer advocates (one of whom has already been banned from Wikipedia, period) who have infiltrated the articles and made them impossible to edit constructively without constant disruption. The most egregious of the lot is AlbinoFerret, whose entire edit history from September 30, 2014 to present speaks for itself. The problem is not the "toxicity of the atmosphere", or the fact that the SPAs have made it a "battleground", but rather the problem is the (paid) SPAs themselves, and the solution is weeding out and eliminating (via permanent topic-banning, indeffing, or community banning) the clearly paid advocates. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose per Softlavender. I do think admin attention can be good at the article, but I don't think discretionary sanctions will address the core problem here. Sanctions are good for addressing acute misbehavior that's readily identifiable such as incivility, edit warring, etc. I would be concerned sanctions just end up banning whoever slips up slightly first without addressing the real problem. What's going on here is more systemic WP:TENDENTIOUS and advocacy-like behavior that isn't readily identifiable by outside editors without taking a close look at each user's overall behavior in discussions and cannot easily be summarized in a few diffs. That being said, I am overall neutral on community discretionary sanctions, but just with the caveat that the underlying issues will likely not be addressed by the sanctions, but hopefully stem the tide at best. If the sanctions are intended as an actual solution, I think that would become a distraction. Short of an WP:RfCU type look at certain users here (I don't think ANI is structured enough for that), ArbCom seems to be the only other option to really sort things out at that level at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The editors at this article are not the problem. It is the subject itself that is controversial. Having discretionary sanctions in this article would not be effective because a significant number of single purpose accounts edit at this article. Applying sanctions on an article where highly experienced Wikipedians edit as single purpose accounts is not effective in controlling controversy because the editors using them are not invested in protecting the reputations associated with those accounts or in using them long-term to build an online identity. It can be right to use WP:SPAs, and I am not critiquing the use of WP:SPAs or suggesting that anything inappropriate, like socking, is even happening here. I am only suggesting that the Wikipedia community gives a bit more weight and protection to established users with established accounts with varied history of participation, as opposed to limited use accounts managed by talented editors. Sanctions is a tool for controlling established accounts, and not for SPAs. Its use here would would empower SPAs and disempower established accounts, which is not a desirable outcome in this space. Taking no action to control the e-cigarettes space is an acceptable response to the controversy. The controversy can persist in this space as it has been for months. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure I'm understanding the logic of those who write that the behavior in the topic area is bad, or that the subject area is controversial and generates SPAs, but then vote to oppose discretionary sanctions which would give admins the tools necessary to deal with bad behavior (from anyone) and to reign in the e-cig advocates. This is especially odd to me because if community-imposed discretionary sanctions are not implemented here, it's more then likely that someone will request an ArbCom case, which will be opened this time because the community has failed to act, and the result of that will almost certainly be, among other actions, ArbCom-imposed discretionary sanctions. So, in the end, the probability of there being discretionary sanctions for the e-cigarette topic area seems pretty high, in my opinion. BMK (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'll clarify, but based on where I've seen discretionary sanctions work, it seems to be when specific diffs can be pointed out as problematic. I don't think a single admin overseeing the articles would be suited for the specific behavior problems discussed here though that require a close look at long-term behavior. Looking over the definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS, how do you think an admin would identify tendentious or advocacy-like behavior compared to easier things to identify like incivility? To me, that doesn't really seem like a judgement call for an admin can easily make (I could be convinced otherwise), but rather for a comprehensive case about the editor to be examined either here or by ArbCom. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, an effective AN/I thread in a non-DS topic which will convince an admin to close it with sanctions to the subject party takes a lot of time and the input of a lot of people. An ArbCom case takes even more time, although the number of participants is typically smaller. Both of these methodologies are generally inefficient at taming a wild subject area -- in fact, ArbCom results can engender more hassles, although they tend to shift to the Arbitration Enforcement area. With discretionary sanctions in place, however, admins can more easily put a stop to misbehavior with non-draconian blocks and bans leading (if necessary) to harsher sanctions. It empowers every admin to use their best judgement under the circumstances, which means that more gets done, and gets done faster. If, as everyone seems to agree (but for different reasons) the e-cigarette subject area needs to be brought under control, discretionary sanctions are an extremely efficient tool to get that done. BMK (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Inasmuch as the Arbitration Committee has deferred to the community, at least for now, it seems this is the only reasonable way to deal with the probems. JodyB _talk 02:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You've already voted to support in your previous post. Why are you voting again? -A1candidate 09:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, my oversight. I've stricken it above. JodyB _talk 10:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. -A1candidate 23:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: And while we're discussing if sanctions should be enforced, QuackGuru is antagonizing a new group of editors at an unrelated topic area. -A1candidate 23:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Not relevant to this discussion. Start a new thread if you'd like. BMK (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This is relevant because it is evidence of the complete futility of these proposed sanctions. Feel free to disagree, but don't remove or modify my comments. -A1candidate 01:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not relevant because this thread is about providing admins the tools to deal with any editor who misbehaves in this topic area, and not about the current misbehavior (if it is that) of any specific editor. If you've still got a thing about getting QG blocked or sanctioned or whatever, even after the effort failed just above, and you think his current behavior warrants it, then start another thread, but don't try to hijack this one. BMK (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Question If this passes, do people have an opinion on how long the sanctions should last? Presumably the topic should become less controversial with time as new and reliable studies come out, but I have no idea what that timeframe is. I think "indefinite" is kind of a default for this kind of stuff, but I thought it would be good to at least ask what people think about an expiration date. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC) pinging User:HiDrNick 16:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say six months would be the absolute minimum, but that a year would be more likely to be helpful in waiting for the research to catch up to the questions. BMK (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
• This may not be necessary to have proposed sanctions. This was an overreaction to the above threads IMO. We can try one month if there is consensus for the sanctions. I think three months would be the most. QuackGuru (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
• A year is the default in most cases, and given the duration of the dispute already I say we go with that. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• So far there is no broad consensus for the community-imposed sanctions. As a compromise we can try the DS for a month. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure where you're getting that conclusion from. Right now, just on pure count, I see 14 supports and 8 opposes, which is 64% (63.63). In any case, if there is no consensus for community-based sanctions, as you contend, then there will be no community-based sanctions, not for a month, not for any amount of time. BMK (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose this without a sunset clause. (Note also that admins effectively have the ability to take these types of actions without DS.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC).
  

• True, but most admins are loathe to hand out topic bans etc. without the support of discretionary sanctions either from the community or from ArbCom. (Incidentally, 1 year of DS is a "sunset clause", so why isn't your vote "support - 1 year"?) BMK (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support the opposing position seems to be based on the fact that sanctions probably won't fix anything but the worst I can see them doing is not being used. They certainly won't make it worse. SPACKlick (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Community authorized discretionary sanctions will allow any uninvolved administrator to topic ban an editor who is disrupting the e-cig article(s) without first seeking consensus here at ANI. More accurately, if this passes it shows that there already is consensus at ANI for such a topic ban. And of course if an admin misuses DS we have procedures in place for dealing with that. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment based on Bluerasberry's comment and Doc James' oppose, I wonder if the best alternative might be to full protect the article for a good long while, processing new edits through consensus on the talk page. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette is already fully protected until March 30, but there's also Safety of electronic cigarettes and Legal status of electronic cigarettes to consider. Certainly these could be fully protected as well, but that puts the onus on admins to judge whether every suggested edit has consensus behind it. Surely it's better to allow free editing of these articles, and let admins sort out who is being disruptive from who is being helpful in their editing? BMK (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

(Involved editor) I would support long-term protection of at least the main article and possibly forks as an alternative to discretionary sanctions. We have recently had issues with a user managing to get full-protection removed, almost immediately making large-scale changes including 16 other edits in 2 hours. Then when protection was re-applied, immediately trying to have it removed again (in fact they successfully managed to get the expiry date moved forward to March 30th this time despite opposition from two other editors including myself). Such desperation to have protection removed clearly demonstrates an intention to do something that can't be done with protection instated, most likely grossly violate WP:CONSENSUS. So yes, I think there's a clear requirement for long-term full-protection. At the very least very close long-term monitoring by admins against consensus and edit-warring violations is required but that would not be as straightforward as protection.Levelledout (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Full protection is, generally speaking, a step to be avoided if at all possible, since it's inherently contrary to the Wikipedia ethos of free editing. It also essentially freezes the articles into their current states, as getting a consensus to add or subtract something through the protection is going to be very hard to do, and admins should not accept any suggested edit which does not have a talk page consensus behind it.

Again, I'm not sure why opponents of discretionary sanctions are trotting out other possible solutions when it hasn't been settled whether this one will be put into effect or not. Tallying !votes once more, I see 16 supports and 9 opposes, which means that 64% of the respondents here are in favor of community-imposed discretionary sanctions. That's not a landslide by any means, but it is a healthy supermajority in favor. BMK (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose discretionary sanctions. Too often cudgel for the maintenance of House Point of View... It takes two to tango and I expect the anti-e-cig advocates are every bit as tendentious as the routed pro-e-cig peeps... Carrite (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• And what about the third possible group, those editors who wish to keep the article neutral and supported by reliable sources in line with MEDRS? What do they do when the pros and the antis are duking it out, making it nest to impossible to edit the articles effectively? BMK (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support As written and how written (without any explicit sunset provision). Writing an explicit sunset provision only tells disruptive elements how long they have to wait before they can start being disruptive again. The language that this proposal was cribbed from was specifically designed to not have a sunset provision (i.e. indefinite in the same sense that we have indefinite blocks) because either the sanctions will fall into disuse and forgotten or a WikiHistorian will see that we still have the sanctions on the books and a simple consensus vote to revoke them can be accomplished at a later date when it's clear that the authorization has outlived it's purpose. As it stands right now the e-cig field is far too disruptive in it's current state to explicitly state when the sunset will take place. I'd rather have positive action to deprecate the sanctions than positive action necessary to maintain them. Hasteur (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors.

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

---

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering based artcles that he routinely watches. This is behaviour that was previously addressed by a Request for comment in 2012.

Since that time, Wtshymanski has continued to systematically revert any and all edits made by IP address editors. Many are vandalism (no problem), but many are good faith edits. There are far too many examples to document here, so I have restricted examples to just those from the past three weeks.

17th Feb

IP edit: [51]

Wtshymanski revert: [52]

This was a good faith and basically correct edit. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds of being 'ungrammatical and out of place'. It could easily have been made gramatical and was exactly where it needed to be.

18th Feb

IP edit: [53]

Wtshymanski revert: [54]

This was a good faith edit and technically correct. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds that the output is not light despite infra-red often being described as "infra-red light" as indeed it is throughout the rest of the article. Further: infra-red light emitting diodes are described as precisely that - "light emitting diodes". The revert actually made the article worse because it no longer told the reader what the 900 nm output is (could be an electrical signal for example).

25th Feb

IP edit: [55]

Wtshymanski revert: [56]

The article was PRODed by Wtshymnski. The IP editor challenged the PROD by deleting it as he is perfectly entitled to do. WTS simply reverted the deletion doubtless because he believes that IP address editors should not be allowed to challenge PRODs even though they are. (The WP:PROD procedure clearly states that a PROD is aborted if the tag is deleted and it must not be rePRODed.)

25th Feb

IP edit: [57]

Wtshymanski revert: [58]

The IP editor's edit must be assumed by the WP:AGF policy to be a good faith edit, there being no evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, WTS has, characteristically not assumed the required good faith by reverting the edit as 'vandalism', and has done so by copy-pasting back an old version of the article (intermediate edits preventing a stright 'undo'). In his haste to revert yet another IP address editor, WTS also pasted back a spelling mistake and a 'coauthors' parameter to a CS1 template which is deprecated. Thus WTS corrected one error but reintroduced two.

2nd Mar

IP edit: [59]

Wtshymanski revert: [60]

Again a potentially good faith edit from an IP address editor . Once again, WTS makes no pretence at assuming that the edit is good faith and it is dismissed as vandalism. Another editor, Andy Dingley independently made the same point on Wtshymanski's talk page. Nothing can be inferred from the editing history as the IP address resolves to a college in India so it is anybody's guess how many real users are behind it.

It is known that Wikipedia is always wanting to recruit productive editors for the project. Inevitably, many potential editors will start as IP address editors before creating an account - provided they find the environment welcoming. Wtshymanski has long held the view that IP address editors should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia and has said so (see RfC referenced above for more). This may be Wtshymanski's view but it is known that it is not the view of the project and Wtshymanski has no right to impose his view in the face of the project's

IP address editors can be productive and offer quality editing to the project. Deliberate wholesale reverting such edits does not provide the welcoming environment, that such editors need if they are to be encouraged to staty.

As evidence: a quick scan produces this IP address's contributions [61]. This editor has made good quality contributions on UK parliamentary procedure; seems to understand the subject and the contributions have been well referenced. I suspect this may be an experienced editor, but if it is, I have not been able to link the address with any other or an account. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with DieSwartzPunkt The diffs shown, show the removals called vandalism and they're not, further when he's challenged by a non-ip user, he's been letting the edits stand. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

18 Feb IP edit was absolutely correct and Wtshymanski revert is an error, because what it emits is light (everything that involves photon is light). Some part of the entire light band is visible, but other invisible parts are also called.

I agree with DieSwartzPunkt's observation for all other instances too. – nafSadh did say 17:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• What's the point in this ANI post? Is this an "incident"? Maybe. What administrator action is desired here though?

Once upon a time we had WP:WQA and WP:RFC/U. Neither of them were likely to be effective (WP:Requests_for_comment/Wtshymanski wasn't), but at least they were an attempt by WP to have a means of resolving such issues. Admins won't act over such issues - it would involve making value judgements about other editors and that never happens. Even when it's not a popular editor who can rally their clique of supporters.

WP needs to restore WQA, RFC/U or something else in that line. This ANI post won't achieve that much though. Wtshymanski will, as always, back off for just long enough to dodge the bullet (see the RFCU closing comments) and then will be back, just the same as before. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not proven The accusation is:

"Wtshymanski is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering-based articles that he routinely watches." (typo and punctuation corrected)

and, doubling down, just in case we might have thought the meaning was open to interpretation:

"Wtshymanski has continued to systematically revert any and all edits made by IP address editors." (emphasis was in the original)

But a quick perusal of the history of each of the pages diff'd above will show many edits by IPs that were not reverted by Wtshymanski. Therefore the claim of "any" is specious. Some were let stand, some were reverted by others, "others" not excepting Andy Dingly and DieSwartzPunkt. There are also many edits by IPs that were reverted by W. with completely defensible reasons and edit summaries.

Perhaps W. is too quick to assume that IPs' edits are wrong. (From my own experience, given the number of IPs' edits I've corrected that were wrong, this would not be an unreasonable bias on W.'s part.) I believe AD and DSP are similarly too eager to find fault with W.'s edits, and this patently absurd accusation of "any and all" is a result. Jeh (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"many edits by IPs that were not reverted by Wtshymanski."

So because he didn't get all of them, his behaviour over the ones that he did revert should be discounted?

This isn't about Wtshymanski reverting anon edits. It's about his assumption that for any anon edit he reverts (frequently a justified revert) he assumes that it's deliberate vandalism, and he assumes this because of who made it, not the quality of the edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"This isn't about Wtshymanski reverting anon edits." That's odd, because that's exactly what you DSP said it was about. If it's really about his over-use of the vandalism charge, then you DSP should have said that from the beginning. And then every one of your DSP's your diffs needs to show an edit summary by W. with a demonstrably unjust accusation of vandalism, or they don't support your position. If it turns out that a clear majority of W's edits to IPs' edits do not include an unjust accusation of vandalism, your case gets rather weak. Jeh (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Jeh, I know that you're just about the only friend Wtshymanski has round here, so it's not surprising that you've rushed to defend him. However please actually read this post first. I didn't raise this. I haven't posted any diffs, so I don't know which diffs you're complaining about. Mind, it would have to be very blinkered to not see the problem with what he's doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct you are. I missed the correct attribution among all the rest of the periodic Wtshymanski pile-on. I have edited my above accordingly. But as for your "I don't know which diffs" claim, there is only one set associated with the complaint. So I think that if you were to hazard a guess as to which diffs in this talk page section I'm referring to, you'd either be correct, or you'd have to pretend to be a complete idiot. And we all know you are not that, so please drop the "I don't know what you're referring to" act. You're smarter than that, and I'd thank you to assume that I'm smart enough to not buy it. Jeh (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You claimed that Wtshymanski had allowed some IP edits to stand, but failed to provide any diffs. In the short discussion that I had on this at Wtshymanski's talk page, he made the same claim. He then obliged with a single diff that supported that position. But he had to go all the way back to 2007 to find it. There are examples of IP edits being allowed to stand, but as they are obvious corrections of errors, reverting them would be vandalism in itself (though as in case four above, that is not always an obstacle). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please. You took that "2007" bit seriously?

So. "There are examples of IP edits being allowed to stand." Your words. Doesn't that rather contradict your accusation? Do I have to quote it yet again, to remind you of what it was? Do you understand what it takes to disprove a universal claim? It takes one counterexample. One.

The first diff above is from DC motor. From the first page of 50 edits, working from the bottom (I am not counting IP edits that were clearly vandalism, either reverted by W. or otherwise):

[62] IP made stylistic wording changes to picture caption. W. did not revert.

[63] vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else.

[64] IP wikilinked Hybrid car. W. did not revert.

[65] IP made minor grammar correction. W. did not revert.

[66] vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else.

[67] minor word correction by IP. Nobody reverted.

[68] vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else.

[69] vandalism by IP. Rv by Wtshymanski.

[70] IP added redlinks. Rv by Andy Dingley.

[71] vandalism by IP (added blank lines). Rv by someone else.

[72] vandalism by IP. Rv by ClueBot.

[73] vandalism by same IP as above. Rv by ClueBot.

[74] vandalism by IP. rv by someone else.

[75] vandalism by IP. rv by ClueBot.

[76] vandalism by same IP as above. Rv by someone else.

[77] IP removed a blank line (non-rendering edit). Not reverted that I could find.

[78] Wtshymanski edit. Unrelated to previous IP edits.

[79] vandalism by IP (blanking). Fixed by ClueBot.

[80] IP added an ungrammatic sentence: "It has very high starting resistance so that it would use in that kind of equipments which needs a very high starting torque." Wtshymanski reverted with comment "out of place unclear and ungrammatical" (this is the rv DSP complained about).

[81] minor grammatical correction by IP. Wording improved by me.

Counts:

19 edits by IPs total (I am counting successive edits by the same IP, with none intervening, as just one).

11 of these were vandalism. Of those, ONE was reverted by Wtshymanski.

6 were good edits. Of those, W. reverted NONE. Two of them were significant changes to content.

1 was a good faith but erroneous edit, reverted by Andy Dingley.

1 was what I would call "legitimately problematic". Wtshymanski reverted it. Yes, it could have been improved.

It seems clear to me that W., far from reverting "any and all" edits by IPs as you accused, was far more selective. He in fact reverted only one of 11 IPs' vandalism edits, one problematic edit, and none of six good edits. I would say that the evidence from this article, one of those you complained about, refutes your accusation rather soundly. The evidence does not even support a claim of "W. erroneously reverts most IP edits", with or without an accusation of vandalism. (I would also say that it shows there is ample reason to view IP edits with a particularly skeptical eye.)

But you are the one making the claim, so you are the one who should be providing complete summaries of recent diffs. Not just a few cherry-picked examples. Jeh (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The above is non-evidence. 12 edits were reverted by others. That proves nothing except that someone beat Wtshymanski to the punch in each case. Even Wtshymanski presumably sleeps and works from time to time. As already stated, Wtshymanski usually does not revert an edit, if it leaves the article wrong (6 edits). And the last 'legitimately problematic' one, is similar to case 1 of this complaint. 'It could have been improved'. Yes, and Wtshymanski is as capable of improving it as anyone else, but if the edit had been left, someone would have improved it.

I have not 'cherry-picked' evidence as you claim. I have listed every IP address revert since 17th Feb. If I had provided a 'complete' list of sumaries as you suggest, this ANI would still be being compiled. But this was stated in the original complaint. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

So, I provided the diffs you asked for, and you moved the goalposts. But then you want to stick by the original complaint? The original complaint was:

"Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering based artcles that he routinely watches. "

That has been disproven (with great ease, just as most generalizations can be). You listed "every IP address revert since 17 Feb"? And you found a grand total of five? W. has made 'prox 700 edits since 17 Feb. So less than 1% of W's edits in the last three weeks were reverts of IP edits that you think were unjustly described as vandalism? You're going to have to find much more compelling evidence than that.

"If I had provided a 'complete' list of sumaries as you suggest, this ANI would still be being compiled." So you can find a few examples out of several hundred edits, not mention that they're picked out of seven hundred edits, and you think that makes your case? This has all the earmarks of a witch-hunt. Makes me wonder if the evidence in W.'s other ANI, etc., cases, at least the ones brought by DSP, AD, and GM was as tenuous? Jeh (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the "problematic edit" by the IP (severe grammar problem) was the one you listed. Yes, it could have been improved. The fact remains that W.'s revert of the IP's edit left the article better than it had been after the IP. So we have a justified edit by W., and your complaint is that he should have done more. Got it. Jeh (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Andy, above you asked (?) what the point is. I think you or someone should ask for something specific. I looked at W's block log and this seems to be an annual affair (that somehow skipped last spring). The first block for this in 2012 was a day; the block for this in 2013 was a week. There is a clear pattern of the same behavior continuing, which is a violation of AGF and is DISRUPTIVE. So you should propose a longer time-limited block (say 2 months?) or perhaps an indef. It would probably take community consensus for either, and this is indeed the place to propose that and get consensus for it. But in the block proposal you should make a good, concise, ANI-ready statement of the case, if you want it to succeed. That is my advice anyway. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have better things to do than to read and memorise Wtshymanski's block log. If he has been formally warned not to behave just like he's doing here, and he's been blocked for doing it previously, then I'd agree that it might be useful for an admin to follow that precedent and act accordingly. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You questioned whether this was an incident. With the demise of the RfC/U system, the only avenue now available to address user's behavioural issues is here at ANI (and the defunct RfC/U procedure says so). If nothing happens as a result of this, then I can only assume that the admins are granting open season on reverting other editors' posts. That may not be there intent, but it will certainly be the message. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I would only ask that the admins look at the pattern of behavior here:

Please note that some incidents that would no doubt have ended up as blocks ended up instead as page protection because Wtshymanski's latest opponent (typically a new user) behaved worse, so the block log does not tell the whole story.

Also note that when Wtshymanski faces the possibility of sanctions, he typically does not defend himself but instead stops editing for a while. The old "he hasn't edited since X, so nothing to do here" trick works every time -- his RFC/U was closed with "Considering that Wtshymanski has not edited since 16 May 2012, no immediate administrative action appears required". Please don't fall for it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy's post above underlines a very major problem. The administrators are (unwittingly) exacerbating the problem. A running feature in the long history of these behavioral disputes and complaints is that whenever the administrators decline to take any action, Wtshymanski regards it as an endorsement of his attitude and behavior towards other Wikipedia users. I have lost count of the number of times, that some editor has criticised Wtshymanski on his talk page only for Wtshymanski to respond that his attitude has already been taken to ANI (or wherever) with no action and therefore it is acceptable [to the admins]. This was covered as long ago as the 2012 RfC/U. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Found it!

[In response to a complaint on his talk page] "... and yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."[82] - Wtshymanski

• again, DieSwartzPunkt and Andy Dingley you have presented a bunch of evidence, which is great. But just coming here and making a complaint about a pattern of behavior generally leads no where here; the discussion will just go on and on and will eventually peter out as everyone gets exhausted. If you want something done you should make a concrete proposal for action Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It's DieSwartzPunkt who posted this, not me. I have no expectations of ANI ever acting usefully, so wouldn't have wasted the ink. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

well there is self-fulfilling prophecy if i ever saw one. OK I will do it, just so I don't have to watch this follow the sad pattern. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

As for what action is required? Wtshymanski's battleground attitude to other editors (both registered and anonymous) has been going on for several years. Guy Macon's very comprehensive listing above is testament to that. What is required is some action to force Wtshymanski to co-operate with other editors in the manner that Wikipedia intend. This means either a series of escallating blocks until he falls into line (though this has not worked so far). Alternatively, I would suggest the proposal that was made at the 2012 RfC/U, where a set of rigourously enforced sanctions be applied against Wtshymanski. There was a good list discussed here which would be a good starting point. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Proposal 1: 3 month block on Wtshymanski

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

• Support - as proposer. W has a well documented, long term pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing by indiscriminately reverting IP edits. Demonstrated by block log and diffs above. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - as complainant. Previous block for this behaviour was one week and achieved nothing. A longer block is needed to try and get the message across. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Heres a better idea: block or interaction ban Dingley from bringing Wtshymanski to ANI again. Hes the one who has the problem. There are just three editors here who keep complaining about Wtshymanski: DieSwarzPunkt, GuyMacon and Dingley. Theyre the ones who are causing this. Wtshymanski reverts bad edits - whats even wrong with that? To find things to complain about they dragged up a RFCU case from three years ago. No one else has trouble with Wtshymanski so leave the guy alone. 82.132.234.182 (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Re: "DieSwarzPunkt, GuyMacon and Dingley": ...and Binksternet, and Bratland, and Deucharman, and Dicklyon, and EdJohnston, and Floydian, and Hasteur, and Jytdog, and N5iln, and NellieBly, and North8000, and Northamerica1000, and P-Tronics, and Rdengler, and RichardOSmith, and too many IP editors to count... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. As Wtshymanski himself said, "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."[83] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC) The new proposal 2 is better. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Sadly. The evidence speaks for itself. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The complaint states that "W has a well documented, long term pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing by indiscriminately reverting IP edits." But the "evidence" posted by DSP shows only five such incidents "in the last three weeks". That's five edits out of over 700 made by Wtshymanski in that time. That's quite a standard W. is being held to. Regarding the list of previous incidents so painstakingly compiled by GuyMacon, many of those were closed without action. Since the current proposal is unsupported by sufficient evidence, this turns into "let's punish him more for the past 'pattern of behavior', even though we've provided no evidence that it's continuing." That's not how AN/I works. Jeh (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that you are prepared to cite 700 more or less mechanical edits adding a "no" to the "living=" parameter on biographical talk pages (that do not actually seem to change anything), as justification that Wtshymanski can revert IP address editors, contributions. Unless, the is, that you yourself do not approve of IP address editors editing. Guy answered the conclusions in his missive. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I won't comment on past history, but those 5 diffs at the beginning of this section are problematic as evidence. For example, the Feb 25 edit does not refer to the IP edit just before it, but to an earlier IP edit. The Mar 2 edit was clearly subtle vandalism from an IP whose only edits have been vandalism. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This point was addressed. The IP resolves to a whole college in India. These have been problematic for a long time. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Per difs provided by Jeh which refute the accusation. Edison (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

And have been shown to be non- evidence. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I see the case as clearly proven. I see Jeh's posting of diffs of other peoples' edits as not proving anything about Wtshymanski's behaviour at all (How was that even supposed to work?).

However I don't want to see Wtshymanski long-term blocked (or Alan Liefting, where something similar and equally counter-productive happened). We have several clear policies, one of which is AGF, others are about crediting merges, discussion with others etc. and Wtshymanski has a long, long history of ignoring any of them he feels like. However what I want to see happen instead is for him to just start bloody well behaving himself, same as the rest of us have to. I don't want this to be at the cost of excluding him altogether (if at all possible). Maybe over-optimistic, but I hope something is possible.

As an imposed action today, I'd be much more keen on some narrowly worded restriction. "Not describing non-vandalism as vandalism" would be a start. Simply not reverting IPs at all, if that's the smallest that can stick. I can't support a three month block on an editor though, even Wtshymanski. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Andy above. Just because Wtshymanski does not assume good faith doesn't mean that we should not give him a chance to correct himself. A temporary ban from reverting any IP edits may even be better than this. Epic Genius (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oddly, I proposed this as an alternative to the 3 month block, but got shouted down. (See edit history for more). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not reasonable. I advised you to withdraw a competing recommendation; you freely agreed without protest and suggested I delete the whole 2nd proposal; which I did. You just lost all credibility with me. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

@Jytdog: Since I neither reproposed the option 2 nor added a vote of support for it, what exactly is your problem? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 2: revert restriction

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from reverting an edit without a content based edit summary. In addition, they are prohibited from referencing the original editors lack of registration status in the summary.

• Support addresses the specific concern without unduly interfering with editing of the encyclopedia. NE Ent 23:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support. As I indicated with the examples I gave in User talk:Wtshymanski#rv V ?, it can be very difficult to figure out who was reverted and why from Wtshymanski's edit summaries. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment That's a completely valid concern, and goes with the "content-based edit summary" requirement, but I don't see how it's related to "can't refer to anon status". Will the WP default edit summary for reverting an IP edit be changed for Wtshymanski? Or will he be required to remove it? That would seem to me to make it even harder to figure out who was reverted. Jeh (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    • He is (often but not always) removing the standard "Undid revision X by Y" (which does not refer to a users registration status, although you can infer it if it list an IP) now, and instead using edit summaries such as "rv anon v" that do refer to a users registration status. Leaving in the default edit summary would not violate this proposed restriction. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. First, this proposal is not matched by a specific complaint that the proposal will address. (Which btw is why the following lengthy screed is here under my vote, instead of in the "discussion after complaint" section where it belongs.) DSP's original complaint was that W. reverts "any and all" IP edits; that is obviously false. Subsequent discussion was all over the place, but I don't see any specific complaints that are complementary to this proposal.

I suppose we can infer that the goalposts have now been moved the complaint has been changed to "W. frequently does not provide content-based edit summaries, and refers to IP edits disparagingly in edit summaries." But no evidence has been presented to support those complaints. A report of an "incident" here is supposed to be supported by diffs that are clear illustrations of the problem behavior. The only clear evidence here is DieSwartzPunkt (talk · contribs)'s five diffs, but those were originally compiled to support the "W. reverts any and all IP edits" complaint, not this. But those are all we have. So, taking them in order:

• 17 Feb: Edit summary of W.'s revert was content-based ("out of place unclear and ungrammatical") and did not mention "lack of registration status" outside of WP's default summary for a revert of an IP edit. (Re the quality of the revert, though that does not seem to be anything being addressed by this proposal: I would note that "high starting resistance" does not sound like a positive attribute for any electric motor under any circumstances. Granted that W. could have reworded instead of reverting, W's revert nevertheless left the article better than the IP's edit did.) Score: Zero support for the supposed complaint.
• 18 Feb: This is the "not visible so it's not light" revert. I agree that W.'s revert was a mistake, but the edit summary was content-based ("IR not visible") and only used the WP default wording for a revert of an IP edit. Score: Zero support for the supposed complaint.
• 25 Feb: This is the "restored deleted PROD" case. In this case W. did write "rv anon". But the WP default summary text was also present, and it also shows that the edit being reverted was by an IP. Score: one for "edit summary not content-based" but I cannot see that this unduly refers to an "anon" editor, not when WP's default message does the same.
• 25 Feb: This is the "unijunction transistor" case. W.'s edit summary is "rv anon v". Granted that this is not "content-based", but how much do we have to "content-base" a summary to defend a rv v?

DSP writes "The IP editor's edit must be assumed by the WP:AGF policy to be a good faith edit, there being no evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, WTS has, characteristically not assumed the required good faith by reverting the edit as 'vandalism'".

But the "no evidence to the contrary" part of that assertion is absurd. Changing "unijunction" to "junction" in one place in an article titled "Unijunction transistor", and which has the word "unijunction" all over it, is pretty tough to assume to be an honest mistake. It is, rather, sadly typical of IP drive-by petty vandalism. If the IP thought the correct word was "junction" then ie should have made the change everywhere. Hence "rv v" is justified, and no further "content-based summary" is required. Score: No support for either supposed complaint. You may not agree with my conclusion, but I don't think you can say that I have no case at all. At worst, it's arguable.

n.b.: I have adopted the pronoun "ie" as a parallel to "he" or "she", to be used to refer to IPs of unknown gender.

• 02 Mar: This is the "two phase electric power" edit. Edit summary: rv v with WP standard rv of IP text. The IP changed "90" to "180". On first glance this too could be seen to be an honest mistake, since the very common split phase power used in the US has a 180 degree phase difference. But this edit was in the "this article about" section of a SeeAlso, contrasting the 90-degree "two phase electric power" with split phase power. Moreover, there's a nice diagram in the lede, which clearly shows a 90 degree phase shift; and 90 degrees is also mentioned in the lede text. The IP didn't change any of that. Further, the IP's edit history shows a clear pattern of petty changes, nearly all of which were reverted. DSP says that the IP locates to a college in India, so there might be several different people using it and no conclusion can be drawn. I would agree if there was a pattern of mostly good edits. But not here. If the IP is being used by a group of people, then it's a group of people who collectively are vandals. I would also argue that expecting an editor to do a geolocate on an IP is an unreasonable length to expect anyone to go to. It looks more to me like a desperate quest for a reason to AGF, despite evidence to the contrary. No, "rv v" is appropriate and sufficient. Score: No support for supposed complaint.

So in my opinion, only one of those diffs clearly supports the complaint that I'm assuming this proposal addresses, with one or at most two more arguable.

But even if all of them supported the complaint, do not, by themselves, demonstrate a general pattern of problem edit summaries by W. They show five edits, for which DSP apparently had to scour W.'s edit history for the last three weeks, a period during which W. made over 700 edits. Proposers need to provide evidence showing that these are more than isolated cases.

Furthermore, I really wonder how many other editors' history would stand up to this level of nitpicking? I also wonder how many of W's past AN/I and other cases were made on equally flimsy grounds?

Lastly, regarding "prohibited from referencing the original editors lack of registration status" part: When you revert an IP edit, WP automatically supplies a default summary of "Undid revision (number) by (IP address)". Are we going to require that W. change that? If not, how does the word "anon" call any undue or disparaging attention to the anonymous nature of the edit being reverted? If you do, do you really want to require W.'s reverts to not reflect the IP of the edit being reverted? That would only make it more difficult to figure out who was reverted and why, a result Guy Macon (talk · contribs) could be expected to object to, based on his statements above. Jeh (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree that the proposal above is too broad given the context. I am about to support the proposal, but with a scope restriction. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jeh - so your thesis here is that Wtshymanski's categorisation of these reverted edits as "vandalism" was correct?

Both of these edits (unijunction transistor and two phase power) were (to agree with Wtshymanski) ignorant and careless. They were obviously contradicted by the articles themselves, so any "careful" editor, not even a subject expert, should have had cause to question them. However a vast number of our IP editors on electrical topics are Indian college students with the confident ignorance of undergrads worldwide and an oddly (but obvious) Indian fixation on somewhat obsolescent electrical topics (I don't know what their biomedical students are learning, but their electrical engineers are taught about what the West tends to regard as museum pieces). I would lay money that these edits came from either an Indian technical college, or a bulk ISP such as BSNL. Look at synchronous motor and the perennial factor-of-two numerical errors introduced over "poles" and "pole pairs". We are waist-deep in this garbage and as someone who reverts far more poor edits to electrical topics than even Wtshymanski, I'm sick of it.

However ignorance and piss-poor teaching still isn't vandalism. Per AGF, none of us are allowed to treat it as such. As WP editors we are required to display infinite patience with clueless edits against basic common sense. Wtshymanski is no longer doing this. To be honest, I can't blame him for it. We should forgive it. However we shouldn't (as you're doing here) construct convoluted excuses for why it's "correct" to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"so your thesis here is that Wtshymanski's categorisation of these reverted edits as "vandalism" was correct?" Yes. I said so. I don't think I was at all unclear. Personally I am often a little more hesitant to use the "v" in an edit summary for an IP's first edit and first mistake (e.g. the "unijunction" edit). But with the pattern seen in the history of the IP of the "two phase electric power" edit? That seems very clear to me.

Your thesis is that I'm supposed to AGF even when an edit is of a pattern very commonly used by petty vandals, even when it's from an IP with multiple previous similar edits. I think that, and your requirement of "infinite patience", is absurd. That is an absolute, a universal, and I see no support for such in WP:AGF. Please note that WP:AGF begins with a disclaimer: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." A requirement of "infinite patience" is not at all "common sense", particularly not when the encyclopedia is being damaged repeatedly from the same IP.

I don't think I used "convoluted excuses" either. I think that was done by the apologist who noted that the IP locates to a school and therefore the IP's history of other erroneous edits is irrelevant. How is that idea consistent with WP's use of schoolblocks? Hey, in our effort to bend over backwards while touching our toes to AGF, why don't we just always assume that even if an IP goes to a private home, different family members might be using it, therefore an IP's history is always irrelevant? r-i-g-h-t.

Assuming I agree with your position here (I don't, particularly the "infinite patience" part): How do you reconcile "I can't blame him for it - we should forgive it" with your support for DSP's "reworded" proposal below?

Even if we accept that both of those edits were not v., there still is no evidence for a pattern of problematic edits. DSP says he went back three weeks in W's history and found two AGF failures. Oh my ghod, the sky will fall. Again, I ask: How many other editors' histories would stand up against this level of nitpicking? I think DSP is just a little too eager to bring ANI cases against W. Jeh (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"with the pattern seen in the history of the IP"

What "pattern"? They've made a dozen edits in total. This year they've made the two phase edit and a self-reverted. Neither of these are vandalism and there is no pattern of vandalism from them. Even Checkuser regards IP data as stale after three months, but you're seeing a pattern of confirmed vandalism from it.

Do you believe in some form of demonic possession? Do you think this router has become inherently evil, and so any editor connecting via it is now forced to turn into some sort of vandal?!

Your failure to accept AGF as applying to IPs is as bad as Wtshymanski's. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah? Feel free to bring an ANI case if you think you can make it stick. Jeh (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

More constructively: If incorrect use of the "vandalism" charge by W. is what you're really concerned about, why not make a Proposal 3: "Wtshymanski is forbidden from using 'v.', 'vand.', 'vandalism', or other similar accusations of vandalism in edit summaries"? Now, as I said, even if I accept those two IP edits as not-vandalism, there is still a failure to make a case that these are anything but isolated incidents. And I think that, although a few incidents of of AGFFailure could be worthy of a warning from an admin, any long-term restriction on editing behavior needs far more proof. But at least this is a nice clean proposal with clear boundaries for what is and isn't being proposed. If you do this, be sure to make the new proposal separate from the others, unlike what DSP did. Jeh (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support with reword : The scope is too broad as it apparently attempting to address issues not raised here as Jeh observes. My support would be for a sanction worded, "A prohibition on reverting any edit from an IP address editor. This includes any that are vandalism". The latter because Wtshymanski labels good faith edits as vandalism. Any genuine vandalism will get swept up by others in the usual way. To be enforced by escallating blocks if breached. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment : One, I call a procedure violation. This is not a "support with reword"; in particular, this is not a "reword". It is a different proposal completely. You need to make a new proposal for this. (Should the closing admin assume that the previous "support"s apply to your new proposal? Why? They're for a different proposal, one that still allows W. to revert IP edits, among other differences.)

Two, I guess now the "problem" has morphed into "Wtshymanski's reverts of IPs' edits are bad, and Wtshymanski labels good faith edits as vandalism". Let's see: Out of the five diffs you posted, only two showed W. accusing of "vandalism". Re the article content, those were completely justified reverts. And in each case there is completely sufficient reason to not AGF.

That leaves two actual problem reverts by W.: One was a revert against policy (restore PROD after IP deleted it). In talk page discussion W. made clear that he was surprised that IPs were allowed to block PRODs. The first time I ran into that, I was surprised too. The other was the "IR not visible so it isn't 'light'" revert, which is a factual error on W's part, not related to reverting of an IP nor to any accusations of vandalism.

But even if we accept those, that is still only two problem edits in three weeks. You haven't shown that such problems only occur when W. reverts IPs, you haven't shown any unjustifiable charges of vandalism, and you haven't shown that any problems that are demonstrated by these edits are anything but isolated incidents.

And your attempt to cast it as a "reword", attempting to roll "support"s for the original proposal 2 into "support"s for this, is particularly egregious. Jeh (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - but don't these "restrictions" apply to every editor anyway? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Question What are you supporting? The original Proposal 2, or DSP's so-called "reword"? Jeh (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In concept. Decent edit summaries are a "best practice," not something that's generally enforced; this would make them enforceable. That's why it's not an unreasonable measure. NE Ent 10:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support the reworded (and it is re-worded) restriction. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 11:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support but take to ArbCom - User:Wtshymanski is seem to not understand WP:IPHUMAN, which concerns a lot of new users who decide to make some edits logged out before making an account. However, I don't think ANI is the place for this, consider taking this to WP:ARBCOM. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support the reworded restriction. This kind of wholesale reversion is the worst kind of WP:BITEy behavior. @NE Ent and Guy Macon: could you two please weigh in and indicate if you support the reworded restriction as well, or exclusively what was originally proposed? HiDrNick! 20:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Question What "wholesale reversion"? Five reported reverts in three weeks? Only two of them factually invalid? Jeh (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support the original (not reworded) proposal. I wanted to stay completely uninvolved, but the user convinced me at their talk page that the topic ban is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I nee no proposal for a "topic ban". What "topics" is W. to be banned from editing? Jeh (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

    You are right, I did not word it in a good way. I support the proposal to restrict W from reverting edits without a content-based summary. This is indeed not a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I fully agree with Jeh's analysis of the diffs submitted as evidence, I was about to write something very similar myself. WTS is a problematic editor and has demonstrated a prejudice against IPs in the past, but there is no justification on the evidence given here for any kind of adminstrative action against WTS. The last two diffs in particular, I would likely have reverted them myself without comment. They are obviously wrong and very possibly deliberately disruptive (and by the way, the last one is precisely WTS's area of expertise and is thus certainly not blind reversion). I wouldn't be opposed to a ban on WTS making any edit with any kind of sarcasm in the edit summary (where it cannot easily be replied to), but that would be a different thread altogether to the one here. SpinningSpark 15:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The community is entitled to be fed up of this behaviour. This member is fed up. How much longer does the community have to wait for something to be done? Op47 (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose While I agree that edit summaries should indicate a reason for any edit, this proposal is a solution without a sufficient problem. Suggest the editor be told that "best practice" includes a reasonable statement of the reason for a revert other than simply being an edit from an IP (which is how I read the qualified support !votes above as well) . Collect (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of action it continues...

8th Mar

IP edit: [84]

Wtshymanski revert: [85]

This was a challenge of provided information by asking for a supporting reference. The IP editor did not use the correct {{citation needed}} template - most likely due to inexperience as this is the IP editor's first edit. Wtshymanski just mechanically reverted the IP edit as usual. He could easily have been helpful and inserted the correct template, but driving away IP address editors is more important than being helpful. New and inexperienced editors often need to be assisted to become good editors. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's see. A proposal with only one oppose !vote, and that one from someone who appears to be OK with siding with Wtshymanski in a content dispute where there are zero citations supporting Wtshymanski and where the chairman of that IEEE 1159.1 Power Quality Measurements wrote a paper specifically to correct Wtshymanski‎'s claim.[86] This should be interesting. I will make some popcorn. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

What? I didn't side with anybody in that content dispute. I watched it, but I didn't express an opinion either way. Recently, I just asked a question, a considerable amount of time after the dispute at the article page (unless it's still going on; I haven't looked for a while). But either way, the question was just for my information, not meant to "side" with anyone—if I'd wanted to do that I'd have done it at the article talk page. And anyway, what does that have to do with anything here? Does the fact that I was unclear on how PF is calculated and what negative values would mean make my arguments here less valid? Come on, Guy, you're better than that. Jeh (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. You spent the entire thread attempting to rubbish everyone else's observations on the matter and attempting to justify what Wtshymanski was doing. You even tried to claim that Wtshymanski's actions in some cases were due to his ignorance of the subject in question. Like when you tried to claim that Wtshymanski might have believed that Infra-red light wasn't light. Wtshymanski is sufficiently familiar with the technology to know that 'LED' stands for "Light Emitting Diode" and that 'infra-red light is as much light as any other variety. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You know, DSP, posting carelessly is completely within your rights. But when you do so, you should keep in mind that everything I posted is right here for everyone to see. When it is so ridiculously easy to show that you're off base, I really have to wonder what your motivation is.

There is no support here for a blanket charge of my attempting to "justify what W. was doing". (You have a real problem with speaking in generalities; do you realize that? Do you understand what the problem is with making such claims?) I pointed out that in a couple of the whopping total of five diffs you'd provided, W's. reverts were justified. I pointed out that the five diffs you posted did not support your accusations, that the behavior they did show would not be countered by the various proposals, and that the proposals did not match up with the accusations. Nor did I try "to claim that W. might have believed that Infra-red light wasn't light." I wrote "I agree that W.'s revert was a mistake". I later wrote, referring to the same edit, "which is a factual error on W's part". Get your facts right.

I even suggested a proposal that actually would fit the complaint - W. would be forbidden from referring to "vandalism" in edit summaries. Did you miss that?

You may be thinking of my comment re. the revert of the IP's deletion of a PROD. I was thinking of this comment by W.: [87] Now, maybe I am naive for interpreting that as honest unawareness of the rules—I don't think so, since W. rarely lifts a finger to answer critics; I can't imagine him lying to do so, that would be too much trouble—but it wasn't something I just dreamed up. Jeh (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Jeh, with all due respect, I believe that the record shows that I have been bending over backwards to give Wtshymanski the benefit of the doubt, convince him to engage in a serious discussion about his behavior, and to recommend the minimum level of sanctions that I think will reduce the ongoing disruption to the engineering articles. My perception of your approach is that your are a staunch defender of Wtshymanski, that whenever anyone posts a criticism that is flawed in any way you dissect it analyze it in great detail (which is good), but when a criticism hits home (my response Wtshymanski's continued snarky comments about how right he is about negative power factor despite the reams of citations showing him that he is wrong, for example), you go silent and move on to your next talking point. In my opinion, you are an advocate, not someone who tries to support Wtshymanski when he is right (as he often is) and criticize him when he is wrong. Nothing wrong with that, of course. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I am glad you posted that. I was working on a lengthy reply to the thread over at W.'s talk page when he blanked it (as he is wont to do). Now I have another place, a better place, to put it. But I have real work to do today, so I'll get back to this later. For a short answer, though: I see many things wrong with W.'s behavior; it is just that there are so many people eager to bring AN/I cases against him that it seems superfluous for me to mention them. Meanwhile, it is puzzling to me that you read me as an "advocate" when I don't think I've done much if anything beyond calling for hewing to the standard you called for. Jeh (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You make good point, and looking back at my comment I see that I was too harsh and aggressive. We are clearly both here to improve the encyclopedia, and I apologize for my tone. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Jeh (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:: Ok, here's the long version. First: I pretty much agree with what you wrote here. Same with Dennis Bratland's "outside view" in this old RFC case.

Personally, I do think he has mellowed some in the last year or so. Still, whenever an edit of mine conflicts with one of W's I groan a little, because I'm expecting a fight. The times I haven't gotten one, I've been pleasantly surprised—and that isn't how it's supposed to be here; as was pointed out to me rather firmly in my first months, "AGF! This isn't USENET!" So even I wish he could be persuaded to take the attitude down a few notches, not to mention interact more on his talk page. It would be better for the encyclopedia, and it would be better for him: some positions he takes that I agree with (like this) would have a better chance of being heard if there wasn't such a crusty curmudgeon behind them.

But I don't like dogpiles, and I don't like witch-hunts. More specifically: I don't like zealous efforts to dig through piles of old evidence to find actionable edits, followed by trying one proposal after another to see if something sticks... even though the evidence doesn't support the complaints and the proposals don't address the real problems.

Look at DSP's flip-flopping: from his first paragraphs, which included obviously-wrong universals like "W. reverts any and all edits by IPs"; then switching from one proposal to another when the first collects objections... and branding his own as a "reword" when its intended results had very little in common with what it was supposedly a reword of. ~"We found five problem edits (out of 700) in the last three weeks! Surely there's enough here to get him blocked, or banned from doing SOMEthing!" It really makes DSP look desperate, and since DSP, AD, and GM almost never disagree with each other where W. is concerned, the appearance of desperation is shared around.

And look at some of the reactions to my objections. AD dismisses me with an ad hom: ~"Well, you're W.'s friend, so of course you rush in to defend him." (Dare I suggest AGF, in a complaint thread that's about AGF?) DSP accuses me of saying the exact opposite of what I actually said re the "IR not visible" edit. (I notice that he's "gone silent" on that point.) Similarly, over at W's talk page, an admin claims I said that all of W's reverts were justified! Just how un-carefully do you have to read to conclude such things? Perhaps something that could be called "Wtshymanski derangement syndrome" is involved. I'm partly serious there. I suggest that Wtshymanski's generally... let's call it brusque attitude leads those who are most offended by him to scrutinize his edits far more closely, and find fault far more often, than they would with most other editors.

I see it again in DSP's jumping on W's rv of an IP's edit to the BASIC article. Yes, at first glance it looks like the IP was correct and that W was wrong to revert. Another bogus revert of an IP by Wtshymanski! Throw another log on the pyre! Oh wait. At second glance it looks very much otherwise; see talk:BASIC for further discussion. Editors there have carefully examined the refs and decided for now at least that W's revert was correct. There is still more evidence to be looked at, but the point here is that it looks to me as if DSP jumped too easily to the conclusion that W.'s revert was wrong, motivated as he was to add more weight to this complaint.

In short, I raised objections to this complaint/series of complaints/series of proposals against W. not because I think W. is beyond reproach, nor because I'm his "friend", but because I don't think the complaints or proposals are justified by the evidence, and I don't think the proposals address the real issues (those being a pattern of general, but generally mild, incivility, and near-complete refusal to engage in discussion). And I don't think anybody should be the target of the sorts of tag-teaming, lets-get-him-on-something campaign I see here.

Yes, of course "Everybody knows" W. is hasty to revert IPs. That's what the complaint was here, and he's been taken to ANI a lot before (though not for a pattern of being hasty to revert IPs), so of course it must be true. But a few point examples don't prove it. Nevertheless an admin showed up and seemed only too eager to take up the banner. That admin even claimed that it was legitimate to conclude that any given revert of W's was likely erroneous just because W. has been taken to ANI, etc., more often than most. ("This guy's had three tickets this year; let's write him for speeding again even though we haven't so much as clocked him!") This is the same revert I mentioned DSP jumping on above, and the sources show that W.'s revert was correct. The admin mentioned "statistics," but cited no numbers, only personal impressions. As Guy Macon said here, a lot of things that "everybody knows" turn out to be not true. Bottom line: If we're supposed to take it as proven that Wtshymanski is overly revertful of IP edits, then let's see some numbers that prove that charge. I don't agree that general impressions shared by the hive mind are sufficient, particularly for someone who edits as much as Wtshymanski does. And especially when someone is calling for a three-week block.

The current complaint started out with "not even wrong" universal claims ("W. reverts any and all edits by IPs") and did not improve after that. What we're left with is "W. has misbehaved a lot in the past, and here are a tiny handful of problem edits; let's make up some proposals that address some very specific issues with these edits." That's not the way to bring an AN/I case, and the proposals made here are not going to do anything for the real problems.

That is all. I've spent way too much time on this. Last words are everyone else's. I'm banning myself from the next three W.-related ANI threads, at least. Jeh (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Jeh. In particular, the "W. reverts any and all edits by IPs" claim was stupid, and we all -- myself included -- need to work harder on only supporting claims where there is solid evidence, and objecting whenever claims are overreaching. Jeh, I still feel bad about going off half cocked in my first reply to you. That was wrong, and again I apologize.

This is my final comment here, so in closing I am going to repost something I wrote to Wtshymanski[88] in response to his writing "Suddenly I'm the biggest threat to Wikipedia since Essjay", and which he deleted without response.

"No, you are not the biggest threat to Wikipedia since Essjay. What you are is someone who refuses to simply engage in a dialog about your behavior, forcing multiple frustrated editors to take to to ANI in the hope that an admin will intervene. Your every interaction drips with sarcasm and disdain for anyone who dares to disagree with you, and you never admit defeat, even in cases such as negative power factor where you have never, ever been able to produce a single cite supporting your position after it became clear (the author himself told you so) that the IEEE standard had an error in it. You piss people off, and not just a few of them. Some withdraw in frustration, some misbehave in retaliation, and a few keep trying to reduce the disruption to the encyclopedia. Your actual level of disruption is actually rather mild compared to most cases, but it drives people crazy when they cannot get you to simply talk over your differences like adults. But of course you know all of this." --Posted by Guy Macon (talk) to Wtshymanski's talk page on 20:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I can only hope that Wtshymanski decides to be more cooperative and collegial with other editors, realizing that at least some of us have the same goals of improving the Encyclopedia that he has. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to break my self-imposed exile here because I'm not replying to an argument (I honestly think I've said all I will ever have to say in this thread). Rather I'm just saying "thank you". Guy, you had apologized previously and I was completely satisfied with that. My missive above was not intended to elicit more of the same, simply to explain further why I've been following the path I've been following. In any case, thank you again for stopping to "listen" to my POV. Jeh (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Still no action and the problem continues

13th Mar

1st IP edit: [89]: 2nd IP edit: [90]

Wtshymanski revert: [91]

This was a case of two for the price of one. Wtshymanski got to revert two good faith edits from two different IP editors at the same time. The first IP added a co-creator of BASIC to the article. A definitely good faith addition because it was entirely correct. The second IP linked the added name to the Wikipedia article (so also good faith). Wtshymanski, in less than an hour, reverted both edits. He was more interested in reverting the IP edits than whether what they had added was correct. Had Wtshymanski, followed the added link to the Wikipedia article, he whould have discovered than not only that Mary Kenneth Keller indeed had co-created BASIC but that it was reliably and verifiably referenced. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I put a fairly strong warning and I feel that the next revert should result in a block. Since I am not involved (in fact, did not hear about this user until today), I will have no hesitation to block them myself, but of course any uninvolved administrator can do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Now someone objected me at the talk page, got me involved in the discussion, and I can not be considered as uninvolved any more.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Related: Info on Sister Mary Kenneth Keller (PDF). --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Some action at last. I have taken the liberty of copying the reference from the Mary Kenneth Keller article to the BASIC article so it is unreferenced no longer. It should not have been necessary for someone else to do this, as Wtshymanski could easily have been helpful to the newbie IP editors and done the same. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have just found yet another reversion of a good faith edit that was perfectly valid. But since the edit was made before the warning was posted to Wtshymanski's talk page, I shall demonstrate some good faith and let it go. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

We have admin eyes on the issue, so I think it is time for me to stop commenting and let this either be closed or time out and be archived. I still think that some admin should look at the totality of Wtshymanski's behavior (ANI was touted as the replacement for RFC/U, after all) instead of playing Whac-A-Mole as a slow but steady stream of ANI complaints are filed. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"Working on" some project under the direction of the two acknowledged inventors did not make Sister Keller the "co-inventor." Kemeny and Kurtz are stated to be the inventors /developers of Basic in countless reliable sources, which say they supervised a team of students who did the implementation. Apparently Keller was one of those students, probably a graduate student. The refs provided only show her to have been one of the worker-bees. It is O.R to list her as a third, co-equal developer of Basic. There is a discussion on the talk page of the article on the Basic language as to Keller's role. Edison (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This does not belong here. This is a discussion of the editing habits of one editor. Regardless of whether Mary Kenneth Keller co-invented BASIC or not, this is a discussion on whether Wtshymanski was correct or not to revert the edits adding her to the inventors of the article. He may (or may not) be factually correct, but the IP address that added the information can definitely be assumed to have acted in good faith because the Mary Kenneth Keller article contains the very claim supported by a reference where it has stood unchallenged since the article was created back in June 2012. I am not in a position to say if Wtshymanski has any knowledge of the inventors of BASIC, but he certainly provided no evidence to support his reversion of the edits. His edit comment acompanying the revert of, "no, not really", is, at best, nothing more than a statement of personal knowledge or possibly original research.

Looking at this as an uninvolved user, who is right and who is wrong about Mary Keller is entirely beside the point. Two IP address based editors made what must be regarded as good faith edits from the points made above. Their edits were reverted based on nothing more than personal knowledge or original research. To my outside view, that means that this example fits with the general thrust of this ANI complaint. If the good faith edit was wrong, then it requires correction, but that requires supporting references and evidence. A reversion without such evidence, given the referencing at the linked article, is wrong - and that is exactly what happened. I grant that several editors are now questioning the reliability of the referencing, but that discussion was not available to the two IP address editors at the time of their good faith edits so that is entirely moot. –LiveRail < Talk > 11:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried to make exactly the same point at the user's talk page, without much success: My opponents think that per WP:V these edits MUST be reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

So WTS was wrong to revert unsourced information on the basis that the same claim is made in another Wikipedia article? Come on, we repeatedly tell newbies they can't use Wikipedia articles as references. And whatever happened to WP:V and the principle that it is the responsibility of the challenged editor to provide a source? I cannot agree that "who is right and who is wrong about Mary Keller is entirely beside the point". The entire complaint here about WTS is that he is alleged to revert IPs without regard to the quality of their edits. An example where he is shown to be right, or at least knowledgable editors in the subject believe him to be right, absolutley does not count as evidence towards that behaviour. Nor should it be taken as a breach of any previous warning. SpinningSpark 19:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. This is not about one reversion of an IP edit. This is about a policy that Wtshymanski has toward all IP address editors and their edits. Wtshymanski has freely admitted in the course of this ANI that he does routinely revert all edits from IP editors with the exception of one per year. It would seem that the one per year is solely so that any claim that he revets all IP edits can be refuted - which in fact he has tried on. However, it seems to not be impressing many people except the gullible. The admin who posted the statement to Wtshymanski's talk page telling him that he will be blocked if he does it again has apparently researched the history and found that it is true. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not missing the point at all and I take exception to the implication that I am gullible. I realise this thread is not just about one IP edit, but you have utterly failed to provide the evidence by way of multiple credible diffs that there is a current and ongoing problem. The claim that Shymanski has admitted to reverting all IP edits is preposterous. You are referring to this which is proof by counterexample with a heavy dollop of typical WTS sarcasm. The one per year are counterexamples to the claim that all IP edits are reverted, not an admission of it. SpinningSpark 10:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This has already been researched. You certainly are gullible if you believe that Wtshymanski's 'one-per-year' list are 'counter-examples'. Not one (none, zip, zilch) of the examples given in that post are counter-examples of routine reversion of IP edits in any shape or form - it's a standard Wtshymanski smoke-screen. All of the edits provided are just routine addition of information; copy-editing the article to make it clearer or correction of grammar and usage - all of which are legitimate edits (even if originally introduced by an IP editor) and are not the subject of this ANI. As said: not one is an example of a failure to revert a good faith edit (or any immediately preceeding edit) by an IP editor.

A counter-example (for the purposes of this ANI) has to be a good faith edit made by an IP editor to an article that Wtshymanski regularly watches (basically all the engineering articles), that was not reverted. You can go through Wtshymanski's edit history but you won't find one - it's already been done.

However, this is all academic as sentence has been pronounced. This ANI is ready for archiving. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's funny that you can't actually provide diffs of this alleged routine reversion. And I don't see any "sentence" having been pronounced. SpinningSpark 18:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You're not following this are you? I provided all the diffs since 17th Feb - seven of them (this ignores one that occured before admin intervention because I discovered it afterwards). The examples go back years, but as I explained in the original complaint, I would still be typing them in if I documented all that occured here. A snapshot looking back one month was adequate to the task. All the diffs are fully documented here and you can search for them yourself. There is no example of any edit from an IP editor (good faith or otherwise) being allowed to remain in any article routinely watched by Wtshymanski. An admin took action here. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who is not following, or else has a bad case of IDHT. I said above that I do not accept that your seven diffs adequately demonstrate the alleged behaviour and I fully support Jeh's analysis of them. Most of them are perfectly reasonable reverts that any of us could have done. As I also said, Shymanski is a problematic editor, but let's not take action in the spirit of a witch hunt on the basis of flimsy evidence. SpinningSpark 18:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to disagree with you. But never mind ... DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It still continues...

Despite Ymblanter's warning on his talk page.

19th Mar

IP edit: [92]

Wtshymanski revert: [93]

This is an identical revert to the 8th Mar one above but against a different IP editor. This was a challenge of information by asking for a supporting reference. It is fairly clear that it was the magnitude of the unreferenced numbers that was being challenged. The IP editor did not use the correct template - most likely due to inexperience as this is the IP editor's first edit. Wtshymanski just mechanically reverted the IP edit as usual . He could easily have been helpful and inserted the correct template (or better still a reference - which I was easily able to do), but driving away IP address editors is more important than being helpful. New and inexperienced editors often need to be assisted to become good editors and this is a classic case where this needs to be done.

19th Mar

IP edit: [94]

IP edit self revert: [95]

Wtshymanski revert: [96]

The first IP edit is where he made an uncited change to the century in which arc welding was developed and added some nonsense text. The second IP edit is where he self reverted his change back to what the article read before he edited (I have no problem where someone self reverts things that are not right - good faith demands that I have to assume it was a mistake). However Wtshymanski, as usual, sees the IP editor's second edit and mechanically reverts it - without even bothering to check that a reversion is even warranted. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Ouch, yeah that revert they did clearly shows no thought or investigation into what the user is actually reverting. 129.9.75.248 (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This is getting absolutely ridiculous. That last revert has to be considered as proof positive that the basis of this ANI complaint is completely sound. In view of the fact that Wtshymanski has made two more unwarranted reverts of IP edits despite being specifically warned not to do so must be regarded as blatant defiance. Because Wtshymanski is making it abundantly clear that he is not even prepared to heed a specific warning given to him by an administrator, I would call upon the warning administrator (or any administrator) to implement the block that was threatened. Because this is a specific vendetta directed at potential future editors of Wikipedia, that block cannot be anything other than an indefinite block as it is clear that Wtshymanski is WP:NOTHERE to collaborate with others on building an encyclopedia. –LiveRail < Talk > 16:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

They managed to involve me to the discussion, so that I can not be considered uninvolved anymore, and will not block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Are we really to believe that an IP that writes "fack information about this" has made a good faith mistake. Shymanski's error was not that the IP did not deserve reverting, but rather, that he did not revert far enough. That is an argument for giving Shymanski rollback so he can more easily avoid that mistake in the future rather than blocking him for what was actually a good faith mistake on his part. SpinningSpark 18:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, you could just AGF, and assume the IP meant to type "lack information about this" at the end of an unsourced paragraph, unaware of {{cn}}. That would make a certain amount of sense for an inexperienced "newbie" edit, unfamiliar with how to add or challenge material. Just saying. Worth at least trying to ascertain the intent, maybe, or ask for a source, rather than an incorrect partial revert with the summary "not really", showing no attempt to examine the overall change before undoing it. Especially in the current circumstances. Begoon ^talk 09:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you have completely missed the point. I suggest you re-read the summary of what Wtshymanski did. It is not a question that he did not revert back far enough. The IP editor had already reverted his own incorrect edit and removed the nonsense phrase that he had added. The article was thus in exactly the same state as it was before he made any edits. There was nothing to roll back. Wtshymanski simply reverted the last edit (the revert) without actually checking to see what it did and as a result, effectively vandalised the article albeit probably unwittingly - but that is not the point. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is the ANI I'm being asked to respond to. I see I have accidentally reverted good edits as well as vandalism. Often if I only see the vandalism edit in the diff I go back to the previous version without checking if it, too is valid. I often check the edit history before reverting to make sure I'm going back to a good version; I have neglected that in some cases where the vandalism was small. I will check the edit history more carefully before reverting. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I move that this be closed as "no action required". I consider Wtshymanski to be completely honest and trustworthy (our disagreements lie elsewhere) and if he says he will be more careful that should be the end of it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

As I stated aove, I can accept someone making a (or several similar) mistake(s). The real art in making a mistake is to learn from them and not to repeat them. I agree this can be closed on the basis of Wtshymanski's statement above. I have little doubt that if he does err again, we will get to know about it. As a user who is uninvolved in the complaint made here, I shall be bold and close this case. –LiveRail < Talk > 13:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Reopened - Not resolved

I have taken the liberty of re-opening this ANI because the matter does not seem to have been resolved. An anonymous editor has made this edit to MOS Technology 6502. Another unrelated user has removed an unsourced and frankly unencyclopeadic sentence.

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs) has reverted the good faith addition made by the anonymous editor. I do not feel that this is the place to debate whether the intended reversion was right ot wrong (that belongs elsewhere). But what does belong here is that Wtshymanski in reverting the anonymous edit has reintroduced the unsourced and unencyclopeadic content. Wtshymanski, has therefore not checked the edit history or what he was reverting as he promissed to do in his statement above. It is my belief that he was just routinely and mechanically reverting the anonymous edit because it was an anonymous edit as he has done so frequently in the past. 86.145.211.167 (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Can and ANI be re-opened once closed? As the closer: If it can then I concur and support the re-opening on the grounds given. The IP edit has to be regarded as good faith edit (adding more trivia to a pre-existing trivia section). I am not convinced that articles benifit from lists of trivia, but as noted that is whole different debate. This was a good faith edit whose reversion is questionable. The matter at point here is that the reversion carelessly re-introduced material that had already been deleted by another user. That should not have happened if Wtshymanski had learnt from this experience. –LiveRail < Talk > 15:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This has gotten a lot of attention already, no need to re-open. Chillum 15:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This has got a lot of attention and for very good reasons. There is a serious problem here and it it would seem to require some action. As things stand, it would appear that Wtshymanski is taking absolutely no notice whatsoever of any of the comments that have been made here, the warning placed on his talk page or his own proposal in the previous section. If the examples provided here really are examples of routine reversion of IP editor's edits as has been suggested more than once, then that is totally unacceptable. This ANI now documents ten examples of reverts to IP edits (over a period of just five weeks). While some are more obvious than others, I think that if all ten are viewed together, there is a clear case. –LiveRail < Talk > 16:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just driving by here, I agree that this is far from resolved. Wtshymanski's indiscriminate reverting of anonymous contributions is extremely WP:BITEy and WP:OWNy, and needs to stop immediately. There was a proposal above that I read as prohibiting the user from reverting any anonymous contributions, and I think that is the absolute minimum required. They either cannot tell the difference between good-faith contributions and intentional vandalism, or they don't care. The evidence presented above suggests the latter, but regardless of which it actually is, W's indiscriminate reverting is causing a whole lot more disruption than if they just left IP edits for someone else to judge. They should also read WP:IPs are human too, which in the lede has this to say about indiscriminately reverting IPs: "This practice is against the philosophy of Wikipedia and founding principles of all Wikimedia projects." Continued violation should result in blocks. Ivanvector (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

While I think that ANI discussions are rarely productive once they get this old I am happy to let the discussion continue. Chillum 15:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably right, but usually because the issue either resolves itself or makes its way to Arbcom or something. Neither is the case here, at least not yet. I was working on making a new thread when this was reopened. Ivanvector (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Any chance of a clue as to what was going to be in it? –LiveRail < Talk > 16:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Just what I posted above, with reference to this thread and the fact that I had started a new one because an administrator enforced closing the unresolved one. Procedural nonsense, basically. Ivanvector (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the promotion, but I am not an administrator. I am a relatively uninvolved ordinary editor who has had minimal interaction with Wtshymanski, and whose only real knowledge of this matter is what is here and in the editing history. It is not uncommon for ANI complaints to be closed with a statement of intent to do things differently from the complainee. Wtshymanski made such a statement above and I did what we all aspire to do and assumed it was made in good faith. It would seem that, on this ocassion, I was wrong. –LiveRail < Talk > 16:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify for the sake of completeness, by "an administrator enforced..." I was referring to Chillum reinstating your close after 86.145.x.x reopened. I hadn't actually looked at your userrights, and also am not an administrator myself. Ivanvector (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The proposal above (proposal 2) was not a restriction on reverting IP edits (I had to read it again because I thought you were right). It was a more wide ranging restriction on reversions that some other users had issues with. But: I like your thinking and accordingly, I shall propose ... –LiveRail < Talk > 16:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've gone and reverted the change on MOS Technology 6502 by Wtshymanski and put the page on my watchlist. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 16:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Revert restriction

That Wtshymanski be banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address, broadly construed. This to include not only a direct reversion of such an edit (using the (undo) feature) but also indirectly reverting by copy-pasting text from a previous version of any article.

• Support: This has to be any edit, because although I am aware that Wtshymanski does sweep up vandalism and 'undesireable' edits but, as Ivanvector states above, they would soon be swept up by others. A ban on reverting vandalism is warranted because the examples in the ANI reveal a tendency to revert good faith edits as vandalism when they are not. –LiveRail < Talk > 16:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support (as co-proposer?) per my comments above. Wtshymanski's contributions are highly appreciated, however apparent repeated failures to distinguish others' highly appreciated contributions from clear vandalism have led to behaviour against the spirit of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and their pledge to discontinue such behaviour was moot given this lack of awareness. Ivanvector (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not just those with accounts. Wtshymanski needs to be put under 0RR with regard to anonymous edits. This kind of WP:BITEy behaviour should not be tolerated. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 16:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Enough's enough. Wtshymanski clearly has no respect for IP editors, no competence to check that he's reverting correctly and no intention of even complying with the feeble restrictions previously agreed. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I think more people are starting to see what I am on about here. This is basically the reword I proposed of Option 2 above, so I have to support it. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Good proposal and well worth doing, but I don't think it will solve the underlying problem, which is why I posted proposal 5 below while still supporting this proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Even better idea than option 2 above. Op47 (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as my general position on Draconian solutions. I suggest the position that he be asked to give better summaries is reasonable, but bans in such a case do not "solve" much at all. The seeing multiple IP edits problem and "reverting the wrong one" is not rare on Wikipedia, alas, but singling out one editor is not the solution - one should propose on an appropriate policy page language on the order of "reverting any edit made by an IP primarily on the basis that the edit was made by an IP, is improper" or the like. Where it is the policy or guideline one has a problem with, that is what should be emended. Collect (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support If you want Wtshymanski to change for the better, this is what needs to be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing example from above

For the sake of completeness of the history of this routine reversion of IP edits, there is one example of a revert to an IP edit that I left out because it was made before Ymblanter posted his warning to Wtshymanski's talk page. I feel it would be apposite to now include it - as I say for completeness.

13th Mar

IP edit: [97]

Wtshymanski revert: [98]

This was a good faith edit adding the 'Ω' symbol to the text of the article. Wtshymanski just mechanically reverted the edit with a the edit summary, "already in the lead (sic)". Whilst it is true that it was in the lede, the lede is meant to be a summary of the main part of the article (per WP:LEAD). Thus it was quite proper for the IP editor to add it. I note that someone else objected and restored it after Wtshymanski reverted my restoration. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

More reversion of good faith

23rd Mar

IP edit: [99]

Wtshymanski revert: [100]

Once again a good faith edit from an IP editor where he has added a 'see also' that links to an article that is a valid application of the subject of the article. Wtshymanski has just routinely reverted the edit claiming 'low relevance'. It is not of low relevance, SCSI was a mainstream application of the D-subminiature connector. Indeed: I have several SCSI drives that use the connectors. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference showing relevance: [101] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 5: A well-crafted set of restrictions

Consider this a mini-test of the theory that ANI can handle the function formerly handled by RFC/U.

Proposal 4, while good, only covers one aspect of Wtshymanski's behavior, leaving ANI in the position of playing Whac-A-Mole forever with Wtshymanski and with a series of new editors who are goaded into serious misbehavior after interacting with Wtshymanski. I would ask that a close look be given to the patterns of behavior shown here:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Wtshymanski hammering his personal knowledge into articles again
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User Wtshymanski refusing to follow the merge procedure when merging articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Unilateral redirects without merging as stated in edit summaries - User:Wtshymanski
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive683#Request for admin attention re: proposed deletion of multiple electronics components articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive690#Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive138#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Floydian .28Result: Stale.29
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Power factor
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive257#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:85.255.233.193 (Result: Protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive172#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: declined, semi-protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive149#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:24.177.120.74 (Result: page protected)
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive103#Wtshymanski and the transistor AfDs

I propose that Wtshymanski be given a carefully crafted set of community restrictions that will allow him to do good work without doing those things that the community finds disruptive.

I further propose that the community restrictions be enforced in the following manner, and not according to our traditional "do nothing, do nothing, do nothing, drop a piano on him" custom.

1st failure to follow a community restriction: warning. 2nd: warning. 3rd: 24 hour block. 4th: 2-day block. 5th: 4-day block, then 8 and so on, escalating to at least 64 days before considering an indefinite block.

This does not imply immunity from other blocks -- this only applies to this specific set of community restrictions. Also, it must be the same specific restriction; no combining. In other words, he can fail to follow each individual restriction twice without any blocks.

Specific restrictions

This is my idea of what specific restrictions will work, but I am completely open to a revised or even completely different list. The core of my proposal is that there be a well-crafted set of restrictions enforced with the escalating warnings/sanctions detailed above, not the specific set of restrictions chosen.

• No sarcasm or personal comments in edit summaries. All edit summaries must be a neutrally-worded and accurate description of the edit. No misleading edit summaries.

• No activities that delete articles without discussion. In other words, WP:AFD is allowed, WP:PROD or WP:MERGE without prior discussion on the article talk page is not.

• Three or perhaps five minutes between edits in article space except for minor typo corrections. This will give him time to be more careful and to make better use of the preview feature.

• Normal 3RR restriction reduced to 2RR.

I would also encourage more administrators to warn Wtshymanski when he violates WP:CIVIL. He is usually responsive to warnings from admins and tones it down for a while when he gets one. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd go as far as suggest 1RR or even 0RR. But otherwise, I support this and I'd say first choice over prop 4. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Remember, we have a really, really long history of various editors coming to ANI about Wtshymanski and nothing being done. A lot of this is because the cases were filed by newbies who ended up behaving worse than Wtshymanski, but a lot of it is because each individual case shows Wtshymanski being somewhat disruptive but not as bad as most of the other disruptive editors we see reported here. I think we should ask for the bare minimum amount of restrictions that will get the job done. Otherwise we risk yet another ANI case that confirms Wtshymanski's observation: "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."[102] 2RR can always be changed to 1RR or 0RR if needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. They can probably be left with 3RR, even, with a 1RR or 0RR restriction only with regard to IP edits. In any case, better to just get this out the door than dicker about everything and let Wtshymanski's disruptive reverts continue. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 22:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you have always stated (and I have always agreed) that we should be scrupulously fair and equitable with how we treat Wtshymanski. This ANI deals with a specific trait of Wtshymanski's attitude towards other users of Wikipedia. Whilst I cannot help but agree that there are other aspects of that behaviour that require addressing, they have not been the subject of this ANI. Any sanctions should be limited to addressing the specific complaint(s) made which are those that Wtshymanski has been given the opportunity of answering and/or making his own proposals as to the way forward. That Wtshymanski has chosen not to adequately answer those points is neither here nor there and entirely his choice but I believe that we are entitled to assume that he has no intention of co-operating. I have addressed this again below.

On the other hand, if you wish to raise a suplementary ANI and link it to this one, that might be a different matter, but we do seem to be heading toward a world record on the length of an ANI (both temporally and spatially). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 6: indefinite block

I have no prior interaction with Wtshymanski (that I know of) but I have seen the thread above and the threads which Guy Macon linked, and I see an editor who has wasted an inordinate amount of the community's time in trying to correct their behaviour. Whatever useful contributions they may have (and they do, unquestionably) they are shrouded by being repeatedly dragged before the drama courts for the same behavioural transgressions over and over and over and over again. Their block log, while short, shows that they're not getting the message that this behaviour is intolerable.

With respect to Guy Macon, who based on reading the threads posted above has a long history of interactions with this editor, a "well-crafted set of restrictions" can only waste more of the community's time dealing with this editor who in Guy's own words "figures out exactly where the line is that will get him blocked and stands with his toes over the line" ([103]). Here are some things that other users have had to say about Wtshymanski over the years:

• "It seesm [sic] to me that Wtshymanski actually welcomes such a complaint, because when the decision comes down in his favour, it underwrites his offensive and offhand attitude." --DieSwartzPunkt [104]
• "His negative effects _on_others_ far outweigh any positive contribution. His effects on articles aren't great either, but it's his _toxic_ effect on other editors that's the worst of it." --Andy Dingley, emphasis in original [105]
• "In my opinion, many of these newbie editors could grow into very productive editors if they don't leave in disgust after tangling with Wtshymanski." --Guy Macon [106]
• "Wtshymanski needs to be given a substantive motivation to change his demeanor, and if his behavior does not improve, then stronger remedies should be used." --Dennis Bratland [107]
• "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest." --attributed to Wtshymanski but I have not found the actual diff

This is a tendentious editor who has been warned time and time again about their behaviour, and who each time backs off just enough to escape admin action and formal sanction, then returns to the same tendentious behaviours. Accordingly, each time the administrators fail to act, even more of the community's time is wasted. Enough of this. Although it may be in good faith, editors like this do not improve the encyclopedia, they hinder and obstruct (and drive away) other editors who do improve it. Thus I propose that Wtshymanski be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia, with consideration for the WP:STANDARDOFFER after six months. Ivanvector (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Diff for "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest.":[108] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Option of last resort. Wtshymanski does contribute some good edits in various technical topics, but their reverts and incivil edit summaries leaves much to be desired. I'd rather see the editor banned from further reverting edits, but allow them to continue adding content -- with the warning that further incivil behaviour will lead to an indefinite block. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 22:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Undecided. Support. While I agree with everything Ivanvector says, as I mentioned before I strongly dislike the standard ANI "do nothing, do nothing, do nothing, drop a piano on him" practice. At what point does continued refusal to act become de-facto permission to keep acting that way? And is it really fair to suddenly decide that this time we really mean it after leading him to believe that there would never be any consequences as long as he only stuck his toes over the line? Then again, surely he has seen it happen to others, and maybe, just maybe, a block then a return under the standard offer will finally convince Wtshymanski to work collaboratively. I really don't know the answer. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Upon careful consideration, I have concluded that the disruption outweighs the contributions and thus I support an indefinite community block (as well as supporting the other, weaker remedies). --Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose see past comments. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Stongly Support: I speak as an editor who edits from an IP address. I don't claim to be Wikipedia's greatest editor, but I certainly do not vandalise articles or add meaningless content (or at least not intentionally - we all make mistakes from time to time). All edits that I have made to engineering related articles have been reverted by Wtshymanski, always for some frivolous reason, and sometimes with an uncivil edit summary making it clear that I am not wanted. I do not edit anywhere near as frequently as I used to because of the hostile environment created by Wtshymanski. As an affected contributor, and in view of the minimal genuine contribution supplied by Wtshymanski, it is very clear to me that Wikipedia would be a far better environment without Wtshymanski. Indef block him. He has never been here to colaborate on building an encyclopedia. When I do find an article area that is not regularly patroled by Wtshymanski, I have no difficulty in making positive contribution without the continual reverts ([109] - under a previous dynamic IP). 86.149.139.47 (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

We should not indef an editor because it will make WP better, just if that's the only way to make it better. How do you feel about a ban on IP reverts (and only a ban on IP reverts)? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This post is of considerable import bearing in mind that it does come from an editor directly affected by the issue being discussed. What he says is of the greatest relevance and has nailed perfectly the points that I have been endeavouring to make. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support We should definitely be indeffing people who are wasting the community's time with the same crap over and over and over again. Perhaps if this was done more often, there'd be fewer repeat offenders like this guy. Jtrainor (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Really Draconian = really poor idea. Collect (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's try and wrap this up

From the discussion above on the complaint and the various proposals made, it seems that there is a general consensus that there is a problem with Wtshymanski routinely reverting edits made by IP editors against the general policy of Wikipedia (noting that there was a groundswell of consensus as more examples became available).

Also of great relevance is that Wtshymanski has declined to answer or comment on the points raised in this ANI beyond a statement he made above that he would exercise more care in reverting edits. A statement which he promptly ignored on his very next editing session with two such reverts.

There is also a broad consensus that action of some sort should be taken with opinions varying as to what.

The greatest support is for Proposal 4 the restriction on reverting any IP based edits (7 8 support 1 oppose).

There is a lesser consensus for Option 6 - Indefinite block. (3 4 support 2 oppose 2 1 abstention).

There is a lesser consensus for Option 5 - a broader range of restrictions (2 support 1 oppose).

Unless anyone has anything to add, I move that Option 4, the restriction on reverting any edits for IP address editors be implemented. Enforcement to be via a series of escalating blocks. I note that the last block for unco-operative editing was for one week, so the first block for the first deviation from the restriction should be for one month escalating as required (3 and then 6 months?). Upon the third deviation from the restriction, an indefinite block should be considered as it will be clear by this point that nothing is going to change.

I commend this to the community. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm all for wrapping this up, and I endorse any restriction imposed here, even an imperfect one, as one that will make the editing environment less hostile to IP editors, per WP:IAR. Please ping me when (not if) this ends up at Arbcom. Ivanvector (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with wrapping this up now with any of the proposed community restrictions. I strongly oppose closing this or letting this go to archive with no action at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Question Could someone who thinks WTS makes good content contributions, give a brief summary of those contributions? "Content contribution" for purpose for purpose of this question specifically means new informative material added to the encyclopedia. This doesn't count reversions and removals of any sort, since those (some good, some bad) have already been discussed. A content contribution assessment separate from any reversions, deletions, and spelling corrections would be helpful in understanding the big picture. Thanks. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we haven't discussed reversions and removals of any sort. just the subset that is problematical, and I caution against the common "content creation is king, error fixers are second-class editors" attitute. That being said, less than two minutes of searching (I timed it) found these two:

• Taking a picture that most editors wouldn't know to take or how to describe the significance of and adding it to an aricle:[110][111]

• Copyediting an article and adding content that most editors would not be able to create: [112]

If anyone wants me to I will take a half an hour and find dozens more. The engineering articles need editors with engineering knowledge. I really don't want to lose Wtshymanski's productive contributions if we can find a way to stop him from constantly finding new ways to be disruptive and driving away other editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

+1 Wtshymanski does some good work on tech and EE articles, but continually demonstrates why standard rollback/revert isn't something handed out to everyone (TW notwithstanding). Something needs to be done, but without losing them altogether unless that's the only option left. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 00:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, thanks. Yes we have discussed WTS's reversions across the various threads and the RFC. I wouldn't say error fixers are second class editors, but when someone reverts a non-vandalistic content addition, they are saying they know better than the contributor how to contribute content. So if they get into a bunch of ANI's about those reverts, I like to see some evidence that they know how to contribute content themselves before telling others how to do it. I'm satisfied with the examples you gave and your judgment on WTS's additions. If he hadn't made any significant ones, I'd support the indef block proposal. As it is, I defer to you. I'm pessimistic about the other proposals but one can always hope. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus to close this. Could we have an uninvolved admin write up a summary, take whatever action is required (if any), and close the case? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The broad opinion is that this should be closed with the option 4 sanction. Could an administrator now do the honours. Or are we to believe that raising a problem at this noticeboard is a waste of time and resources? If the administrators are not going to take action then could they at least have the courtesy to leave a note here why and tell us what we should have done, or need to do, to resolve this problem? –LiveRail < Talk > 08:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I have enacted proposal 4 and recorded it on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

personal attacks by Longtone

Longtone has been engaging in personal attacks against me on the trajan vuia page for some time now. most recently calling me an obsessive monomaniac [113] and accusing me of sockpuppetry [114], and going all the way back to his insulting me in edit sumaries [115]. This seems to be his way of trying to rectify a content dispute, but my concern here today is his personal attacks.Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think you mean TheLongTone, but at any rate...calling you a POV pusher isn't really a personal attack. And s/he even stated that s/he didn't call you a sock (although this is close). Both of y'all maybe need to cool off for a bit, but I don't really see anything warranting admin intervention here. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} that no administrative action is necessary at this point. I think you would need to show a more severe pattern of name-calling, and un-civil behavior, etc. Before going to this forum, I think you should post an uncivil tag on the user's talk page, list the incident diffs and say you plan to take them to ANI if they continue along this line. As to the content dispute, you might try asking for a Third Opinion WP:THIRD. (revised) David Tornheim (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Nemes is an SPA solely concerned with pushing his POV re Train Vuia: this is in the face of a num,ber of editors opposing his edits. He does not engage with arguments on the talk page, merely acts hysterically. As he is doing here.TheLongTone (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

And I admit my deralings with Nemes have got snippy, but this is in the face of persistent failure to engage with issues on his part: he has also made accusations of improper behaviour agains me and other users, notably User:Binksternet.TheLongTone (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It is you and your fellow vandals(that's what stonewalling and tendentious editing are defined as) Binsternet and donfb who refuse to engage with arguments. And whining about content disputes is not the purpose of this page. you're a veteram editor, you should know that.Ion G Nemes (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. It's for the talk page, where you have made an obnoxious fool of yourself. Incidentally the IP who you claim is my sock is in Montreal. I think it's fairly obvious that I am not.TheLongTone (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• To both of you: Please stop with the Ad_hominems. Calling each other names in this back and forth is not going to solve anything. Each of you should please review Wiki-Incivility and WP:ETIQ. You both need to provide diffs of the behavior you are accusing the other of.
• To TheLongTone (talk): You accused Ion G Nemes (talk) of being a SPA. However, I looked at Nemes's user contributions [here], and that is not correct. Please do not WP:BITE new users (to the page). This lends credibility to Nemes's accusations against you. Please review this policy guideline from WP:BITE:

Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet." You can point them to those policies if there is valid cause to do so. For example, if a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute (see Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade).

(revised) David Tornheim (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Read and understood. I admit that I have at times been uncivil in my reactions to the situation I find myself in. And although I do believe that gaming the system has occurred at times, I will not bring it up as an epithet, and restrict all mention of it to situations where it is actually necessary, and in such hopefully rare situations try to do so with tact. It is not my intention to bring allegations of tendentiousness against TheLongTone for any acts he has performed up to this time, I got mad and mentioned something which I honestly believe, but did and do not intend to pursue in his case. I have no idea how to 'strike out' a line of text, but anyone reading this should feel free to strike the word Vandals, and the parenthetical phrase after it(perhaps to be replaced by 'editors'), and to strike the word whining. And I am sorry for that post's tenor.Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: However I do not believe I have ever called Thelongtone a sockpuppet at any time. And Since I have no Idea who he is, or where he's from, the whole Montreal thing is, frankly, confusing to me. Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

To Ion G Nemes (talk): Thank you for taking responsibility for your behavior. To strike out a section, add <s> immediately before the text and </s> at the end of the text as I did with this text which you can look at if you edit this page. See also Strikethrough.

-David Tornheim (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I stand by everything I have said. Nemes is to all effects a SPA, very few of his edits are anywhere else. And my other comments are fully justified by his conduct on Talk:Train Vuia. Why provide diffs: almost everythin posted is evidence of his foolish behaviour. Notably the familiar POV that an editor is upholding truth in the face of a cabal of POV pushers.TheLongTone (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I also do not understand why I am accused of biting a newcomer: Nemes has been editing since December 2010. Concetrating on Vuia and Henri Coanda, a very similar topic. This is slightly longer than I have been active on Wikipedia. TheLongTone (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother commenting on this matter, except that it involves an editor I've begun to notice and respect and I hate to see such editors getting themselves into trouble. Longtone, it's not a matter of what you think about the other editor, it's a matter of how you express it. You might think s/he is an SPA, a sock or any number of other things, but it's unproductive to start (or continue) an argument based on those views. That approach never works (I know, I've tried it). Deb (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of wikilawyering, I have never said anything about Nemes as a person: away from the topic he may very well be delightful. I have, I think, restricted my comments to his editing behaviour, which is I believe another matter. Iand I may have expressed myself robustly: I have not ever been abusive. Anyway, the whole thing is all too silly for words. Incidentally the person who said something about ad hominum comments clearly does not know what the term means.TheLongTone (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

For examples of Nemes' intemperate behaviour, see [116]. For evidence that his attitude towards Vuia is highly biased and refusal to back this opinion with sources, see [117].TheLongTone (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

TneLongTone, Exactly how can you say that calling me a fool, and insisting that I will definitely return under a number of sick personalities (a clearly unfounded attack, which I assert is an accusation of being a sock, after all if I were to post that an editor would just go home and molest his children if he wasn't banned I would certainly have accused him of being a child molestor. (this is not an accusation against any editor, but merely an example.) As to the diff you just supplied, I was attempting to get some action against the posting of alleged personal information on wikipedia, a practice which is supposedly taken quite seriously here (the results of my complaint would seem to belie this), and you showed up to make attacks upon me which were totally unrelated to the issue at hand. You did not address the issue in any way other than to say you knew nothing about it. This appears to be false, since you were at that time, and still probably are, watching that page quite closely and after the attack you immediately started echoing the allegations of my being a sock puppet that were contained therein. I don't think I need to post a diff for THIS since the diff you just supplied is an example, but I believe i can supply others if that is deemed necessary. As to my suggestion that it was wikistalking, are you saying that you just happened to stumble upon this by accident and decide to post abuse unrelated to the subject at hand? This does not just strain credulity, but actually ruptures it. I announced yesterday that I intended to take a wikibreak and return to the vuia page at some later date, but was informed that you seemed to be taking this as an opportunity to post allegations here of a questionable nature without having to worry about my questioning their veracity. So I'm back. Furthermore, as to the third diff I posted when opening this thread, I feel that calling an editor 'sweetie' when deleting his post is clearly abuse. I would like to know if it is the opinion of the editors here that calling a person 'sweetie' during a contentious disagreement is or is not abusive.Ion G Nemes (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

To LongTone: Nemes owned up to his/her behavior. You have not. Your continued accusation against Nemes as a SPA and POV pusher is not substantiated by evidence and is unproductive. Suggesting you need not provide diffs is equally unhelpful. As for the POV issues, that should go to the NPOV forum WITH EVIDENCE (diffs). With that said...

• support some admin. action againstwarning for TheLongTone -- Some message needs to be given to TheLongTone that his/her behavior is unproductive. I don't have a problem with TheLongTone continuing to edit at the page in question, but I think the uncivil behavior needs to be addressed , possibly with a stern warning and/or short term (1 day?) block.David Tornheim (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Çomment I'm sure that TheLongTone will reflect on choice of words when making points in future. There is nothing here which supports action against TheLongTone unless that action is a gentle encouragement to choose words more carefully. I see that Ion G Nemes is taking a break which IMHO is a good move. I will follow up on their talk page with some friendly advice. Please all take a deep breath and move on to edit with consensus. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 01:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

^Okay by me. I have toned down my recommendation accordingly.David Tornheim (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Has anybody here actually looked at Talk:Traian Vuia?? If they have, why has no account been taken of Nemes's long history of unproductive contribution to this page: I started off being extremely civil to him, and the admitted deterioration in my language has been a response to his intransigent failure to engage rationally with me or any other editor on the page. incidentally I don't think calling an editor 'sweetie' is abuse: I'll admit it's condescending and not the apogee of civility, but calling it abuse is pushing it. TheLongTone (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The essential point is that my admitted bad behaviour has been a response to Nemess behaviour, which has been bad from the start. Basically I have been provoked to the point where my patience has worn through.14:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I read over a bunch of Talk:Traian Vuia. It looks to me like the main problem is a recurring strong disagreement over what the secondary sources have to say about a "hop" or "flight" with increasing frustration over the disagreement of how the reliable sources describe it. Nemes gives the impression of more competence in the subject matter than others, but could have a bias that is not reflected in the sources. Rather than focus on behavior (this kind of arguing between you all is so common on Wikipedia unfortunately), the dispute might be resolved possibly with an RfC, where all the Reliable Sources for the statement in question are spelled out and the arguments for the two versions are clear? (possibly one from you; one from Blinkersnet; one from Nemes}. I would give my opinion now, but I did not feel like trying to figure out what source(s) you all were referring to and find the relevant quotes: that's your job. If you do that third parties can look at what you are arguing about and decide if one position makes significantly more sense. That would be done as an RfC on the page. But there might be another way to address it, such as bringing it to the NPOV notice board, or if there is a question of whether sources proposed should be used, bring it to the RS notice board. Are you willing to do any of these, @TheLongTone:? -David Tornheim (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

See post below. Nemes's beef is solely with including the exact words used by a single OK but not particularly authoritative source. I have set forth my objection to this wording innumerable times. And I think that all the editors involved have a fair knowledge of early aviation, I see no reason to single out Nemes as particlarly 'competant'. Although he possibly knows morw about Romanian aviation.TheLongTone (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I read it also and I have posted advice to Ion G Nemes that they consider a self ban. I'm not sure there's any progress to be made arguing the issue here and suggest involved editors move on with good faith. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

First, TheLongTone was abusive from the start. It is convenient for him that this cannot be easily shown in diffs, so I'm not surprised that he is taking this tack. I'm not surprised that it appears to be a disagreement over 'hop' versus flight, because instead of making any posts over the last few weeks addressing the actual question being discussed, Binksternet has been posting unrelated statements about whether vuia ever flew(this is in part what I referred too as 'tendentious editing': It gives the superficial appearance of discussion, when it is in fact no such thing, just how can there be a consensus without discussion?). The debate is over whether the reference saying that 'according to some sources' Vuia flew on march 18, 1906 should be reflected in the article, or if it should be ignored. I am unaccustomed to cases where the references already sited on the article page are ignored in writing the article. And TheLongTone's assertion that in order to say this, I must personally find and show him references which say he didn't fly on March 18, 1906, seems to be a case of his refusing to accept an article in Air and Space Magazine by an aviation historian as a reliable source unless I do independent research to prove that he is in fact reliable. This cant is all the more difficult to understand since his original argument for changing the lede to remove all doubt that vuia flew on that date was that, "as far as I know, everybody accepts it." This seems to be a selective standard for references of the most pronounced sort. And Yes, I have certainly called vuia a liar, since he spent the last years of his life making claims so silly and at odds with reality that they can be characterized as nothing else: That he was the third man to ever build an aircraft engine, that he was the father of flight and after his hop of march 18 nothing was left to do in the development of flight but a few trivial details, that The wrights never flew without a catapult, That no one else ever achieved liftoff from level ground before March 18, 1906,And that a boiler he invented was being used in all existing thermal power stations (some sources say all Nuclear power stations)in the 1950s. I don't see why realizing that someone was a habitual liar should preclude editing his article. If other better know liars had their articles edited exclusively by those who chose to pretend he was of an honest nature, then those articles would be very different indeed. It should also be pointed out that the lying scumbag line appears so often on that board because TheLongTone keeps bringing it up rather than addressing the actual posts. Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

My final point is that you can look for justice or look for a solution. Personally, I find that agreeing on solutions is the better way to go. The suggestion to go to the NPOV forum is how I would proceed if you can't reach agreement here. Good luck to you all. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, posts on my talk page such as this do not argue for Nemes's good faith. Secondly, the wording and source that Nemes insists on, "some sources claim" is essentially weasel wording. It implies that "some sources deny", which Nemes resolutely fails to understand, and thinks is addressable by citing sources that fail to mention rather than deny. It's all too lame for words, since nobody is attempting to maintain anything other than that these claims rest on Vuia's own accounts. As said, all Nemes is battling about is the phrase "some sources claim" citing a website that uses those words. I could argue that using this words therefore constitutes copyvio, but really can't be bothered. TheLongTone (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

'According to some accounts' is the wording of the source. Perhaps if you feel that his article is 'weasel wording' you should explain to him why exactly why he is wrong, and why the magazine that this aviation historian writes for is actually a website (I am sure he would be glad to know that). As to your argument that quoting three words from the magazine in question constitutes copyright violation, if the administrators assembled here have even a cursory knowledge of copyright law, (I assume that they must have much more than that), then you're not gonna get too far with that one. I would assert that I am not required to do any vetting on a reliable source just because you don't like what it has to say. I would further assert that since we are not trained aviation historians we do not have access to the sources and means an aviation historian might use for research. There is more to research than 'just googling it' which in the case of vuia leads you to hundreds of reprints of the same basic claims on blogs and websites which are of dubious reliability. Furthermore, you are, in fact trying to suggest that these claims rest on something other than vuia's own accounts. That's why you asked sleeppillow to remove 'he said' from the lede in the first place. (based on your assertion that "as far as I know everybody accepts it"). This, ironically enough, was DonFB's earlier edit. In addition, you ask for proof, but when I pointed out that there is already a reference posted on the page which lists vuia's first flight as oct 8, 1906, your reply is that it doesn't say he didn't fly on March 18. So apparently you are demanding an article that lists all days when vuia didn't achieve a hop. It should be obvious that this is unlikely at best.

.......................................................................................................... I am sorry to have to waste so much time on this. I thought it would be possible to address the name calling and rudeness which started as soon as I tried to edit the page without making this an argument about the edits. But LongTone seems bound to bring up anything and everything, including his own personal views on copyright law. And does anyone know what's wrong with flat out? His constantly referring to me as a plural is strange.Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a great deal of not assuming good faith in the above. Rferrring to nemes as 'they' is common usage where the gender of someone is not known. Not realising this makes me think that although Neme's command of English is very good, he/she may miss some nuances: this could explain why he/she does not see my onjection to his/her preferred wording. I don't like the allegation that I am canvassing or whatever. (That's why you asked sleeppillow to remove 'he said' from the lede in the first place. (based on your assertion that "as far as I know everybody accepts it" I assume you mean User:Steelpillow) And I have never tried to maintain that Vuia's claims rest on anything other than his accounts given to l'Aerophile. As far as research goes I don't just google it: I generally prefer print sources, of which I have a decent library and access to others. As for wasting time.....TheLongTone (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This request was brought to my attention when I got namechecked. It seems to me that the article history and talk pages show that the plaintiff, Ion G Nemes (talk · contribs), has been warring against consensus, making tendentious edit comments and seeking to promote their own beliefs over verifiable sources. Others in this spat probably ought to have been politer, but there is no doubt who is driving it. This request appears equally tendentious. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal - Ion G Nemes (talk · contribs) be warned for tendentious editing, warring against consensus, and making allegations of bad faith editing here, in edit summaries, and on their talk page here and here. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Behaviour of Walter Görlitz

The user Walter Görlitz (talk) has been involved in various edit wars and ignorant reversions/discussions on articles of and related to Adam Young. This user refuses to accept fact as grounds to edit the article and has taken it upon himself to "preside" over the article and undo any new edit that he deems unworthy. Perhaps worse than this is he will then post "warning" messages on other users' talk pages not to start edit wars (which he has begun by serially reverting).

I completely understand Wikipedia policy referring to edits/sources, but this user is instantly deleting anything that doesn't comply with his literal translation of policy - completely undermining the spirit of a community edited encyclopaedia. Instead, I am left with no choice but to raise this as an official incident in the hope that he will be told to, in so many words, "let others play".

I hope I haven't come off as disrespectful, but when a user is as persistent in making other editors' time on Wikipedia totally non-enjoyable, I feel a strong approach is needed.

--Samcooke343 (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Samcooke343: You must notify the person you are starting a discussion about on their Talk page. I have notified Walter Görlitz about this thread for you, but in future please notify them. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Samcooke343: My apologies, I see you've done this already but it was removed from the Talk page. JMHamo (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This interpretation of events is novel at best.

First, let's look at his current issue. Template:Infobox musical artist#instrument, says

Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using. The instruments infobox parameter is not intended as a WP:COATRACK for every instrument the subject has ever used.

He was reverted by two separate editors: I was the first and this was the second.

Also, I did let him play. He made multiple genre changes that I saw and didn't revert. I'm not sure why he thinks that Wikipedia is a playground though and why he, as a musician, is more capable of recognizing a genre than other editors. See WP:GWAR.

Second, "facts" are not the ground for Wikiedpia edits, WP:V is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Third, I spend multiple hours on Wikiedpedia and know various policies and guidelines and come into contact with casual editors. My goal is to educate them on those policies and guidelines. It's clear not all of them appreciate being told that they're not editing according community consensus. That brings me into conflict with them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

On the instrument issue, this is more or less as difficult as genres and associated acts. But yeah, only most well-known instruments. I don't know Adam Young very well, so I wouldn't know. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Samcooke343: As Walter Görlitz said, "fact" alone is not a justification for anything on Wikipedia. It's one of the more counter-intuitive but fundamental principles guiding the project: Verifiability, not truth or what an editor declares truth, is what matters. In other words, if you want to add something, just add a source. On the talk page it looks like you included a couple sources, but they're just videos that include Young playing the instruments you said he's "known for" playing. That's not sufficient. It's a primary source and it's original research to say that he's "known for" playing them just because there are videos of him playing those instruments. Again, all that's needed is to support your claim with reliable sources. WP:BURDEN is a particularly relevant part of the Verifiability policy here. The other issue is stylistic. You added the word "sophomore" to refer to his second album. Walter pointed you to MOS:SOPHOMORE in his edit summary, but then you restored it. I understand the frustration of being reverted, and I don't know that I agree or disagree with Walter's revert here, but restoring the word that's even included in the link MOS:SOPHOMORE suggests learning about best practices for writing might not be a priority -- or rather, I could see how it could give someone that impression. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks by CrazyAces489

CrazyAces489 accused a number of editors at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PRehse of being racist saying they were biased against African American athletes. Besides the original comment, he made additional ones that were removed by Vanjagenije [118]. The SPI accusations are bad enough, but accusing a bunch of editors of being racists is a total violation of WP:NPA. Mdtemp (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That's also a WP:AGF Issue. Did they redact their allegations? Weegeerunner (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• He could have made his SPI complaint without the nasty stench of a racism allegation. It was unnecessary. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Weegeerunner, you'll notice he not only hasn't retracted his allegations, he keeps spreading them (see below).Mdtemp (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I simply make a larger number of articles that consist of individuals who are African American. [119]. I pointed out the statistic that 6 of 7 articles nominated for deletion all at once were African American. Every article was deleted except for James Thompson (a black national champion in Judo) and Karl Geis (who happens to be white). [120].

Racism did exist in the martial arts especially in the 1960's and individuals formed federations to combat it such as Steve Sanders (karate). In AFD,I stated that racism existed in Judo [121]. To which I received a reply of "it didn't seem to stop other African Americans from reaching the Olympics. [122]. I stated that only 1 black person reached the Olympics during that period of the 1960's. [123] . Racial discrimination existed in the United States as we can see via programs like Affirmative action in the United States, John Carlos was kicked out of the Olympics in 1968 for protests against racism, the US Government was actively working against civil rights groups via COINTELPRO, even Olympic Gold Medalists suffered huge discrimination for being black and engaging in interracial relationships Milt Campbell. My point being that ignoring (or downplaying) the fact that many of the individuals werent given a lot of media attention to which can plausibly be attributed to discrimination. Fact remains that Racial inequality in the United States still exists. Now I am deemed a racist because I pointed out a statistic? Should I ignore that statistic?

I believe this is retaliation for putting up a Sockpuppet Investigation on the individuals (which wasn't the first sockpuppet investigation into the trio). They have accused me of being barely literate. [124], [125], [126], [127], [128]. Have told me to "stick my head in the sand" [129] They claimed there was no indication of race in my articles [130] I stated the articles of individuals who are black are tagged with African American Portal. [131] CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to get into the racism part of this except to say that CA489 has highlighted some... interesting... statistics and anomalies and from the outside, his interpretation those statistics doesn't seem way off-base. That doesn't mean those interpretations are correct but I don't think he's wrong to suggest it should be investigated. That also doesn't mean he can simply draw his own conclusions and make personal attacks. The suggestion that editors have worked together to secure particular AFD results in this area is not new. In fact, it was the basis of the last sock-puppetry investigation which (while not drawing specific conclusions) did point out that there was a high degree of correlation between specific accounts in AFDs in this topic area, and we're talking now about some of the same accounts. This was admin Dennis Brown's closing statement there. Rather than do their damnedest to get some separation between the accounts and broaden their horizons to ensure that the same accusations couldn't be made again, it seems little has changed from the situation that concerned Dennis 3 years ago. Even in defending himself, one editor confirmed that, "yes when someone like [...] puts an article up for AfD (most often for good reason) I will often check if there are others (he does it in spurts) and edit both the AfD and the article...". At a minimum, this is a form of WP:TAGTEAM which, while not sock-puppetry, is concerning. I don't think anyone's hands are clean here. Strongly suggest CrazyAces489 leaves the SPI to do its work - there's a fine line between raising legitimate concerns in an SPI and making accusations you simply don't have evidence for. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Stalwart111, are you saying the victims are too blame? That it's OK to call editors racist and bigoted if they vote to delete poorly written articles on non-notable African American martial artists? This isn't about sockpuppets, it's about CrazyAces 489 calling a group of editors racist simply because they voted to delete some of his articles.Mdtemp (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That also doesn't mean he can simply draw his own conclusions and make personal attacks. - I think I made myself pretty clear on that point. You need to perhaps have a look at this from the perspective of an outsider - a group of editors who have been accused of meat-puppetry in the past (with well-respected admins drawing the conclusion that there was at least some collusion) collaborate to delete a series of articles. Upon being called out for the "collaboration" part (and before any accusations of racism) one of the editors confirms he does indeed track and tag-team on some articles. So an admittedly collaborative effort deletes a series of articles - what do those articles have in common to warrant that effort? The particular personal attacks used in retaliation certainly don't help. Whether you meant to or not, the result remains the same. CrazyAces489's comments were not appropriate, but you guys aren't helping yourselves either. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I was going to just leave this alone but a couple points need to be made. First of all it is my name on the SPI title and I have never previously been part of any investigation - this constant referral to the previously investigated trio is nonsense. Secondly in an attempt to answer the allegation I described how some of the overlap could occur. I actively search out and comment on newly created martial arts articles and those put of for deletion and make sure they are visible via categories, project tags, deletion sorting. This is not tag teaming by any stretch but knowing the behavior of other long term AfD contributers making the search more efficient (if this is so wrong wikipedia should remove the user contribution tag). I certainly disagree with the one example I gave enough to make that pretty clear. Now to the allegations of racial bias - I challenge anyone to find any sort of bias of any of the people listed in that SPI investigation. They/I are long term editors with a very long history in martial arts AfDs. The person making the allegation chooses to write articles about African-American athletes (no issue there) that have questionable notability (where the issue arises) - and that and only that is the overlap. I am at a loss what the false accusations of Sockpuppetry and suggestion of racism are meant to accomplish - both are certainly upsetting.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• CrazyAces489 has again missed the point. The discussion isn't about racism, it's about him calling a set of editors bigoted and racist without real proof.Mdtemp (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm confused why we're allowing this to get so far off points. Hundreds of words about racism and the martial arts.....but nothing even sounding like Crazy retracting his allegations of racism. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Legal Threat (such as it were)

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

---

Over at User talk:VCMExamboard. User got blocked for username violations, I declined the block, and now claims that we will be hearing from their legal department soon. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

TPA revoked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Question regarding user space page

Is it really appropriate to compile diffs for presentation to ANI or AE, as is explicitly stated is being done at User:Tgeairn/NPA diffs, or considering the fact that the content is under DS, should any such complaints be raised at the appropriate locations as the concerns are raised, and could such a collection of material be seen as being a form of WP:ATTACKPAGE? John Carter (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:USER, but so long as the compilation intends to be used before any of the diffs go stale, I'm pretty sure it's allowed. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I think your second sentence might be the more relevant one here. As it's purported purpose is to raise concerns at AE and ANI, which are more or less intended for immediate response, isn't it some what inherently dubious to basically collect grievances which one is apparently not willing to act on, or which perhaps are not worthy of being acted on? Collecting evidence for ArbCom is certainly well-precedented and acceptable, but I don't know that I've ever seen a collection specifically intended for ANI or AE, as is explicitly stated here. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the rule of thumb is a week or two before a diff goes stale, so the timeline remaining on this is running out (oldest diff I noticed is from 10 days ago). It could possibly get WP:CSD'd or WP:MfD'd once any of the diffs on the page go past 14 days, despite the 90-day notice on the page. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 22:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Per WP:POLEMIC The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. ANI and AE are part of the dispute resolution process (albeit the tail end), so it's OK for that. "Timely" is subject to interpretation, but if you believe it's been around too long without being used, or unlikely to be used soon, bringing it to MfD would allow a consensus to determine whether the "timeliness" factor had been breached. BMK (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Also note that Arbcom frequently simply blanks userspace evidence pages after closing the case. For instance, User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence (at this revision) contains some diffs that are years old. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just curious, BMK, what do you think about User:DHeyward/My Fan Club? If the information is not actually used for the DR process, should it be proposed for deletion in two weeks? Right now, it seems like an enemies list even though the wording is exceedingly polite so it can't be seen as an attack page even if that is its purpose. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: It looks to me like an "enemies list" which are strictly forbidden. It should go to MfD after DHeyward is asked on his talk page to delete it himself, which I will do now. BMK (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've left DHeyward a message asking him to delete the page. [132]. BMK (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not optimistic that he'll choose to delete the page but I appreciate you assessing the situation and offering your perspective on it, BMK. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward deleted my request without comment, so I've nominated the page for deletion here. BMK (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The evidence page under discussion here is a list of diffs and quotes with little or no interpretation, has a clear intent, and has a deletion date (with a clearly stated request for any admin to delete after that date). --Tgeairn (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate the Ebionites 2 page for deletion if you so see fit, but I think it is also true that user pages which are actively used in arbitration cases, such as the one you link to, are different as they contain some of the evidence used in the arbitration. I also note that your comments do not address the matter of the use of the word "timely", even though you seem to have perhaps somewhat arbitrarily decided 90 days qualifies as timely, and I think, under the circumstances, as the person collecting the material, you are probably not the best person to determine how to apply the relevant policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely (although I'd suggest a better title e.g. "sandbox3"). . There's a falsehood on the page: The page is not linked elsewhere by its creator; see link on WP:EW. NE Ent 22:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you NE Ent. I have corrected the (already closed) ANEW filing and notified the closing admin of the mistaken link, with a recommendation that they reconsider the outcome of the filing if appropriate. Given that the ANEW report considered an editor that was edit warring on my user page and on the subpage we are discussing here, it is likely that the closing admin would have seen the page anyway. That does not change that it was an entirely inappropriate mistake on my part to link to it as evidence in the ANEW filing. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean at WP:EWN, right? John Carter (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct - WP:ANEW and WP:EWN are both shortcuts to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thanks for making sure. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Closure needed

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

---

An admin is requested to close this RfC about whether there should be certain exceptions for the MOS's general prohibition of the use of smallcaps, exceptions to accomodate specific usages and WP:CITEVAR.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. I've added your request to the queue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by Nagakura shin8

Whilst I am not afraid of robust debate, I was shocked by the vitriol in this edit by Nagakura shin8 (talk}. I have seen editors receive lengthy blocks for far less. I would think a 24 hour block might be appropriate as a shot across the bows. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that's pretty nasty, but it's hardly unprovoked. As to the dispute, the Australian pronunciation of "emu" may be dominant (as a Canadian, I pronounce it as you describe - even though I say "jaguar" with two syllables and otherwise agree with American pronunciation in many respects), but I don't think I can support calling any pronunciation "incorrect" if it's the established pronunciation of a major body of speakers. It's just variant pronunciation, just like variant spelling. And heaven knows Wikipedia has seen enough arguments over that. It hardly surprises me that another editor might take exception to that, even if the response is disproportionate. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not bring this matter here to resolve the content dispute. If I have over stepped the line on conduct, I will take my licks, but I at least tried to keep my comments civil. However, Ns8's response is way out of proportion to anything I said and is disparaging and deeply offensive. That is the matter I brought here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a great deal of civility in your comment, Nick, I see anti-American insults. If you attack Americans (or any other nationality) in that way, you should not be surprised to see them fight back. And you shouldn't come complaining if you can't take what you dish out. Squinge (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you can compare the two editors' remarks. While neither is civil, Nagakura shin8's second comment is a completely over-the-top response. Additionally, it was he/she that first brought up the American vs. Australian comparison that Nick Thorne then responded to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy IRL. I apologise unreservedly for for any offence caused by my comments. BTW, the content issue is largely resolved, I think. However, I am disturbed by this. I am not perfect but I have heard and heed the advice given here and on my talkpage, I will strike the offending words. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Gotta love the social norms around here. WP:NPA is policy, but has no bearing if both parties are insulting each other. Just go on your merry ways. Sigh. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• No one said NPA has no bearing if both parties are insulting each other. But we have to remember that there are living, breathing people behind every account. Disputes can get heated. Most people will get offended if they feel insulted, and many will respond by returning fire. It just happens. In this case, both parties provoked each other with very serious and cutting insults. While Nick's comments were certainly more passive-agressive reserved I don't think they were any less offensive to Nagakura, and he has no grounds to come here and ask for a one-way block when he's equally at fault for escalating the dispute. I recognize and appreciate him redacting his comments and apologizing, that's the civil thing to do and the correct course of action. But it doesn't change the fact that he's partially at fault for the situation blowing up to begin with. We could certainly dish out blocks here in terms of severe personal attacks, but I think both editors have already cooled off and the actual dispute seems to already be resolved. I don't think a block would serve as a preventative measure in this case. Swarm ^X 18:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• While this level-headed approach seems wisdom on the surface, I've been here long enough to know it's a failed way of handling such disputes. It simply doesn't work. A polite tap on the wrist saying "please don't do that again" doesn't work. If someone is able to be riled up by what a completely unknown person (to them) says about them or something they care about, they've got serious problems with being able to hold their tongue. The behavior exhibited in such cases will happen again; the characters in question will have too quick of a trigger finger. In this particular case, we're seeing it continue right before our eyes. With this edit we're seeing not only continued gross incivility after this thread here on AN/I had begun, but a threat to continue in the future; "don't include insults to other countries ... and your country won't be insulted. It's not really very difficult" Meanwhile, just the mere beginnings of a cursory review of Nagakura shin8's edits show other incivility [133]. I'm finding other evidence of incivility on his part as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Lawrencegoriel personally attacking User:Kathovo

Lawrencegoriel's blatant attack on Kathovo here: [134]. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Lawrencegoriel is using his talk page to create, well, it's more than an article, it is basically mustering a defense against those he disagrees with ("The above information serves as documentation of instances where Assyrian Nationalists have used unjustified and unethical methods to remove the Chaldean name from history. Do not delete it, alter it or edit it in any way, shape or form. Please feel free to start topics in Open Discussion section below.").

I deleted the content and posted some information regarding user talk page guidelines (here) where I recommend he move this to a Sandbox but he reverted my edits and keeps adding more material. I realize that editors are allowed a lot of leeway on their user pages (WP:OWNTALK) but I think this conduct should be discouraged and it's clear my words went unheeded. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

What we have here is a new editor not familiar with our process (has passed 3rv just today on one article). I have gotten the editor to the article talk page...lets see what happens. My main concern here is POV editing...not sure why they keep removing mention of Assyrians from the population of Mosul. I have no problem with listing Chaldean but not ok with blanking mention of Assyrians when it comes to the population of the city. My main concern is the editor is not familiar with the topic at hand...as he mentions hes trying to find the truth on his user page. The editor has a clear problem with Assyrians again this is mentioned on his user page. .Will just move forward slowly showing them sources as we go. -Moxy (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The whole topic area of everything touching on the so-called "Assyrian" ethnicity and the ethnic in-fighting between the expatriate offshoots of its various subgroups has been a cesspit of tendentious editing for years, and unfortunately this has been escalating in recent months (probably because expatriate communities have become ever more thin-skinned in view of the terrible events afflicting their countries of origin). I strongly favour a zero-tolerance approach to every form of disruption in the area, be it from new editors or established ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Mlpearc; "Aren't we full of ourselves" did nothing but fan the flames. I strongly suggest you reconsider making similar comments in the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What's the point of being allowed 6 accounts per address per day if...?

WP:DFTT. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Why does the system even let a single IP address set up 6 accounts in a single day if you admins are just gonna forget that that allowance exists and shut them down anyway? What's the point of having rules if you're just gonna ignore them? When Are We Gonna...? (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC) As this is your very first edit, it really isn't clear what you're talking about. If you provide a link to a specific alleged abuse of Wikipedia policy, I'm sure you'll stand a much better chance of getting a satisfactory answer. Squinge (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC) what's the point of having rules if you're just gonna ignore them' Ignore all rules' is one of our core policies, didn't you know? Seriously though, I think the high limit's mostly meant so that people who share the same IP don't run into issues, and it's also useful for beginning wp:acc helpers who don't yet have account creator rights. Needless to say, the "allowance" only exists as long as you don't abuse the system. 77.56.43.252 (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. How about you give the poster a chance to respond before you jump on the "close" template so fast? And then even now, I'll be gone for a few hours. Can't you leave this here and open long enough for me to have a follow-up response to it? Gessh. Well, how can you tell if someone is supposedly "abusing" the 6-per-IP-per-day rule if you see 6 of them coming in from the same IP address in a given day and that's allowed? And if it still is "abuse" somehow, then why can't I be left with even ONE account that isn't blocked? How can it be "abuse" for me to even have ONE? 75.162.237.213 (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Ahhh.... if all your accounts are blocked, then your posting here using an IP is block evasion, isn't it? BMK (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC) 6 accounts per address per day? Why and why not? @DoRD: Will you guys please not close this so fast? I hardly got any chance to respond to it. Can't you wait until the poster of the problem or question has had a chance or few to follow up before you just jump on the "close" template? Geesh. And then will you please actually continue to respond to it instead of just acting like I "don't count" and am "garbage" just because I supposedly "broke one of your rules"? 75.162.237.213 (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (Quoted from before:) "I think the high limit's mostly meant so that people who share the same IP don't run into issues, and it's also useful for beginning wp:acc helpers who don't yet have account creator rights. Needless to say, the "allowance" only exists as long as you don't abuse the system." 77.56.43.252 (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC) So then how can admins tell if someone's supposedly "abusing the system" or using it legitimately if they check that the IP address is the same either way? How should they be able to tell if the 6 created by that IP in the same day might not be "abuse"? And if it never happens, then why not just get rid of that (lower it to 1-2) so that it doesn't give someone a false sense that it's okay? And even then, if it ends up still being considered "abuse," why shouldn't even one account from that group be left unblocked (maybe the first one in a series or something like that), which would then certainly put the number within reasonability so as not to be considered so-called "abusive"? Will you guys please leave this open for a while so I can follow up a few times rather than just closing it so fast? As the question's poster, I'd really like to think I should be given a chance to have some words back and forth with you before I just get shut down. Fair enough? 75.162.237.213 (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC) How about you answer my question from above? If all the accounts you created are blocked, why shouldn't you be blocked as well for block evasion? And, no, if you're blocked, then you should not be given a chance to discuss this until after you're unblocked. BMK (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC) I didn't answer your question before, "ken," because I didn't see it before. Where is it? How do you suppose, "ken" (@Beyond My Ken:), that a given user would ever be able to take care of their problem here if every time they try to say anything, they're immediately blocked indefinitely without warning? I'm not blocked (obviously), but whenever I try to create an account, it gets blocked. When I created 6 accounts in the same day, they all were blocked, as if I had been "abusing" the system, even though the system allows the 6 per address per day. That's just it! Why should all the accounts have been blocked if the system allows that? If that's just gonna be considered "abuse" anyway, then why don't they make the system not allow it? And how can you tell if it is so-called "abuse" or not? And if they are considered so-called "abuse," then why block all of them instead of leaving one--whichever one you guys would consider to be the "okay" one (like first one or whatever)--unblocked, because it would be the one that wasn't "violating"? So then I tried just 2, and they got blocked. So then when I just try one after that, should that one be blocked too? Why shouldn't even one stay unblocked because it's not "violating"? 75.162.237.213 (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ChrisAmsel

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

---

ChrisAmsel (talk · contribs)

I think this guy needs to be blocked. Some of his edits aren't obvious vandalism or haven't been reverted but that might be because people who see those edits aren't familiar with the facts about the specific topic. As far as I can tell, most if not all of his edits are about introducing factual inaccuracies on purpose. Obvious examples: saying that Greece is a puppet state of Germany, and changing a capital city, and saying that Belarus is a satellite state of Russia. These edits have been reverted by others, but some other edits of his are still live and I'm wondering if it would be reasonable to just revert every single edit he's done. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Besides those edits, I'm legit, dude. I'll stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisAmsel (talk • contribs) 11:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Afraid s/he doesn't mean it. Reverting my correction and reintroducing pure fantasy numbers here. --T*U (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"Besides those edits" - I only brought three examples here but I noticed others as well, and other editors did too, considering the reverts. I think every edit of yours is stealthy - or not so stealthy - vandalism, and any apologies or arguments can't save you. You need to be blocked indefinitely, IMO. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to both of you for catching this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone check through their edits and if they've been all reverted? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I reverted everything that wasn't already reverted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks! — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I found some more edits to Next Singaporean general election that the reverting editor hadn't caught. rRegards! --T*U (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Ongoing conflict in Talk:Foie gras

There is a conflict among a number of editors, which is becoming quite heated among at least two of them, of them at Talk:Foie gras; sections restoration of duplicate content, detailed Legislation section and RfC. The underlying issue is whether a passage should be placed in Foie gras or in Foie gras controversy. It's morphed from a discussion of that point into an additional argument about how the conflict should proceed, and has now gotten to the name-calling stage.

I don't see any sign that the more vocal editors will calm down any time soon. As I mention above, the discussion involves two pages, and my concern is that in the crossfire, the information may be inadvertently removed from both and made difficult to restore as further edits are made to the pages.

I do have a position in the underlying issue and have stated it on that talk page, and am otherwise now staying out of the discussion, because I don't have anything further to add and don't want to fan the flames.

The two most vocal editors are DrChrissy (talk · contribs) and Jytdog (talk · contribs). I am placing a notification of this discussion on the Talk:Foie gras in addition to the individual talk pages of the above-named editors, due to the number of editors involved. TJRC (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

i haven't edited the page since March 19 (last dif), so there is nothing to do worry about me from me with regard to article content. i am frustrated with drchrissy's behavior, but i know how to use ANI and other boards and have not chosen to bring this anywhere, at this time. i do wish he would withdraw the flawed RfC that he pre-emptively launched (he had never done one before), and have asked him several times to do so, but he has so far not chosen to. I see no need for admin action at this time. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I find the launching of this ANI extremely curious to say the least. TJRC launched the ANI but was also the editor that removed the disputed content within 48 hours of my instigating an RfC [here] - way, way too early for any consensus to be reached.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I have not edited the article page since March 20, 2015 [here], so I am also not actively aditing the article page. Again, what is the motivation behind this ANI being launched?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy the motivation, i reckon, is to get you and i to start working together instead of fighting, which is disrupting the Talk page and making us both look like assholes. a good first step would be for you to stop publicizing the RfC and to withdraw it, so we can frame one together that we both find acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You are free to describe yourself as you believe others are perceiving you, but please do not include me in that sort of description. I launched an RfC because it became apparent that you and I are unable to work together at the moment. I launched the RfC for outside comments, not for bonding. Instead, this RfC is being hijacked by inflammatory remarks, moving/changing other peoples' edits, removing the material under discussion, questioning the faith of edits and so on and so on. It is as if someone is deliberatly trying to sabbotage the RfC with unnecessary, unwanted and distracting edits.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If conditions at this RfC are as disruptive as you describe, DrChrissy, perhaps admin intervention is called for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, so again instead of just making this simple, drchrissy, and withdrawing the RfC, you are making drama. (just like with the content you too-closely paraphrased despite 4 editors, including MoonRiddenGirl, telling you it was problematic as discussed here). In the case of this RfC:

• after you edit-warred the content back in while Alexbrn was temp blocked, i opened a new section on Talk, referring to the two prior sections where we had been discussing this
• the next day you opened a duplicate section, ignoring the one i had opened
• after some unproductive back and forth between us, on March 20 I said i would draft an RfC for us to discuss
• you acknowledged that here and here and here
• all the sudden on March 22 you launched a malformed, non-neutral RfC without discussion
• which i noted and asked you to withdraw it (and did again several times e.g here).
• instead you made it more malformed by adding your opinion on the matter to the question and blah blah blah just more bad behavior from there including even further publicizing it instead of withdrawing it.
• for the second time, instead of doing the simple, community-oriented thing of acknowledging a mistake, you have doubled down. please just do the simple thing and withdraw the RfC, so we can discuss a neutral, well-formed RfC that can guide discussion going forward. Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussions and arguments on the talk page are layered, splintered, and in some cases, it seems, even recursive. It's not only difficult for an outside party to get involved, but also has not shown to produce even basic agreements on which to build upon (at least not recently). Stripping away the specifics and the behavioral issues, the crux of the matter seems to be to what extent information about the critical aspects of foie gras should be covered in the foie gras article, and to what extent they should be covered at foie gras controversy (and only summarized in the main article). DrChrissy has stated that he does not believe they should be separate articles, which to me explains some of his edits and arguments others have taken issue with.

It seems like the first and foremost question should be whether foie gras controversy is a viable and appropriate fork.

If the answer is yes, then next we'd have to determine what is considered "controversy" such that it should primarily be covered at the controversy article. And furthermore what topics relate to the controversy but should be weighted similarly (if covered differently) at the main article. ---- (The latter comes from DrChrissy's point -- and please correct me if I'm paraphrasing incorrectly -- that legislation concerning foie gras is central enough to the subject of foie gras that even if it's covered in the controversy article, it should not merely be summarized in the main article).

Once we've determined the domains of each page, the scope and venue for each of the arguments becomes a bit simpler. It's not a fix for everything, but it seems like a good place to start. As of now, the controversy article is all but neglected while these heated disputes take place in the main article, which doesn't make sense to me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

that is well said. this is some of the stuff i was considering with regard to framing the RfC, before drchrissy launched his RfC. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Soon after you started to request I withdraw the RfC, I invited you to post an alternative RfC [[135]] so that we could discuss this. You declined to take up this opportunity of a collegiate approach to resolving this dispute.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

you don't run 2 RfCs at the same time on the same topic. i will ask you again, just like i did in reply to that: Please withdraw the RfC already. Why will you not just withdraw it? Please answer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk)

• Comment: There may have been dueling threads on the Talk page, but there is only one RfC there now, so no actionable items exist at this time that I can see. There's no prohibition in creating an RfC (a public discussion to engage more outside opinions than the current page-watchers), and that seems to be what was done. Some folks claim the RfC is not neutrally worded, but I don't see that it isn't as it merely asks a brief question and states how long the material in question was previously in the article. I think the presence of the RfC should give a forum to the discussions under way, and also invite outside input, which should calm the situation down. Again, at this very minute I don't see anything actionable. Softlavender (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

i agree there is nothing actionable. the RfC is not neutral and doesn't capture the debate, nor the larger issue of moving. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Before_starting_the_process drchrissy should have discussed it before launching it. that is what i had said i was going to do; i had just not gotten to it yet when he jumped the gun and launched his, without discussion. I keep asking him to withdraw it ( and now, why he will not withdraw it) and he doesn't respond. what i want is to work together to frame a useful RfC that will provide helpful guidance going forward. the current one, does not do that. i don't think his launching of the RfC is actionable, nor is his refusal to withdraw it, nor is his refusal to say why he will not withdraw it. it is just ugly behavior. i am about ready to give up trying and just let the damn thing run. waste of a month. you know, i will give up trying to get him to withdraw it, or to say why he won't. so.. done with that. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday, I gave an explanation why I will not withdraw the RfC. This explanation is under a thread which Jytdog created themselves. It is not up to me to do thread-watching or research for another editor.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

i already asked you twice (here and here[ to provide a dif because i looked for something that looked like an answer and i couldn't find it anywhere. but don't bother now. i am done with this. it is a complete waste of time. (btw i suspect that drchrissy doesn't know how to provide a dif and is afraid to ask how. i run into this sometimes with academicish editors who just cannot say "i don't know" and cannot back down, ever) Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (mistaken per below. striking Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC))

well I am wrong about that and have struck. drchrissy does know how to make a diff! see here where he is building up a nice record on me. so, he has skill and time to put diffs there, but not here. OK. priorities are very clear. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog's message makes it clear that they are monitoring my sandbox where I am preparing an ANI. I appreciate this type of monitoring is not illegal, but to then make negative comments about me on here does rather smack of harrassment.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

i find drchrissy's behavior to be incomprehensible. he goes from being very on point and seemingly knowing what he is doing, to being completely lost on Wikipedia basics (from the launching of the RfC and subsequent refusal to discuss it per above, to stuff like this and [[136]] and especially here and other stuff, and i have no hope of working through controversial content to reach consensus with this editor - their behavior is just baffling to me. I am unwatching Foie gras and walking away.. Jytdog (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

EditorAliShah

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

---

I've been encouraged to take my vandalism report here:

• EditorAliShah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Longterm disruptive account, ignoring warnings and adding unsourced and erroneous content for months in numerous biographical articles--these are alternated with constructive edits, but the percentage is abysmal. I've reverted some of this user's edits, but the list of disruption is long. Requesting a block, and more eyes on this account's history with assistance in cleaning up the damage will be appreciated. Thank you, 2602:302:D89:83E9:DCF:FD75:97E9:3302 (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried filing a report on the vandalism noticeboard (WP:AIV)? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, that was my first choice of venue, and it was suggested I come here. 2602:302:D89:83E9:DCF:FD75:97E9:3302 (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

  Just to confirm, this is the correct venue, despite Liz's question. AIV is inappropriate for this, because this editor's behavior is not vandalism per se. There's no evidence that the user in question is clearly trying to harm Wikipedia. Their edits may have that effect, but if it isn't intended as harm, it isn't vandalism. Other disruptive behavior should be discussed in other venues, such as this one. I have no comments on the merits of this case, except to state that Liz's idea to go to AIV would be incorrect. --Jayron32 00:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(2602, under different #) Some of the edits were plainly deceptive, as erroneous birth and death dates, sometimes decades off, were added. Others evidenced constructive intent, but a roughly fifty/fifty split is unacceptable. We've probably all seen this sort of edit history before, which I think is about adding something to the article, whether or not it's factual. In the end, if none of the edits are sourced, and the user has been advised of this several times over several months, then the conclusion is that it's not a productive account. 2602:302:D89:C79:65DF:E4AE:52AA:D9F0 (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Iskander Mirza was my great grand father and in the history, children = Mirza Kaleech and 5 more , Kaleech means prick in Urdu, Danger^Mouse (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AliTheHacker his alternative account most likely . Danger^Mouse (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for the observations, which help to confirm that this is not solely a well-meaning account. Also not surprised by the possibility that this user would have taken on multiple accounts for this purpose. 2602:302:D89:C79:A4B8:894A:89B7:5639 (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing after he created another hoax page despite having been given sufficient advice and warnings.  —SMALLJIM  12:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Fartthe3

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

---

User:Fartthe3 is an indefinitely blocked user, however they are using their talkpage (User talk:Fartthe3 inappropriately to attack Wikipedia and its users here, here, here, here and here. Please can you revoke talkpage access? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Nthep (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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

User:TheSimpsonsStuff

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

---

The user has been blocked, but is abusing their talkpage rights here, here and here. Please can you revoke talk page privileges. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring on a dozen project pages

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

---

P. S. Burton (talk · contribs) has earlier today decided single-handedly to misapply [[MOS:]] to about a dozen project pages, and edit-war along the way. See his contribs for affected pages, this probably requires more than the usual intervention (and I don't want to bother listing dozens of diffs), so I am reporting here. Choor monster (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

They were told to stop and have, I don't know what admin action would be constructive here. Sam Walton (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, one editor Blueboar (talk · contribs) picked up the baton on one of the pages. I haven't seen the editor agree to stop, just a pause right now. Choor monster (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as the editor who first confronted P. S. Burton about this, this report here at ANI is completely unnecessary. He went on a spree removing contractions on project pages (citing MOS:CONTRACTION, which applies only to articles), I noticed and reverted everywhere (with a perhaps-not-completely-to-the-point edit summary), he re-imposed his removals. So I went to his talk page, there was quick back and forth, someone else chimed in, and obviously PSB came to understand the error of his ways. ANI is for "incidents requiring intervention" -- honestly, has the bar dropped this low? It's over. Do we have to rake yet another editor over the coals? EEng (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Gleekified repeated unsourced material

This user has been repeatedly adding unsourced material to various articles, such as List of Melissa & Joey episodes and List of Young & Hungry episodes. Warnings have not stopped the disruptive editing. Callmemirela (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) S/he hasn't edited since the last warning; let's see what happens. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The user has continued their behavior. Please help. They aren't listening. Callmemirela (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The personal attacks of Samudrakula

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

---

This editor is horrendously uncivil. His edit summaries are often threatening, intimidating and with no proper merit, and other editors have noted this as well. Where is everyone? There was a time in Wikipedia when you would be warned against personal attacks.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Where are the personal attacks? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Does "uncivil" mean personal compliments?--114.134.89.21 (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, found one. Could this be because you're a sock of User:Bazaan? That was who they were discussing. And you did edit one of the comments by another Bazaan sock as if those comments were your own. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you not read the diffs I provided? Samudrakula attacks out of the blue and unprovoked. Others attack only as a response, but never at this level.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

An obvious sock. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Alleged personal attack from admin-impersonator

WP:DFTT. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Okay, what is user:Beyond My Ken doing acting like an admin by moving my ANI posts on me and telling me what I "can't" do there, and then even answering things as if an admin? Also, this same NON-admin has resorted to incivility against me by calling me an idiot: "I'm not an admin.... Go away, you're an idiot. BMK (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)" 75.162.237.213 (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC) This likely isn't the place to discuss this, but you are required to notify all reported parties of discussions here. I will be doing that now. - Amaury (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC) I have removed the transclusion of BMK's user page in the IP's question. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC) It looks like I used the wrong formatting symbols--{{}} instead of [[]]--to make a link out of someone's name. I thought I had already fixed those. 75.162.237.213 (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC) The IP is an IP Sockpuppet of User:IDriveAStickShift. This sort of tantrum following WP:Trolling is typical JoeSperrazza (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Any chance of getting a block against this block-evading, incompetent, trolling, probable sockpuppet? WP:NOTHERE seems like a reasonable ground for blocking. BMK (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC) I've created a report here. - Amaury (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Blocked for one month per WP:DUCK as prima facie evidence of block evasion.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Serial copyright violator

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

---

User:Rick570 is a serial copyright violator. Most recently, Scholasticate [137].
Older examples:

Martin Reyners. [138] and [139]. notice on talk page.

Stephen A. Parke notice on talk page.

Russell Haley, Bob Orr (poet) and Murray Edmond. notice on talk page.

[140] [141]. notice on talk page.

User:Rick570/Francis Douglas. notice on talk page.

Even when copying is allowed by Creative Commons he fails to provide attribution. eg [User:Rick570/Michel Bouillot] [142].
See also: Sections of Sam Hunt (poet) (Icon) are taken from The Oxford Companion to New Zealand Literature (text available here). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Since we have well over five instances of copyright violation, I have posted a request for a CCI investigation, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Requests. User has been notified. Thank you for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Rowdyjewellery

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

---

This user was banned for being promotion-only account on 16 March, however they are continuing to user talk page for promotion here. Please can you revoke talkpage access? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Ongoing irrelevant personal attacks by Hijiri88, time for sanctions?

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

---

Enough is enough. User:Hijiri88 has seemingly developed some sort of grossly counterproductive insistence on grossly misusing article talk pages to continue to engage in attacks on another editor, specifically, User:Catflap08. The most recent act of this insistence on using article talk pages for the purpose of impugning and insulting others can be seen here. There has been discussion with him, still present on his article talk page, as well as other comments about misuse of the article talk page on the Daisaku Ikeda talk page, about his insistent attempts to belittle others for seemingly no purpose but belittling them. I think the time may well have come to impose an interaction ban on that editor and Catflagp08. I honestly have no reason to believe that Hijiri88 is capable of recognizing his insistence off-topic attempts at bullying are unacceptable here, and think that the time has probably come for outside input to stop his insistent attacks. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Calling a spade a spade has never been a personal attack. I'm finding it hard to work out how much you follow Hijiri around, and how much you just happen to have already edited the article/talk pages in question. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Although I note the obvious assumption of bad faith in the above, I think I should note that any article I edit is added to my watch list, and that when I see an editor who has shown repeated inability to abide by basic rules of civility, and seemingly be proud of that, it is not unresonable to see if the individual has continued in the same behavior. Ignoring the unstated but obvious insinuations in the above comment regarding my own motives, and the fact that somehow there seems to be an implicit view that I am in someway actively stalking Hijiri, which I categorically deny, I would appreciate it if further comments actually in some way directly dealt with the questions raised here. If others wish to raise further quetions in separate threads or subthreads, of course, they are free to do so. But I do think that Hijiri has displayed enough lack of recognition of his own inability to abide by basic TPG or general behavioral rules in this case justify consideration of an interaction ban, possibly in this case a mutual interaction ban. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• I wasn't "insinuating" anything - I was calling you out on what appears to be a series of stalkerish behaviour. I'm losing count of the number of times I see an ANI notification come up in my watchlist from either you or Catflap08, but the fact that no action has ever been taken should give you a hint as to how little of a case you really have. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• And, frankly, I am losing count of the number of times you have been the first responder as well. I also note that your attempt to "call me out" seems to itself perhaps qualify as stalking. Also, honestly, your own comment seems to show that you perhaps do not understand that when behavior continues despite repeated warnings, it is generally accepted as reasonable to take action to prevent it, and that every continuation of such behavior is in fact grounds for potentially further continuation. So, while noting your own behavior in this instance, which could itself perhaps be seen as "stalking" of a sort, implicit in your comment above, I once again ask, as I did above, if you believe you have grounds for criticism, please have the good grace to start them in a separate section. Also, please note that in most instances, when repeated warnings have been given and ignored, as is very obviously the case here, consideration of sanctions to end the disruption is, in general, considered reasonable. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• So you're descending into trolling now? Good job. I've commented on a grand total of two of these threads, and I was clearly not the first person to comment last time. I also happened to be browsing ANI (against my better judgement) when this thread was opened, as I have done a few times today - my contribution history also shows this. So, in other words; cut the crap, please. I'm not the one, after all, who keeps filing ANI threads over and over again on the same user, even when their previous threads have found nothing actionable. Methinks you should go and find something better to do with your time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• I only note that your "excuses" are really no better than my own, which you have summarily rejected. I also note the immediate escalation into rather unfounded personal attacks by the rather laughable addition of the obviously PA "trolling" word above. To paraphrase your own rather obnoxious language, cut the crap and either file a real complaint or please act in accord with conduct guidelines and refrain from descending into personal attacks and unfounded judgments on others in what are rather straw man arguments against them. And I note, despite your claims to not doing things "over and over," not one of the comments you have already made here "over and over" actually directly relate the questions being raised. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• "And, frankly, I am losing count of the number of times you have been the first responder as well." - this was the first time I had done so. So, yeah, you're clearly trolling. Again, calling a spade a spade is not a personal attack. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for my error, if it is true, although I do note the frequency and rapidity with which you jump to conclusions about others, and although I notice that you have still refused to make any sort of direct response to the questions made, and that on that basis there is every reason to think that calling you by any number of comments which might otherwise qualify as personal attacks would be just calling a spade a spade as well. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Wish my semi-retirement was that active!!! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I also note what might be seen as reasonable that according to the article history page here Hijiri88 himself may have edited the article only once recently, while Catflap08 has edited it repeatedly, so, if there are to be accusations against me for not attempting to improve the article directly, so the same statement might be made about Hijiri88 and his commenting on an article he has rarely if ever directly attempted to improve as well. And, FWIW, it is also generally considered reasonable to watch controversial articles more closely, and the topic of Soka Gakkai is obviously a controversial one. And other recent discussion, as per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive218#Daisaku Ikeda, seems to have perhaps done a better job of vindicating Catflap08 than at least some others involved, possibly including Hijiri88. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

So... what's this about again? Preferably in short sentences/clauses which those of us who have no idea what you're going on about might have a chance of following? Speak to the audience, not each other. Begoon ^talk 18:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As per the history of derogatory comments on both sides, as indicated by the comments at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa, Talk:Daisaku Ikeda, and multiple warnings on user talk pages, including at least one specific warning from me to Hijiri88 that if the attacks continued I would seek an i-ban, I am requesting consideration of whether there are sufficient grounds to a mutual interaction ban between Catflap08 and Hijiri88. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I understood that. I endorse Swarm's action below. Begoon ^talk 18:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Let's stay on topic...I don't find Hijiri's comments on in the discussion you linked to to be quite as severe as you're making them out to be. Yeah, you're supposed to focus on content, not contributors, and he's clearly accusing Catflap of inappropriate behavior regarding article content. I don't see it as an outright spiteful personal attack in need of sanctions. Regardless, I will message this user on their talk page explaining our behavioral expectations. Swarm ^X 18:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• The question is although regarding his continuing to be involved at the Ikeda page, which he himself has not made any particularly visible contributions to, and his ongoing insistance on making attacks for no apparent reason other than wanting to make attacks. He has, as said, never shown any particular interest in that article other than to impugn Catflap08, and that is perhaps worth taking some sort of action to change. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

John, I love you, but is that even English? Begoon ^talk 18:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It is English of a grossly repetitive, redundant, sort, particular for those of us who are more used to speaking in Martian languages for the past few centuries. ;) John Carter (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I guess I've been exposed to English, Martian and Bollocks in one day. Who said this wasn't a multilingual project? Begoon ^talk

• I left him a very clear message regarding this, if he continues despite an administrative warning it'll be a different story, but I think we should AGF for now—he's within his rights to comment and we should assume he's doing so in good faith. However I made it clear that he's expected to refrain from commenting on contributors and pursue good faith concerns about other editors' behavior through proper channels, not on talk pages. Swarm ^X 18:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you. The thread can probably be closed. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Mlpearc disruptive editing

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

---

Mlpearc reverting edits which contain proper citation and good faith without reason simply to facilitate personal Point of View. Violations Include the following:

• [143]
• [144]
• [145]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencegoriel (talk • contribs) 19:09, March 25, 2015‎ (UTC)

You are clearly still pushing your POV, We (other editors and myself) spent most of yesterday trying to point out that, you can not just show up and change things to your liking, with that editing method you're going to need community consensus for 95% of the edits you are making. Note the open report above Mlpearc (open channel) 19:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As well as building up a 'case file' against other editors on his TP, insulting them, and not accepting his own lack of good faith of course. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Lawrencegoriel, you seem to exhibit battleground behavior. When there is a difference of opinion about article edits, you go to the article talk page and discuss it with other editors to reach a consensus. If you find yourself in an edit war, stop reverting and, if appropriate, file a complaint at WP:AN3. If there are debates about your sources, go to WP:RSN and get an outside opinion. But content disputes are not settled at WP:ANI. You need to work it out amongst all editors involved or, if you can't reach a consensus to make the edits, you need to learn to live with the article the way it is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

My talk page is mine to do with as I please, as written in the guidelines. The purpose of my talk page, at the moment, is to document all of the research that shows that my contributions are made strictly on factual basis, whereas, the use of the Assyrian name is Point of View editing. My sources come from non-Chaldean, non-biased and educated writers who have no personal interests in making a claim for one thing or another. The citations used on most Assyrian claims are made by Assyrians, for Assyrians. If you are going to argue with me, please take the time to research your statements before you make them. In the meantime, I expect the same amount of respect any seasoned editor would receive when makes changes based on credible sources. --Lawrencegoriel (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• "My talk page is mine to do with as I please, as written in the guidelines." Which guideline says that? Could you quote it for us, we'd love to be edumukat'd.--198.201.23.10 (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe he is referring to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages. Compared to article talk pages, there aren't a lot of guidelines about user talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware of that guideline. No where in it does it say anything about 'My talk page is mine'. I asked Lawrence to quote the line he believe says this. The line he quoted is about user pages, not user talk pages.--198.201.23.10 (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Tide sums it up quite nicely. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you can't defend your actions so you want to talk about what I'm doing on my talk page. Cool --Lawrencegoriel (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that's just a boomerang...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Fortuna, please stop adding your disruptive and unproductive comments to all of my talk page discussions. I never had any dealings with you and don't know who you are or why you are ruthlessly harassing me multiple times a day. Please remove yourself from my discussions. Thank you. --Lawrencegoriel (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Closure of talk-page discussion

Would someone be willing to close Talk:Laurence Olivier#Infobox to put this argument to rest? Alakzi (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't need closing, it just needs you to hit the road and it will cease to exist.Cassianto^Talk 19:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This article's Talk page makes it clear that there's a long-running content dispute going on at Laurence Olivier. I suggest ANI steer well clear of this. --IJBall (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is "long-running" but it is still an active discussion. I know a couple admins are checking in on it and it is probably better that someone who has been following this dispute close the question about hidden text. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The edit warriors on that page, on such a trivial matter as an infobox, fer cryin' out loud, should be put on ice for a suitable interval. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't quite get the battle over infoboxes, ←Baseball Bugs, but this dispute is actually about placing hidden text on an article forbidding editors from placing an infobox on the page. It's the wording (and the all caps) of the text that needs changing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

And that debate is even sillier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No close, the article's been unprotected and the usual suspects are back to edit warring. What can I say? Alakzi (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The "usual suspects" are a cadre of malcontents who band together to defend each other's behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested mass rollback

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

---

I mistakenly unlinked (using Twinkle) all backlinks to WP:Sandbox. I'm sorry. Request a mass rollback. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's done. May need to be checked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It managed to trip quite a few edit filters so attracted quite a bit of attention. Edits to templates have been reverted (manually). Amortias (T)(C) 20:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• With your permission, may I add you to the Village stocks? KonveyorBelt 20:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, looks like a trout is in order. Maybe not village stocks, but no one has offered our favorite seafood yet? --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Konveyor Belt: Yes, you may! SD0001 (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Editor with recent breaches of policy

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

---

User:Royalmate1's recent history has some concerning edits that are, at best, bitey but could be an indication of a general disregard for Wikipedia's policies as indicated by this edit's edit summary [146]. Some of the recent problematic edits starting with the most recent: personal attack, personal attack, accusing editor of vandalism in a content dispute, and personal attack. The user is currently in several permission groups that involve frequent user interaction, specifically rollback and pending changes reviewer, and because of what is at best a lack of understanding of policies that apply to user interaction I think these rights should be removed. Note that the user was recently blocked for the first personal attack. PhantomTech (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably deserving of an indef imo. Another gem. Blackmane (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I have increased the block to indef, as the user either does not understand copyright law, or has no intention of obeying it. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Afrikaansftw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Afrikaansftw --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've warned the editor and will monitor their contributions. If an admin wants to go on ahead and block them as a vandalism-only account, that's one less tab for me to refresh. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

use of COI as a weapon in content dispute

Am seeking 24 hour block for DePiep for violating WP:NPA in which he used claims of COI as a cudgel in a content dispute. Admins may find this trivial - it is not a death threat or calling someone "fucking stupid" or the like, but this stuff is very ugly to me and should not stand.

• this comment and
• this comment,
  • which I redacted and
    • he reverted, and
    • a third editor redacted again
  • I left a warning on his Talk page, which
  • he read when he deleted it

• he asked me on my Talk page and I answered that this behavior is not OK

• DePiep made a new NPA comment
  • which I redacted, and
  • left him a stronger warning
    • which he reverted with edit note "You are supposed to TALK when you have an issue, instead ot threatening by template. Don't ever visit my userspace again."

• and immediately went back to Talk and made another personal attack, here, and after I redacted it, he restored it he restored it with edit note: "lol fix"

It is not "lol". As I said, I am seeking a 24 hour block for NPA. User was well-warned. Using COI as a cudgel is not OK in WP. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (fix bad dif, sorry)

Distorted approach. Telling detail: my "lol fix" edit summary was with a minor sp correction -- bad faith by Jytdog here. Jytdog did not engage in talk, instead added opinion-by-template from their edit 01. Etcetera. Is what I said. Of course someone template-threatening without talking is not welcome in my userspace. -DePiep (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This is what I was expecting. No insight, no remorse. Wikilawyer tactic. Flinging charges of COI is not OK... period end of story. (and thanks for pointing out that my dif was bad - will fix that removal of my strike by you, pronto. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC))

I'm the user primarily involved with DePiep here (of course my first version fails to send and is deleted). Here's a summary of what's happened so far. Essentially, they began an edit war attempting to insert new content into the lede. Diffs:

1. [147] DePiep added new content to the lede
2. [148] I remove it due to WP:RECENTISM and weight issues to explore in the body of the article first expecting more discussion to occur on the talk page. Instead followed by a revert from DePiep.
3. [149] I revert reminding DiPiep to come to the talk page per WP:BRD to discuss the new content they want to (while avoiding additional reverts). They in return revert saying "No: you are to talk first"

They then posted on my talk page the 3RR template while also including the text I added as well referring to BRD.[150] This seems to indicate the editor lashes out when called out on problem behavior with edit warring. Within that template, they also included, "Fuck off and don't think your "warning" has meaning. You did not talk. " After finally getting some discussion out of them on the talk page, they instead lash out by casting aspersions accusing me of COI [151] and another user for paid editing [152]. Another user removed the personal attacks which DePiep reinstated, [153]. Another accusation occurred that was also removed by another user. [154]

The point isn't getting across from anyone at the article that edit warring and personal discussions are not ok, and that if your newly proposed edit is reverted, that's the time to follow WP:BRD and discuss on the talk page rather than edit war the content back in. Hopefully a warning would get the point across, but judging by the comments here and at the article, I don't think a temp block (i.e. 24 hours) is a bad idea either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So Jytdog says: 1. this es: "strike, ANI", and 2. this edit says: "agree", about the very same source added. Safe always. -DePiep (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What is this, by Jytdog: [155]? coordinating action? -DePiep (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

absolutely - his post was way too long. you are not a genius to see that. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem intended. I can get a little wordy sometimes trying to lay these cases out, but my diffs are largely different instances of the edit warring and behavior problems laid out relatively concisely.

(edit conflict)One more note and then I'll log off: I find the introduction of weapon by Jytdog aggressive. -DePiep (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

your behavior is very "internetz", DiPeip. We are not about "lulz" here. I am looking for a swift, simple block here from an admin. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think an I-ban would do better here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll note I've never interacted with this editor before a few hours ago. I'm not interested in an ban this early on if the behavior will just stop now and in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to act unilaterally and block just to punish anyone. But I see a clear battleground mentality from DePiep here. I do not see any desire or effort to work with others, to reach consensus or to compromise position, to discuss to work out what is best for the article, or any of that. I see someone who only wants to "win" the battle, and isn't interested in collaboration. Whatever anyone wants to do with this is fine by me, I would support any sanction (interaction ban, topic ban, etc.) which will prevent this behavior in this venue. The requested 24 hour block is not a method to stop the problematic behavior, and would be purely punitive, and thus not a useful means to stop the problem behavior here. Some sort of indefinite ban which will curb the behavior is needed. DePiep does good work in many areas (chemistry, for example), but this kind of toxic behavior is not useful in building up the encyclopedia, and something should be done to see that it stops. --Jayron32 02:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Jayron32 the point of the short block is not punitive - it is educational, to make it clear that the behavior is not OK. If Depiep continues, the next one can be longer, etc, until they end up at an indef. I would not support an indef now - it is way too much. I would appreciate it if you or another admin would do this simple, clear thing. I think the evidence is solid and I have no interest in this turning into a drama-fest. That is the worst thing that can happen, as there is no lesson offered, much less learned. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Saying it's educational is the same as saying "I hope he learns from his punishment." That's not why we issue blocks. We issue blocks to stop imminent harm to the encyclopedia. The issue is, will a 24 hour block have any effect on stopping the behavior once the block stops. Unequivocally no. If the user is contrite and also understands what they have done wrong, and indicates no intention to commit the same mistakes again, we wouldn't do anything. If the user shows no signs of understanding why their actions are harmful, than an expiring sanction is useless, because they would just restart their disruption again. We need to 1) have a sanction which last the duration of the problem and b) have a sanction which minimally affects the users ability to edit in other areas nondisruptively if we believe them to be capable of that. A full indefinite block is excessive because DePiep shows positive contributions in many other areas. An expiring block is inadequate because it does not stop the problematic behavior once it expires. That means the appropriate tool is a targeted ban: either a topic ban, or interaction ban, which removes the locus of the disruption, and allows DePiep to continue positive contributions in other areas. --Jayron32 12:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Jayron. I understand your interpretation of WP:BLOCK and the way you choose to implement your powers, but there is clear justification per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT that other admins may choose to act under. I have no interest in turning this into a semi RfC/U dramafest to examine broader patterns of behavior, which is what it would take to pursue a T-ban and these users have not interacted before as far as I know, so there are no grounds for an I-ban. And an indef is unwarranted, i agree. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Indef I-ban or T-ban broadly constructed. The problem seems to center around these two but Wikipedia is a big place, lets try one of these first before an outright Indef behavioral block. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A Topic Ban in this instance is a very bad idea, in my estimation. Long-term editors should be given more benefit of the doubt than that... --IJBall (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

completely inappropriate for the evidence presented. no. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• All that has to happen here is a bit of cooling down. Long term bans are not needed as it appears that editors understand how they have offended each other. The editing on Glyphosate seems to be converging to a consensus form. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Content isn't really the problem, but behavior. The reason why I went here at least was become it doesn't seem apparent DePiep understands the how problematic their behavior was and attempts to alert that to them were shrugged off. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Kingofaces. It doesn't matter where the content goes. The problem is offensive behavior. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• this is not a content dispute - I am seeking a 24 block for behavior - for violating WP:NPA by making unfounded accusations of COI. User was well-warned and went ahead, flauntingly. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support warning and 24-48 hour block. Just clarifying from above. As the person who's been receiving the brunt of this behavior, I just want it to stop and make sure it stays that way. It's too early in the process for an I-ban or T-ban given no previous history. If the behavior stops, all is well. I don't think a warning alone would get the point across that the behavior is inappropriate, so the temp block seems the logical next step. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

My fears are reaffirmed DePiep is not taking seriously how disruptive their behavior is given some comments below. Saying the equivalent of just kidding or no big deal with respect to slinging around COI accusations can't be taken seriously in the context of the diffs. I'd ask the community to just look at the diffs provided for behavior problems while avoiding the drama fest below, and at least settle on a warning that gives very little WP:ROPE. Folks can discuss things like the appropriateness of bans as a what-if if it looks like the behavior will continue after that if they really want, but can we at least settle this bare minimum request? This should not have to turn into a stereotypical sprawling ANI post. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support 24 hour block or IBANThis sort of thing is deeply offensive and it is far too often ignored as some sort of "boys will be boys" issue that does not need administrative attention. As a result, personal attacks have become an argument of first resort for certain editors, and I think we really need to start enforcing NPA, which in principle is a pillar of wikipedia.

• "Are you sure you have no WP:COI?"
• "Lucky you get paid for edits here."
• "Kingofaces43 arguing 'newishness' about a scienctific publication needs to check the COIs"

This is deeply offensive stuff that does not contribute to a collaborative editing environment. I strongly support a 24 hour block. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang -- Jytdog is using COI allegations that are not even about him to gain the upper hand in a content dispute and control of the article by attempting to block a new editor to the page who has a different POV, no different than the ANI used against me. Unfortunately, the behavior goes unchecked.David Tornheim (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

So is your position then that personal attacks and allegations are an appropriate behavior on the article Talk pages? Formerly 98 (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Question Has Jytdog engaged in paid editing? If there is no evidence I support a short block for this edit. --John (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The diff has nothing to do with Jytdog. -DePiep (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

John I have not edited for pay. Kingofaces, against whom most of the personal attacks were made, is an an academic insect guy who has studied pesticides. Formerly 98, against whom DePiep flung the charge of "paid editing", discloses that he is a former med chemist for pharma and says he abstains from editing where he might have a COI based on his past work. No evidence of paid editing by any of them. Please implement the short block. DePiep was just spewing allegations in the content dispute to discredit those with differing perspectives. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Since it came up, I will reiterate I have absolutely no COI here as I have nothing to do with herbicides from a research perspective. I lay everything out very clearly on my user page to try to prevent exactly the kind of situation we have here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Breeze in a teacup? Kingofaces43 twice reverted an edit [156] [157], and only then started a talk. Then he comes to my talkpage to tell me about edit warring, using 3rd person btw. I just copied (mirrored) this. No reason to be surprised. Pot & kettle, tit & tat, case closed. Then we met on the article's talkpage. So far so good.

Clearly my COI mentionings are tongue in cheek, and a mere reference to POV -- just a sidenote to my argument.

Then Jytdog enters the arena removing my argument [158] (keyword: recenticism; and again later [159]). So I reject the judgements by Jytdog. More: after these misjudgements, Jytdog claimed to know about COI [160]. And he still not corrected their wrong "lol fix" conclusion I mentioned here @01:10. (To spell it out: the fix was a closing strike-tag, the lol was that the whole section was stricken. funny typo = lol to me).

Jytdog applied words like "weapon" (see last diff), and this ANI post was opened (titled even) with "weapon" and "as a cudgel". That is introducing aggressiveness, and not reflecting my posts. -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

your behavior was unacceptable. you absolutely used COI as a rhetorical weapon to discredit 2 editors with different perspectives than you, and you mocked our efforts to get you to stop your personal attacks. You continue to do so now, calling it "tongue in cheek". It is not funny, it is destructive and disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You are evading my points re your judgements. -DePiep (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the point here is the inappropriateness of personal attacks on article Talk pages. Whether the discussion that went before that was contentious or not is arguing off point.

Do you understand that this is completely inappropriate behavior, and are you willing to apologize and refrain from such attacks in the future? That is what this ANI is about. Yes or No? Formerly 98 (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Re Formerly 98 (diffs are already in; can be repeated by request). The before-discussion was brought up here by someone else, so I am entitled to respond and correct that one. If it is off point, the original post should be addressed, not me. Also, that discussion has direct effects on the followup topic because Jytdog deleted my talkpage arguments. Next. I repeat that multiple statements here (by John, by Jytdog) are incorrect. For example, Jytdog mis-presented my es "lol fix" and still has not corrected themselves (which makes his statement false). And introducing words like "weapons" and "cudgel" sets the wrong tone, as does Jytdog's canvassing. This attitude might also have mislead other contributors here. I am entitled to correct all errors and wrong music. And I can call that bad judgements. Now of course I understand that my COI-remarks did not fall well with readers. Even though they were clearly meant as an over the top "POV" note, and added as an aside to the core argument. So I understand that, as you ask, even oblique I better not make them again. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

again this is more wikilawyering distraction. You made three personal attacks and ignored two very clear warnings and you show no sign of understanding the problem with your behavior. Again, a short block per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT is in order here. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block. It would make more sense to focus on why the edit to the lead about the March 2015 World Health Organization report was reverted. WHO has reported that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans." Kingofaces removed it from the lead citing UNDUE, because other sources disagree, but the solution is to add the other sources to the lead, assuming they're as authoritative and reasonably up-to-date. What has happened now is that the WHO report has been restored to the lead, but a 1991 EPA report has been added too – saying that glyphosate displays "evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans" – but without indicating in the text that it's from 1991. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This is off-topic and does not address the behavioral issues raised. Flinging charges of COI is not an appropriate response to a content dispute. The issue here is DePiep's behavior, for which he was warned twice, and persisted nonetheless. SlimVirgin if you would like to open a separate thread on Kingoface's behavior, or open a case at COIN on him, if you believe that his edit was driven by COI, please do so. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that they're separate issues. The Monsanto suite of articles is likely to end up at ArbCom, because there have been repeated claims that editors are acting in the company's interests. That needn't be because of COI; it may simply be that they agree with the company. And perhaps editors on the other side are too quick to believe that large corporations try to control content on WP. But there does seem to be unusual editing there. Trying to keep a recent WHO report out of the lead on the grounds of UNDUE, then equating it to an EPA report from 24 years ago (without alerting the reader to the age of the latter), looks odd. I urge all the editors on those articles to double their efforts to "write for the enemy" to head off the inevitable. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What about the quality of the edits?

Given that we just had this Newsweek story, would anyone like to look at the quality of the edits made by the various accounts involved here? The above is more reminiscent of WWE theatre than an editorial discussion in an encyclopedia project. Andreas JN466 15:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This thread has nothing to do with content. Personal attacks are destructive to the process of working out good content and in my view flinging charges of COI is an especially pernicious and all too common personal attack in content disputes. And adding that link about a business school is yet more sloppy throwing around of COI. This is a specific issue, well documented. DePiep acknowledges above that he used it "tongue in cheek". COI is a serious issue here, and if people have concerns about it, the way to deal with it - and how not to deal with it, are clearly documented in the COI guideline, here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest Jayen if you care about COi then read WP:COI carefully and come help at COIN, where I work every day. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Andreas does have a point though, this is looking more like a "WWE theatre than an editorial discussion" with the (you idiot, re: no you) kind of talk. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

the discussion above is not an editorial discussion. ANI is for issues about behavior. if you are getting distracted, there is nothing I can do about that. The behavioral issues and difs I raised above are sharp and clear. There is a real problem with COI in WP - see the thread the just below this one for an example. What DePiep did is ugly behavior. I am looking for a short, clear block. The behavior is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What would it solve though? I can see Jayron's point above, once the block is up you are still going to have to deal with each other. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

please read WP:BLOCK and especially WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Paid editor, editing warring

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

---

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

OK, Pmesiti is an actual paid editor, as revealed by an angry comment on another editor's talk page. - a PR rep for a politician, Bernie Finn.

Is slowburn edit warring at the article (blanking section on his Views)

• 16 June 2014 dif
• 1 September 2014 dif
• 1 September 2014 dif
• 23 March 2015 dif
• 23 March 2015 dif
• 25 March 2015dif
• 26 March 2015 dif

• Has never used their own Talk page User_talk:Pmesiti nor the article Talk page - has not responded to nor acknowledged COI notices nor edit warring notices. Nothing.

• Has not responded at the COIN posting either.

• In my view, this is a disruptive, paid editor who has not actually declared per the ToU. Please indeff. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban (or at the very least a topic ban) for repeated deletion of sourced content achieved by consensus, and failure to engage. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support ban and per above least a topic ban, this isn't a place to push your own views. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, not a site ban. Carrite (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I added userlinks to Pmesti above. I forgot to note that the account is a SPA. All it does, is Bernie Finn. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• This message says all. I was going to (temporarily) block this user, but users have suggested to ban him. Don't know what they meant by " if I am banned I will take it further" --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support indeffinite block - per WP:SPA. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef block. Send him to the outback. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. He either doesn't know or doesn't care what Wikipedia is all about, but at any rate, the diff Tito posted indeed says it all. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Obvious WP:NOTHERE. GoldenRing (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef block, to be lifted only on the editors clearly demonstrating having a clue and promising not editing his clients' page.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Blocked indefinitely. --John (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Copyright violations by User:Tjmayerinsf

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

I haven't looked at this too thoroughly, but it appears User:Tjmayerinsf is a non-communicative serial copyright infringer. Most recently [161] was copied from [ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2287170]. I'm seeing a string of copyright warnings e.g. [162][163] dating as far back as 2007, with some of them possibly contested. MER-C 12:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I found a couple more things: a copy vio plot on The Satin Woman, and material in Mikhail Petrenko (bass) copied from here (this one is not certain, as the Wayback Machine archived it on the same date the content was added here). That's with spot checks back to the beginning of January. I don't think there's enough to warrant opening a case. I will post on the user talk page and will monitor his contribs. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Creator of article repeatedly removes WP:SPEEDY tag even though he is specifically instructed not to on the tag.

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

---

Table-lookup synthesis was created about a month ago by User:Clusternote as a content fork. The editor wants to establish, using Wikipedia, his own spin on terminology that does not exist in the discipline. No one else had made substantive contributions to the article. It is OR. It is worthy of a discussion regarding whether or not the article should exist at all. But, rather than have the discussion, the editor is doing everything he can to quash it. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the one trying to avoid discussion is you, since you keep battling to have the page speedy-deleted. This page does not qualify for WP:A11 speedy deletion: it is neither obviously invented by Clusternote (despite your unfounded allegation) nor does it fail to make a credible claim of significance. I have sent it to AfD - feel free to discuss there. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Mishandling of an SPI

An SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhanzhao has been mishandled two times now.

About 20 days ago, I had figured some objectionable edits on an article,[164] that would be exceptionally backed by other account[165] in order to avoid previous account from breaking 3rr. Though this account(DanS76) hadn't made any edits in last few months. After seeing the similar attempts to WP:RGW, I would find a lot of similarities between these two accounts. I went to open an SPI.[166]

Evidence was so strong that Zhanzhao,(the puppeteer) claimed that it was his brother, similar to some people claiming that their account was operated by their little brother. Salvidrim! took his words and let him go, despite he was blocked back in 2009 for evading his block, and he had affirmed to have read WP:SOCK#LEGIT. In his own words:

"I just hope I'm following the right procedure regarding WP:SOCK#LEGIT : "openly declared alternative account to carry out maintenance tasks" when doing so."[167]

Even after that, he had been socking since 2010 with this account(DanS76) for influencing many articles, discussions, and other procedures including accepting the own article submission, raising same votes in deletion review, AfD, ANI, etc.

Question: Such a violation of WP:ILLEGIT wasn't enough for blocking him indefinitely?

It took him hardly 7 days and he returned to violate WP:ILLEGIT. Now he was more prepared, I would report[168] again and he was sure that CU wouldn't confirm, despite he continued to admin-shop with these 2 accounts. He attempted to reply every single word that he would see against him for confirming that he should avoid every single chance of getting caught.

Now recently, after he made a long list of absurd explanations,[169] comparing himself with many others editors including Jimbo Wales, his explanations also included a personal attack and claims such as the creation of "3 words userpages" is not isolated, because I(me) have also created three words userpage, and he linked to this sandbox that has over 150 words. He actually affirmed it by saying "that is indeed a 3-word page, the rest of the words were formed from a template box".[170] DoRD closed the SPI saying that "this is getting out of hand". One day earlier he had found these accounts to be unrelated. However, I find the evidence to be just too big to ignore.

There is another interesting thing behind these accounts that I have recently discovered. Same way Zhanzhao was reblocked for evading his block[171], other suspected sock was also blocked for evading 3rr with an IP in 2013.[172] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Two things: One, I said that the page was getting out of hand due to the numerous large additions of weak evidence to the case[173]. Two, the CU results are unambiguous, and I invite any CU to double check my finding that the accounts are technically unrelated. That doesn't rule out WP:MEAT, of course, but I don't see how the three accounts could be related, otherwise. Now, I'm going to be traveling for a few days, so I doubt that I'll have much else to say in this matter. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't need double check really because you are a very trusted member. I am more concerned about the mishandling of this SPI, including the first time. They are related because I cannot find even 2 of the listed similarities with any other account on here, while these accounts have relatively small amount of edits. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment He had to be blocked after it was confirmed that he has socked his way for over 4 5 years. He must have retired DanS76 so that he could make way for new socks. VandVictory (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• : Since everyone's an admin here, I assume everyone here can run their own CheckUser on the suspected accounts. I have no idea exactly how CU works beyond the fact that it checks one's IP, but I am sure there are other checks as well. My confidence in me being vindicated can be simply explained by the fact that I know I am innocent of all charges, therefore whatever process/tech is involved in the CU, will find that I was not socking, even without me having to know exactly how it works. I had been willing to put this past me, and made that very clear to OccultZone on his talk page[174], even though he chose to remove my "olive leaf" twice. I have even asked JamesBWatson to ask him to cool down [175], since he seemed to hold JamesBWatson in high esteem, to stop what I sensed was a slow-motion-trainwreck, without any success.

I know not the actions of my fellow accused (I'm frankly too tired to bother at the moment to see their contributions page), but the "admin shopping" OccultZone said I was doing, were mostly to ask how I could get CU expedited, and also what remedies I can pursue for being continually harassed by OccultZone. He can keep taking popshots for free at me, while keeping his hands busy but clean, while I am getting an SPI, and now an ANI against me. Since this has escalated to ANI, I welcome any and all to run an CU on me against TCKTKtool, Resaltador and Resaltador. I already volunteered that DanS was by brother in the same household so I am told that CU would not reveal anything other than show that we lived in the same household, so I don't know how helpful that is, but go ahead if you feel that is useful for your conclusions. Because either I am the world's greatest hacker, I hired an army of scary socks, OR, I am simply innocent of the claims OccultZone has yet again thrown at me.

And since we're at ANI, I would seriously welcome any suggestions on how to stop OccultZone from harassing me further. My socking infraction came early in my editing career, and even then, I signed off on the edit with "Zhanzhao" as I had no intention of hiding my identity, and was merely trying to get an answer at one of the boards before the thread went dead[176]. His actions are clearly now running the gamut of incivility, personal attacks and harrassment. Cos what next, when this goes against him yet again? Am I to be continually subject to this misguided vendetta against me? Or whoever happens to have different opinion and edit against OccultZone? Please. Run the CU against me again. Let the evidence speak for itself. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

As for OccultZone not finding anything similar from any other account other than me and my fellow accused, let me present this [177]. Which basically refutes his claim that he could not find anything similar. Its because he didn't want to, while, I have been pushed to the corner to prove him wrong.Zhanzhao (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I also want to highlight that even when DoRD pointed out the evidence was weak, OccultZone promtly removed [178] DoRD's comment with his collapse. So I am not even allowed to have someone else speak up for me. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you know that you have just thrown yourself into the territory of WP:TROLL? First one you had lied to be your bro. Now history of these pointed socks explicits that you are abusing them occasionally. Whenever there be an edit war over the content of that article you will produce a new "army" of sock puppets. If that's wrong, why they are not coming to defend themselves the way you just did? Or you will just go now and log into each? VandVictory (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That would only be true if the accusations are true. But try to imagine if the accusations were false. As I said. Run CU on me before making judgement. Whatever DoRD sees must be pretty compelling, even though I don't know what that is. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Why you are shouting the same absurd every time? There was firstly no need of a CU. You have clearly abused the multiple accounts for pushing your POV on a specific article, same way you were abusing DanS76. That is seriously enough for considering that only you can do it. That is also backed by great amount of similarities, that you share with these obvious socks. There are hundreds of SPIs where even new editors could evade CU.[179] That way you are still more experienced, already spending so many years in sock puppetry.

If you are not a sock, why you even bother to bludgeon the SPI and bludgeon this ANI with baseless commentaries? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We have to first make sure that what actually convinced Salvidrim that you both were brothers and not one person, when evidence was enough to consider you as one. Also we have to make sure that you weren't aware of the policy, even though you have clearly stated to have read WP:SOCK#LEGIT after you were blocked for socking.[180] Furthermore you were opening and contributing to SPIs.[181][182] It was a poor judgement of Salvidrim which is now up for review. Also reading the above editors comments that you intentionally retired DanS76,[183] because it was no more of use, you couldn't use it anymore on same articles, it is simply obvious that you are socking. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of incident

Would an administrator kindly mark an issue as "Resolved" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive275#User:GeorgeLouis_reported_by_User:Purplebackpack89_.28Result:_.29? I removed myself from the discussion about the contested issue for a period of one week, and it has now been eight days. Thank you? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (Former name George Louis)

Request to have unfair block reviewed

Whilst contributing to the Germanwings_Flight_9525 article I became aware of a closed discussion opened by Enchev EG headed, "It was suicide" but later renamed, "Latest reports point to suicide" on the Talk page. The author of the discussion had provided reasons why he felt suicide was the reason for the disaster. I observed that English might not be his/her first language and that he/she was finding resistance to his points made with the help of historical and technical data. I personally found this quite worrying as he/she was effectively being bullied. He was accused of pushing his agenda and later, further down the page he was called a troll and told to go away...how charming!

It was my understanding that anyone is entitled to contribute to Wikipedia as long as it is done in a manner which adds to the article content. I feel this user was not given a proper opportunity to develop his argument which ironically as it turns out would appear to be the reason for the crash. He was in fact spot on!

This morning I discovered Enchev EG had been handed a two week block and all because he/she had made an unacceptable comment out of pure frustration. I can empathize with him/her because I can see he/she genuinely wanted to add to the article but other users with their own clear agenda weren't having it.

Please review this matter. 87.114.172.97 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Your editing histories are really remarkably similar. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't made any contributions to Wikipedia for well over a year so how on earth can our editing histories be similiar? 87.114.172.97 (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Apart from 35 since yesterday on the German wings crash!!! lol _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor making a series of personal attacks

User:Marcos12 appears to be not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to make various personal comments and attacks against other editors, namely myself. They have edit-warred on other user talk pages to repeatedly insert said personal attacks. They have falsely edited my talk page posts in a juvenile and disparaging manner. This appears to stem from a disagreement as to sourcing in the Violet Blue article, but I am at a loss to explain their overtly-hostile response and their immediate resort to personal attacks rather than reasoned discussion. I have repeatedly requested that the user refrain from making these personal attacks, but they have thus far refused. I request appropriate administrative action be taken against the user. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe one of the particular insults in this is a reference to contents this suppressed edit. I might be mistaken though, as I'm working from memory. — Strongjam (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am Latino, and I am PROUD of that fact. It has no basis in what we are talking about here. Just to put things i perspective, I have a six year old son, and a twelve year old son. From time to time, they look at wikipedia. Today I was met by my 12 year old, Jeff, with tears in his eyes asking me "Dad, why does this man hate you so much?" and pointing to the latest comment NBSB made on my page. Furthermore I have NEVER edited NBSB talk page in a juvenile manner, and when I edited MY OWN TALK PAGE, I IMMEDIATELY realized my mistake and self-reverted. The level of hate being directed toward me is unbelievable. NBSB claims I have edit warred on other users talk pages to disparage him - RUBBISH. I was very clear that the situation I had outlined (trouser-fouling) had NO basis in real life. NONE. The disclaimer was in BOLD PRINT at the top and bottom of said comment. Can someone please gie me the benefit of the doubt here??? I STOPPED editing Gamergate in an effort to do the right thing and was met with immediate hostility.

Furthermore, User:strongjam lied and accused me of making personal attacks (exclusive of anything dealing with NBSB) [184]. Why is he allowed to call me a liar with NO BASIS in fact for his accusations???? Marcos12 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Marcos12: That statement is referring to the comments you wrote about NBSB. — Strongjam (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: Ok, I understand that. But Strongjam, please! I went to NBSB talk page and (I'm paraphrasing here) said "I am truly sorry for offending you in any way. I am going through a personal crisis, and sometimes y emotions bleed through to wikipedia. There is no excuse, however I would ask for your forgiveness as until last night, we have had eseentially zero interaction". I know of no other way to apologize for an argument that became too heated. I have stepped away from Gamergate. I have listened to your suggestions. And yet, this morning I had to have another talk with my 12 year old son about how hate still exists in this world, and that hate is magnified for people of color like us. Let's try to BUILD an encyclopedia here. I'm game! I will listen to anyone's suggestions provided they arent threats and intimidation. Marcos12 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a shining example of the Chewbacca defense by an obvious troll, and I trust that responding administrators will detect its transparent nature. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that Marcos12 is here to improve the encyclopedia. --Jorm (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to assume frustration from most of the diffs in isolation, but this one screams WP:NOTHERE if someone doesn't presents some evidence of that editor's usefulness. Looking through on my own, I'm seeing an almost singular focus on attempting to legitimize Gamergate (continuing up to yesterday), and BLP violations (one of them revdel'd) on an article about a female author who focuses on sexuality. That makes me suspect that we need to at least topic ban the editor from any pages relating to feminism, female sexuality, and any living women (even both transwomen and transmen, simply because they have become or were identified as women at some point). Given how broad such a ban is, and the personal attacks, a block would be less trouble. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed with Ian.thomson, I think that he should be blocked for [185] VandVictory (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)