Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 13:00, 17 March 2015 (→Collect: close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    2015 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

    The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

    Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination pages or privately via email to arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org.

    Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

    The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015.

    For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this

    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))[reply]

    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))[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)"[reply]
    I am not seeing anything ANI worthy there. Sorry Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I am not a WP:SPA, I edit other pages and have other interests. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    Proposed Block for QuackGuru

    There is no concensus for a block of QuackGuru at this time. HiDrNick! 20:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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).[reply]
    How many warnings will QG get for harassment? AlbinoFerret 13:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the same amount of WP:ROPE you've been given to continue your obvious advocacy. BMK (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious advocacy? You are incorrect. That is a baseless false charge. AlbinoFerret 15:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I don't have time to count the total number of past warnings against QuackGuru, so I'll simply list the notices given recently:
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I am not an SPA, and I suggest you strike out that comment. -A1candidate 13:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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))[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
        • "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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
            • 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))[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @ 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Comment: The question of why this has not been elevated long before this... Jim1138 (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • (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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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))[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Any open-minded uninvolved editor will see precisely what I mean, despite your Wikilawyering. BMK (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    No, I just dont like numbers and innuendo being used to discredit me. AlbinoFerret 17:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret

    User:AlbinoFerret has agreed to voluntarily walk away from the topic area for 6 months after a discussion on my talk page. [21] AlbinoFerret can still engage in legitimate dispute resolution (eg. the Arbcom request) but will otherwise be taking a break from editing anything related to e-cigarettes. I feel this is an acceptable compromise to the differing views expressed in this thread, and it will give AlbinoFerret time to gain editing experience and perspective in less controversial areas.

    I have left the primary thread open for now because I'd like to let the discussion about Discretionary Sanctions run for another day before closing to make sure the community really wants that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support per Doc James. BMK (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    hatting personalization of the discussion. Out of bounds and distracting from focus of Albino's behavior Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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).[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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).[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    hatting discussion no longer relevant with indef blocking of sock BMK (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
                • User:Beyond My Ken, InfiniteBratwurst is actually CheesyAppleFlake. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:CheesyAppleFlake. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]
                  • @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)[reply]

                  • 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)[reply]
                    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    !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)[reply]
    None of the diffs presented violate any of WP's policies, as far as I can tell. -A1candidate 13:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    again hatting squabble between 2 main antagonists here Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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))[reply]
    How is resisting the POV-pushing by QuackGuru a form of advocacy? Please explain. -A1candidate 14:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    side discussion that went sideways and has become distracting in-fighting Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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))[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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).[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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))[reply]
    • (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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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))[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Here's the same data presented in a different way:
    BMK (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    To clarify: I do not see policy violations to back up a ban. --Kim D. Petersen 11:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    hatting discussion no longer relevant with indef blocking of sock BMK (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    comment removed per WP:EVADE
    Keep telling yourself that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    comment removed per WP:EVADE
    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)[reply]

    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

    • 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support. Although I suspect it will end up at WP:RFAR before it's over. — Ched :  ?  22:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Sure thing! You're looking for Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community-authorised_sanctions. HiDrNick! 01:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! That was very helpful. BMK (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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).[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Notification. I started an ArbCom discussion. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground on e-cig articles. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support per AlbinoFerret. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors.

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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." - 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    withdrawn as proposer Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support. As Wtshymanski himself said, "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC) The new proposal 2 is better. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Sadly. The evidence speaks for itself. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    And have been shown to be non- evidence. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    Yeah? Feel free to bring an ANI case if you think you can make it stick. Jeh (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • Support - but don't these "restrictions" apply to every editor anyway? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    In the absence of action it continues...

    8th Mar

    IP edit: [82]

    Wtshymanski revert: [83]

    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)[reply]
    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.[84] This should be interesting. I will make some popcorn. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.: [85] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Thank you. Jeh (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    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[86] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Still no action and the problem continues

    13th Mar

    1st IP edit: [87]: 2nd IP edit: [88]

    Wtshymanski revert: [89]

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

    Canvassing and hounding with allegations of bad faith on GMO

    The law of diminishing returns clearly applies; the only consensus to be found is that this needs closing. Allow me some general observations, real quick, and let's not get too particular. a. Jytdog has on occasion a bit on the gruff side, and a few editors point this out. (That he'd be biting an editor who's been here since 2008 is not agreed upon.) b. In the absence of an etiquette board and RfC/U, it's probably best to try and focus on small things, not big things; clear evidence for that comes from the very length of this thread.

    But this was not about Jytdog or ANI, so: c. There is a measure of agreement that David Tornheim's editing is problematic; individual edits (such as this one, cited by a number of editors) are incredibly problematic and the removal of them is warranted by all kinds of policies. There is also some agreement that Tornheim seems to regard Wikipedia as a battleground where there's always a pro and a con side, and partisanship rules. I find that there is enough reason to warn to Tornheim to 'seriously regard WP:RS and WP:NPOV in their edits. Pointing out a lack of neutrality can be seen as biting, hounding, or whatever--unless, of course, it was correct in the first place. In addition, this admin finds that almost everyone here uses too many words, and this admin wonders why adults can't handle these problems in a more mature fashion--but then, when I was young people were more polite and the ham tasted better too. In short, David Tornheim, there is some consensus that your edits are problematic, and you should be careful. There is not enough consensus for a block, but please consider that this was not laughed out of court, but it was taken seriously by a number of longterm and knowledgeable editors. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    short story

    OK, I have a stalker, userlinks above, who is accusing me of bad faith actions and COI across multiple Talk pages, so the issues are WP:HOUND, and WP:AGF/WP:NPA. He is also WP:CANVASSING about the "biased POV of the GMO articles". On his userpage he makes it clear he is a community activist, and it appears to me he is using such tactics here in WP and is violating WP:SOAPBOX via WP:ADVOCACY.

    At this point I am seeking a 24 block for canvassing, and a strong warning for this inexperienced editor to stop these behaviors and to focus on content, not contributors. If David persists after a formal warning, I will seek a topic ban. I believe he is well-intentioned but does not understand WP. He appears to be WP:NOTHERE but I am not bringing that case, at this time.

    longer story

    WP:Canvassing
    David entered the GMO topic by canvassing 4 editors on their Talk pages.
    • 08:51, 13 February 2015 dif
    • 08:54, 13 February 2015 dif
    • 09:02, 13 February 2015 dif
    • 09:08, 13 February 2015 dif
    These messages are identical, are on pages of dissenters from the consensus on the GMO articles, and are decidedly not neutral, citing a "a pattern of corporate manipulation" and other bad behavior by "small group of watcher with a particular slant on the subject" and discussing the "bogus" and "blatant falsehood" of the scientific consensus statement. (Note: the scientific consensus is that currently marketed food from GM crops is as safe to eat, as food from conventional organisms. That was subject to an RfC that upheld the content with the consensus statement and its sourcing. That statement in the GMO articles really bothers anti-GMO activists. Continual problem with drive by editors, and some editors who are active here.)
    I provided David formal warning of canvassing here. I also made a note on the Genetically modified food controversies Talk page and added a recruiting template to the article.
    • After the canvassing warning, in this discussion on another user's Talk page, David used his concerns about my removing a personal attack (see below) to again vent his general concerns with the POV/COI going on at the GMO suite and my behavior. (again, with an editor he thought would be sympathetic) - which is canvassing, in my view.
    David's canvassing led directly to a posting on Jimbo's talk page by one of the canvassers. Thread is here, which grew directly out of David's canvassing of the OP, one of those already linked above.
    • David contributed this to the discussion there, discussing "COI problems that are happening with pharmaceuticals, and are now an equally big problem with GMO articles which lack of NPOV." This is just a continuation of the community activist campaigning and canvassing.
    • And then, David left a message on another editor's Talk page tonight that I consider to be canvassing, that started with said "Anyone who tries to balance any of the GMO articles is immediately reverted and is often threatened like this." and discussed more below), and is what prompts me to call for a 24 block for canvassing.
    • David has now twice added content to article Talk pages, to "introduce" new users, with POV and attacking messages about contributors, not content:
    first with this beauty, which i removed per NPA and provided David with a warning on this Talk page
    and just now, this, which was also removed per NPA by another editor.
    • Most recently, a new editor came to the articles wanting to add UNDUE content with messed up referencing to the Genetically modified organism article, which i reverted. I provided that user with a Welcome template, and I added another note informing the editor in a neutral way, about how the suite of articles is set up and explained how to add a reference. That editor used what I taught him to edit war the content back in (with proper reference formatting), without talking back at all, so I provided an edit war warning. (am not going to do all the editing diffs in this part. they are here if anybody wants to see them)

    Today, David followed my note and warning with two messages on that editor's page. This first started with "Don't let these threats scare you off. Anyone who tries to balance any of the GMO articles is immediately reverted and is often threatened like this." Which is a continuation of WP:CANVASSING and violates NPA... and is also bad advice, because the editor was edit warring. David then wrote a message to me on that editor's page, critiquing my introductory note. This is just hounding, and this, along with the canvassing, is what prompted this posting.

    • In the two or three weeks since all this started, David has engaged in only two real discussions about content.
    In both cases, he was wrong about the topic (law/regulation in one and science in the other), and after he actually read the sources or had them explained to him, he acknowledged he was wrong. All this agita appears to be based on a very strongly held position that "GMOs are bad". He does not appear to be WP:COMPETENT in the subject matter.
    • The behavior is all, classic WP:ADVOCACY. I deal with a lot of editors like this in the GMO suite and do not bring them here or create drama.

    I am bringing this case, because David is different. With him, there is a new stalking element and really wrong focus on motivations and on contributors (namely me) not content, that is, to me, really icky, and a set of "community organizing" activities that is very unwikipedian.

    deeper background here, for anyone who wants it Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    • Closing. David believes he has The Truth here and that his behavior is justified, and I reckon he will try to turn this into an examination of my behavior. I know that and expect it. I had a very long interaction with David in the leadup to this, (which was prompted by my noticing one of his canvassing messages b/c it was written on a page I watch; I became aware of the others only later). In that interaction I explained how the GMO articles came to be as they are, discussed how COI is and has been discussed and dealt with by the en-WP community, discussed how concerns about behavior are handled in WP, and urged him many times to focus on content, not contributors, nor their motivations - that this is what we do in WP. I grew increasingly worried by things that David wrote in that interaction, and my worries were realized in this message on my Talk page, which to be honest, freaked me out. I realized I had a stalker who a) does not understand how WP works at all (we identify reliable sources, craft content from them based on PAG, and discuss them - we do not speculate endlessly on what motivated this or that editor to do or say what... and that message was the fruit of, and 100% committed to, analysis of (guessed-at) motivations of contributors, all explained with great confidence. yikes.) and b) was really, really committed to his conspiratorial, convoluted POV about me. I replied appropriately (and I meant it) that I would be more careful to welcome new editors going forward. I then struck my interactions with him on my Talk page, apologizing for having bothered him (which I meant). And I archived my Talk page and reduced my User page to a minimum. And went to his Talk page and likewise struck my remarks there and apologized to him again. I have never had a stalker before; it is a weird feeling.
    • I ask that, if this turns into an examination of my behavior, that this be done in a separate thread. This thread is focused on David's behavior demonstrated above, which is out of line.
    • Anyway, as I mentioned above, I am seeking a 24 block for canvassing and a warning for David to stop these behaviors. I would like the warning to include instruction to discuss content, not contributors.

    Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (added a bit per note below Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    Have you first tried to engage with David in a meaningful discussion? If so, why did initial attempts to solve the issue fail? I'm asking this only because I can't make any clear inferences about that from your long post, so it may be a good idea for you to state that clearly. -A1candidate 01:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, as i did describe above. added some Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see lots of accusations thrown against David Tornheim for allegedly stalking you, and that may indeed be occurring, but if you don't want him to come to your talkpage, you may wish to tell him to stay away from your talkpage (in clear language) and see if that works. You said that you apologized to him, but I don't consider that a good way to deal with unwanted attention. -A1candidate 02:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for your advice but you are distracting from the point. I have not disinvited him from my Talk page, as that is the first place for him to bring concerns about my behavior. Per WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, this board is next, as I have told him.
    But this is about david's behavior. I believe the canvassing is sanctionable and the discussions of content, not contributor, need a warning. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also chime in and say that Jytdog seems to try to help out new editors relatively well. However, some terseness is needed in controversial topics when someone comes in with a strong viewpoint of their own. This seems to be a case more so not of a new editor being bitten, but someone coming in from an advocacy perspective with a fringe viewpoint and coming in a bit too hot to really realize the problem with that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support warning. Support temp block and warning. I'd weakly support a temp block, but it's really the warning that would hopefully help the situation. I've been involved in some of the content in this case, but haven't been targeted by David Tornheim like Jytdog has with this hounding behavior. There's really no excuse for this behavior and it's just poisoning the well at the related articles. The canvassing is very apparent (also to a t as described by WP:Votestacking) as Tornheim has been selectively recruiting from editors who appear to hold his viewpoint or have been trying to further WP:FRINGE viewpoints in the article. If it was just a new editor reaching out to one of those folks, that could be construed as someone just learning the ropes, but not this many people. The WP:TRUTH behavior seems very apparent where Tornheim came into the article hot as a new editor and just doesn't seem to get WP:GEVAL in this topic (similar to climate change, evolution, and other science articles where other editors with fringe POVs run into trouble). Overall, this just seems to be lashing out for not understanding how Wikipedia works (not for a lack of others trying to help) from trying to move too fast with a certain POV. The advocacy is tricky to address at this point here and maybe could be resolved without need for ANI, but it does seem to be leading towards the personal attacks and hounding that is not appropriate in any case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also tack on there has been some battleground behavior/edit warring:
    • [90] David adds content, removed due to sourcing issues by Jytdog.
    • [91] David reverts content back in " please do not undo without presenting your reason on the talk page. "not accurate" is not a reason"
    • [92] Reverted by Jytdog asking, "per WP:BRD please do not edit war, but rather open a discussion on the Talk page."
    • [93] David reverts again directly copying Jytdog's edit summary "per WP:BRD please do not edit war, but rather open a discussion on the Talk page."
    • [94] I reverted David's 3rd revert asking him to justify his new addition on the talk page at this point.
    • [95] At which point, David posts a 3RR warning on my talk page after my single revert.
    This shows a tendency to edit war rather than come to the talk page and seemingly not understanding that if you make a change and it gets reverted, you then need to gain consensus for it on the talk page. The snark involved in copying Jytdog's edit summary about BRD is also problematic and the warning on my page seem pretty retaliatory in nature. This user is still relatively new, so I do hope changes occur, but this is looking like a difficult case that isn't just due to being a new user. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Calling for a block based on a single incident involving canvassing of four editors which occurred nearly a month ago seems on its face unreasonable. Jytdog is an involved editor in this issue, and as such, Jytdog's behavior in this lengthy interaction should be subject to scrutiny as well; "this isn't about me, this is about them" arguments are specifically discussed and dismissed in Wikipedia:Boomerang, and "anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny."Dialectric (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for commenting Dialectric, I am sorry my complaint was not formatted more clearly and that I missed your response. I am not making this report based on the 4 initial canvasses. I warned him for that. I am seeking the block because of the subsequent canvassing that I bulleted above, here and here, with that post on Jimbo's page here in the midst. He shows no sign at all of stopping and appears very committed to continuing to "community organize"?canvass around these issues. And I am seeking the warning for his continued comments on contributors (me) in, inappropriate venues, and following me around. ( this message to me on another editor's talk page... just ick. I hope that clarifies. I wouldn't have brought the block request based on the initial 4 canvasses - I agree that would not be reasonable. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of this would be for Jytdog to clarify, but I didn't see a clear it's not me it's them demarcation in his post, but rather him asking that if someone really wanted to discuss his behavior, it be brought up in a different section so there could be some clarity rather than a jumbled mess. The canvassing though is only one of the problems experienced at the articles (though maybe the most actionable). Advocacy really seems to be the core problem here though, so this isn't based in a single incident. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say there is nothing to do at this stage but it's clearly important to watch David Tornheim's input in relation to these articles, as he seems to be of the school that believes that anything not anti-GMO is pro-GMO, an easy mistake to make but not one that Wikipedia should fall for. For example, this edit states in Wikipedia's voice that an experiment that led to genetically modified human children in the US was unethical and illegal "there" and in other countries (in fact it should say "in the UK" as it is not illegal in the US, where ti happened); this is attributed to "British scientists" but the story makes it clear that the criticism comes from some British scientists and is nto a considered corporate view of any British scientific body. It would have been much better to attribute the actual quotation in the source by Lord Winston, whose criticism was much more measured. But in any case this is a 2015 edit based on a 2001 story about a technique (ooplasmic transfer) that has been covered much more recently, and is intimately bound to the three-parent baby debate. As a criticism of genetic engineering, it represents nothing more than a random interjection. In short, the edit represents a simplistic and partisan view of a complex topic, within a mature article. many of David's edits are similar. I think David now understands that he needs to discuss such edits in advance and achieve consensus before making edits that may be controversial. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    *note, created separate section for comments on my behavior below. this section is for David's behavior. I imagine this is going to get separated as new comments come in. This is the point in the thread where David added his comments below. Jytdog (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi JzG I am not making this report based on the 4 initial canvasses. I warned him for that. I am seeking the block because of the subsequent canvassing that I bulleted above, here and here, with that post on Jimbo's page here in the midst. He shows no sign at all of stopping and appears very committed to continuing to "community organize"?canvass around these issues. And I am seeking the warning for his continued comments on contributors (me) in, inappropriate venues, and following me around. ( this message to me on another editor's talk page... just ick. Jytdog (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't support. DavidTornheim has indeed attempted to inject content that was not supported by RS and has been looking for support. I'm not enough of a WP policy maven to weigh in on whether he's been violating the many policies cited here. However, he has in some cases responded appropriately to specific criticism and backed down. I think attempts to continue working with him are appropriate. I do wish he'd stop with the allegations. Lfstevens (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding a block: Oppose (will not solve the issue); regarding a warning: support; regarding a topic ban from GMO and organic subjects: support. I have first hand experience with the rather bullying way Jytdog applies to get things his way with the effect that the neutrality and reliability of articles is impaired. That, and his behaviour, needs to be stopped. The Banner talk 13:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Wrong place The Banner talk 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This section is about David's behavior. Thanks for your support the warning. Blocks are meant to be educational, and I think David has no concept that his canvassing/campaigning is wrong. if you want to comment on me, you would probably best do that below. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is my opinion that the allegations raised against me by Jytdog are a direct result of my attempts to address Jytdog's behavior. Please see my response and reply to the allegations incorporated into the discussion below about Jytdog's behavior. David Tornheim (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • yes it is clear that you believe you are doing The Right Thing. The problem is that you do not understand WP nor its behavioral guidelines. This is not a place for the tactics of community activism. It's just not. In any case, this thread has zero traction. All three of our posts are TLDR and we are not going to get community feedback nor admin action. Ah well, I screwed that up. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jytdog's behavior

    (note - created separate section so this has its own focus, separate from the above, which is David's behavior Jytdog (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    • Response to Allegations: I have been on Wikipedia since July 2008 [96] and have worked on a number of different articles.  I have never been taken to an ANI board before and have never been blocked. I have never taken anyone else to an ANI board or any other notice board. I am used to working things out on the talk page of the relevant articles.
    I do understand Jytdog has put quite a lot of effort into revising all of the GMO articles and so it is not entirely suprising there is resistance to new people making changes. However, Jytdog's treatment of new users does not follow WP:DONTBITE, especially those that raise WP:NPOV concerns, which I explain below. In 2004, Jytdog said:
    "There is a suite of related articles on GM matters. A few years ago these articles were a complete mess, with much overlapping content (most of negative anti-GMO stuff). A group of us went through and cleaned them up ..." here
    Unfortunately, during this massive rewrite, as indicated above, the voices of GMO critics/consumer advocates (renamed pejoratively "anti-GMO") were compromised and the revised articles took on a Pro-GMO slant. "Anti-GMO" is an unfair label for the consumer groups, because people can be conerned about GMO's and want more testing before widespread release, without being opposed to all GMO's. This is an example edit where GMO critics' concerns are watered down to be almost unrecognizable here.
    Jytdog is correct that I believe there are serious issues with lack of WP:NPOV for all of the GMO articles, and my good faith efforts to address them and work with Jytdog and the others are met with these kinds of accusations--just look at my talk page.
    The 'scientific consensus' issue is simple--there is none, and other editors have pointed this out:
    English language Wikipedia is supposed to reflect a worldwide view of the subject, and there is widespread mainstream diversity of opinion in Europe, at least, especially ENSRR here. Reliable sources explain the lack of 'scientific consensus' here and here. Jytdog and others insist that reliable sources that do not conform to their view of the subject are fringe/advocacy groups here. This is POV pushing.
    Jytdog, especially, but also Kingofaces43 and others have shown owernship behaiors WP:OWNER (or WP:GANG) towards the GMO articles, especially when changes are proposed that might address the NPOV concerns. For example,
    User LesVegas identified the WP:NPOV problem and put an NPOV tag on an GMO article here and the tag was removed only 5 minutes later by Jytdog here. The user attempted to put it back here, and again Jytdog removed the appropriate NPOV tag only 2 minutes later here, despite the fact that the user did discuss the NPOV problem on the talk pages (here) and had good reason to tag the article that continues to have WP:NPOV problems.
    Shorly after Jytdog engaged me on my talk page and I explained my concerns about lack of NPOV, he wrote, "You appear to be charging full steam into things that you don't know much about. If you don't move more carefully, this is going to be much uglier than it needs to be..." here.
    Viriditas (talk) wrote about this WP:BULLY behavior as well on my talk page here with this edit.
    After Jytdog bared his teeth, I was still able to find some common ground and establish some rapport with him/her. However, I felt it necessary to explain the problem of intimidating new users, as gently as possible. I did so here. The situation I explained is that user Alexlikescats explained the same lack of NPOV here at 21:45, 29 March 2014 (another user:107.2.182.250 chimed in, in agreement here). Only 32 minutes after Alexlikescats said the article was biased, Jytdog accused Alexlikescats of having a single-purpose-acccount here, which violates the rule of WP:DONTBITE, especially the section, "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 ". That was the last thing the user did on Wikipedia. See Alexlikecats, contributions.
    When I had confronted Jytdog with the problem of intimidating new users, Jytdog admits in the box (show more detail above), that s/he 'freaked' out and struck out ALL the correspondence between us and archived all discussion. I don't think that is a mature way to address the very relevant concern I had raised.
    Another example of Jytdog's similar treatment to a new user is here
    This behavior of Jytdog's is what Viriditas describes here as “poisoning the well”, scaring off new users who do not share Jytdog's POV.
    When I saw yet another new user (MaxwellBarr) who tried to make good faith edits to address NPOV in a GMO article getting hit by accusations by Jtydog here, I did indeed tell Jytdog again I saw that as a problem here, here and here, while urging the user not to give up on editing the page here. Unfortunately, this user appears to have been scared off as well and has not made any further contributions to Wikipedia confirmed here. Again this is a problem with WP:BITE. This last incident pushed Jytdog to bring me to this forum claiming this confrontation was "canvassing.". I am happy to accept advice from 3rd parties on what I should do if I see a problem like that. I continue to be concerned about Jytdog's behavior of treating new users like this and having ownership behaviors like reverting any new additions and refusing to take seriously new ideas, but I am not sure what I should do about it.  Even though I have been on Wikipedia for quite a while, I don't really know much about resolving disputes in the forums.  I generally just try to talk it out with the people involved. Until I tried to add sourced material to articles in the GMO suite, I had never encountered such vigorous and tendentious opposition.
    The incident Kingofaces43 describes was resolved here and here. I said on the talk page, that I intended to add material another user had suggested here, for which neither had specifically objected except for a blanket rejection here. The two working together reverted my inclusion without discussing on the talk page and without giving a valid reason of reverting (too old and "not true" [an opinion not backed up with WP:RS] are not valid reasons for rejecting material IMHO), which to me seemed like edit waring and unnecessary obstruction on their behalf as part of a WP:TAG team to accomplish 3RRR.
    In summary, I think there are some real WP:OWN and WP:GANG behaviors on the GMO pages, and serious problems with WP:NPOV that can not be addressed because of that. I have tried in good faith to address those problems and am looking towards 3rd party admin(s) who have no investment in the GMO articles to give some guidance on how I might address the problems.
    Instead of a block or warning for me, I think the deserving person for sanctions should be Jytdog for biting (WP:BITE) new users who do not share his/her POV and thereby "poisoning the well." David Tornheim (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's unlikely to happen, because the allegation of biting relies on the idea that anti-GMO views have parity of esteem with the mainstream view. The articles right now reflect the neutral point of view as a result of many years of debate between people of all shades of opinion. I understand that some people are not familiar with a lot of this, and you perhaps you don't know about the practices of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry that historically plague contentious articles. Your best bet is to offer new users advice on policies and how to stay on the right side of them (though I have to say I'm not convinced you know, fomr a sample of your edits in this area).
    We do know that people cast themselves as "consumer advocates" not anti-GMO. Antivaxers, climate deniers, creationists and many other activists opposing the scientific consensus, do the same, with some success, in that in recent years some segments of the media have fallen into the trap of believing that science and cranks are valid opposing views. Recent outbreaks of preventable disease have seen some changes here and it's becoming slightly less common to interview an antivaxer and put them up against a lone scientist representing the tens of millions who support the consensus view. The nature of a scientific consensus is that it encompasses all known facts and valid opinions about those facts.
    Wikipedia notes that there is no good evidence to support most of the harms claimed by anti-GMO activists (a few of the economic ones are entirely valid but that is a different debate). I'm a fan of the precautionary principle, but I've had to accept this view of GMOs over time. They are actually in many ways safer and less environmentally damaging than non-GMO crops: less pesticide, less fertiliser, less preservative, less chance of toxic breakdown products in the produce. It doesn't help that much anti-GMO activism comes from scientifically illiterate "chemophobes" like the Food Babe, or from the organic movement, which is prone to all kinds of irrationality due in no small part to its Steiner "biodynamic" heritage.
    This is not Wikipedia's problem, it's the anti-GMO movement's problem, they need to find better arguments. Obviously we also need to patiently explain the facts, but in general we already have, in talk page headers and the articles themselves. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Responses

    articles under discussion here. broadly stated, are:
    Genetically modified food controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Genetically modified food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Genetically modified crops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Genetically modified organism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Glyphosate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Monsanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Organic food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Organic farming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    OP of this subthread, making a complaint, is David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    I am the one against whom David is complaining: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    The complaint is: violations of WP:OWN and WP:BITE
    • some of what David writes above is about content; this is not the place to discuss content disputes so I will not respond here.
    • With regard to claims that I WP:OWN the subject matter...
    It it true that I watch them (I watch ~2500 articles) and in all my editing, I am keen that content be sourced from reliable, secondary sources per VERIFY, OR, RS, and MEDRS, and that content be NPOV. The GMO suite is no different.
    And it is true that I am the biggest (or one of the biggest) contributor to most of these, and that they dominate my editing, if you analyze my edits by article. Here is a breakdown. i am aware of this.
    but I don't believe I do the behaviors described in OWN, here. i ask myself the questions in WP:TENDENTIOUS all the time. But some things come close to the OWN behaviors, like
    *the "qualifications" thing (the subject matter is technical - science and law etc.) If an editor is calm enough to actually listen, those things generally can get worked through, as they have with David twice now when he slowed down enough to actually listen - you can see that in the two examples I linked to in my complaint (here and here.
    *The "comments on other editor's pages" thing comes close too. I think I have generally stayed within both the spirit and the letter of this place in talking with other editors and especially new editors, but I could see how someone could have an issue with some of what I do there. I acknowledged that to David already and am thinking about this going forward.
    • to state the obvious, GMOs are a subject matter where people come to the article with very strong emotions and views and make changes that violate NPOV, OR, RS, etc. We get lots of "driveby" edits adding bad content (violates NPOV, OR, etc) in the articles because of that. The new editor Maxwell discussed above is very typical - editors come, want to add some UNDUE matter, and never talk back. it is not my fault if people do not understand WP and do not talk back. WP:BITE does not say that "anything new editor adds is OK." It just doesn't say that.
    • That said, I try very hard to engage in civil, PAG-based discussions with editors who are willing to talk on these pages and have received several barnstars, specifically for my efforts working with people on controversial subjects, (and this is just some of the feedback along these lines):
    this from 7%266%3Dthirteen
    this from Yobol
    this from Brangifer
    this from DocumentError
    this from IRWolfie-
    this from Epipelagic
    this from SandyGeorgia
    With regard to "engaging with new ideas" I am very happy to hear new ideas and see them implemented, or implement them myself. On the GMO suite, most people who come by are not bringing up anything new. Maxwell's edit, for example, was about the Seralini affair, which was worked on vigorously as it is unfolded and is now integrated into the suite and has its own article. I'm always happy to discuss re-arranging things and have offered to discuss with David, which he has taken up.
    I am really proud that ~in general~ these articles have stayed off the drama pages, and we have not gone to Arbcom. (although there was a really bad period back in August 2013 when it got to so ugly (especially with unfounded claims of COI on my part that I took myself to COIN (none of my accusers had the sense or graciousness to even bring a case in the proper forum) and I revealed my RL identity to an oversighter - results of that are here.... and that it looked like this might go to Arbcom. We avoided that.
    I have interacted with lots of folks over the past three years on these articles. I've attracted some haters. For the most part these are folks really committed to an anti-GMO POV. I will ping some of them here, to be sure they are aware of this. Viriditas, Petrarchan47, Canoe1967, El duderino, The Banner, I would say are key people who have said I am a bad presence here and might like to comment. There are other editors whom I know have strong concerns with my GMO editing, for example Gandydancer and Groupuscule, but have generally not personalized it (especially not groupuscule who is always a paragon of elegance and civility). There are other editors who have generally had different perspectives from me and have really engaged in Talk discussions over the years, like Semitransgenic. IjonTichyIjonTichy and Dialectric have shown up more recently.
    Lfstevens is fairly new to the topics and recently went over the GM Controversies with a very fine-toothed comb (thanks again for that) and may have input on this. Guettarda also recently came by.
    Then there are those who have really collaborated on building the articles - Sunrise (not so active on them anymore), Aircorn (not so active on them anymore), SylviaStanley too, and Kingofaces, who has already weighed in above. (the article analysis tool is broken or i would list more)
    Tryptofish (away on personal matters) has been invaluable in mediating some of the conversations. I wish he were around as his feedback is wise.
    What I am trying to say, is we have managed to keep the conversations civil enough, and focused enough on PAG based discussion of content and sources, that we have been able to resolve issues on the Talk pages or through RfC. David - a newbie, community activist - is breaking that. Making personal attacks of COI etc all over WP, trying to whip up opposition, instead of simply dealing with the content and sources in the article.
    I am glad David finally brought this here, however. This is, finally, the proper forum for raising his concerns, especially since RfC/U is now dead. . As you can see, I am taking the initiative to open this up wide. Let's get this dealt with.
    finally, i ask myself the questions in WP:TENDENTIOUS all the time. I am human and fuck up sometimes. When I do, I acknowledge the mistake, apologize for it, fix it, and move on. If there is consensus that I am acting badly on this more meta-level, I look forward to hearing that. I do expect some strong accusations that I am acting badly. I do not expect that to be the consensus, but am opening this up, since we are all trapped in our own limited perspectives on the world; feedback is good. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was pinged to this discussion. Which is such a mess I can't tell who is saying what about whom.

    As a tangent/rant, I don't know why we did away with RFC/U, and instead get these long rambling incoherent threads on ANI, where everyone with an ax to grind piles on with little regard for subsequent readers or relative actionable evidence requiring admin intervention. There are frequent references in here to a "David"; for readers who don't know this "David", how about using usernames?

    One thing that stands out to me in this discussion (because I've seen it now twice in just a few days, reference the recent thread about Formerly 98) are these two statements:

    This behavior of Jytdog's is what Viriditas describes here as “poisoning the well”, scaring off new users who do not share Jytdog's POV.

    and

    Viriditas (talk) wrote about this WP:BULLY behavior as well on my talk page here with this edit.

    Both Viriditas and Petrarchan47 are mentioned several times in this discussion, which is not surprising considering that both of them have long been grinding an ax with medical content (ref threads about a year ago on marijuana, and recent threads about Formerly 98-- they both seem to show up whenever controversial medical content is involved). That Viriditas wrote negatively about a medical editor on someone's talk page is not evidence of anything, except, well ... that Viriditas frequently does that. In spite of a long-standing ax-grinding with me, Viriditas nonetheless posts to my talk page when he wants to go after another editor.[97][98]

    Is any admin action required? I don't know, because I haven't read through yet another long incoherent discussion here that would have been better served at RFC.

    I do know that something should be done about Viriditas and Petrarchan47, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    SandyGeorgia, I asked for a short block and warning for David Tornheim way above, which is still an open matter. He responded by making a complaint about me, which is in this subsection. I expected this, and made my original request in part to provoke this, to get David to finally raise his concerns in the right place. I do want the short block and warning, however and think it is warranted - my posting was not POINTy. Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the subsequent clarification. But more generally, I just do not understand how ANI is supposed to result in anything productive in the absence of RFC/U. Multiple RFC/Us are long overdue on several editors, and yet, we no longer have such a forum. I agree with you that ANI is now the only place to raise issues, but don't think engaging here is likely to be productive. It will result in useless section headings and drahmaz like the section just below this, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the offensive section heading has now been removed-- thanks to whomever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SandyGeorgia's concerns

    SandyGeorgia, I have no idea what you are talking about. With that said, I would like to clear up some of your glaring misconceptions:

    • Petrarchan47 retired a year ago from Wikipedia. My understanding is that she recently dropped in and made several comments and then went back into retirement. I fail to see what she has to do with any of this.
    • David Tornheim recently left me a message on my talk page, and I responded to him on his talk page in regards to his dispute with Jytdog. I also commented about Jytdog's treatment of David Tornheim on Jytdog's talk page. However, I have not edited in the GMO topic area since 2013 and I would ask that you stop trying to bring me back into it.
    • As for your extremely bizarre claim that I am involved in some kind of "long-standing ax-grinding" with you, I'm afraid you flatter yourself as I have no idea what you mean. You appear to harbor deep grudges and then project them on to other editors.
    • Your claim that I post to your talk page when I want to go after other editors is simply absurd. Your diff shows that I was offering you support in a conflict with another editor that I had the same experience with, as I felt I could offer a corroborating opinion. It shows nothing about going after anyone, and I've never pursued the matter.

    Now, please stop drawing me into your petty squabbles and role-playing fantasies. I have not edited in this topic area since 2013 and I have no desire to be pulled back into it. Viriditas (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for weighing in, in any case, V. I won't ping you since you don't want to be involved. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is, I'm not involved. And yet, SandyGeorgia has created this fantasy world where I'm somehow the evil ringleader lurking in the shadows. This is bizarre behavior. Viriditas (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    and you are the 2nd person who is unhappy with David for having tried to drag them back into this. I am sorry for that. I've seen some of the work you've been doing since you stopped being involved, via watching Trypto's Talk page. happy editing to you. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit, I've criticized David Tornheim's methods on his talk page. I think he needs to take a rest from the GMO battlefield for a bit and focus on improving one article. He's scattered all over the place and that makes it seem like he's less interested in improving an article than in fighting the good fight. On the other hand, he's had a lot of trouble editing in this area because of the guardians. It might go a long way, Jytdog, if you could offer to work with him on a single article in a collaborative manner. Viriditas (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've dealt straight and clean with any objections or ideas he has had, on specific content or sourcing, and will keep doing so. There is no way to respond to Big Global Statements, as you pointed out. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jytdog and KingofAces43 both revert too much in my opinion and Jytdog has done so to some of my edits. The intense emotions that accompany the GMO controversy pushes everybody involved to their limits. That said, when I identified RS material that suggested a problem with glyphosate, Jytdog added it to the article unbidden. I'd just like everybody to spend less time on this controversy and more time on the articles. Lfstevens (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for that feedback. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My name was included in the above sections, so I guess I ought to respond. In my opinion, the GMO articles were a mess before Jytdog reworked them. Often they were eye-wateringly one sided, the same information was repeated in several places, poor English, poor references, information out of date, and so on. Jytdog has made a marvelous job of re-writing them in a neutral factual tone in Wikipedia style in spite of massive attacks on him. He has reverted several of my own insertions but I can always see the logic behind what he has done. I congratulate him on the vast amount of excellent work he has done.SylviaStanley (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC
    • Regarding a block: Oppose (will not solve the issue); regarding a warning: support; regarding a topic ban from GMO and organic subjects: support. I have first hand experience with the rather bullying way Jytdog applies to get things his way with the effect that the neutrality and reliability of articles is impaired. That, and his behaviour, needs to be stopped. The Banner talk 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Moved from section above, wrong person[reply]
    • Oppose Block/Ban Having read through the supposed "bullying behaviour" of new editor MaxwellBarr, I find it not to be any sort of bullying at all. The editor (MaxwellBarr) first puts in a spam link to gopro.com that is bot deleted. Then the editor immediately puts in a bunch of material that is unref'd. Jytdog reverts but fully explains his (proper) reasoning. Then the editor inserts a random citation at the bottom of the article, and Jytog civilly removes and explains. That is how this is supposed to work. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you do I suggest you keep it brief. We have both already left WP:WALLOFTEXT here, which is probably why we are getting so few responses. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog, I appreciate your desire for brevity and to avoid worsening the WP:WALLOFTEXT. I wish you had considered that before creating the problem by posting a wall of text. I am glad you said something here, because it is indicative of your attitude in the general case: Your contributions are held to be more valuable than other people's contributions. The rules do not apply to you as much as they apply to other contributors.David Tornheim (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Based on my own experiences, I feel obligated to acknowledge that Jytdog does demonstrate behavioral issues that require an admins attention as other editors have noted above. I included a few diffs which will help confirm the bullying behavior mentioned above:
    • [99] <---Bullying?
    • [100] <---passive aggressive bullying of a newbie with mention of ARBCOM because they disagreed?
    Despite Jytdog's good intentions, he has a rather skewed interpretation of WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI guidelines in that he believes those guidelines supersede policy. I imagine there are quite a few editors who have been targeted under the pretense of WP:MEDRS and WP:PSCI, and would gladly provide more diffs to demonstrate same, but I see no reason to include them all here. It also appears we've been getting a snowjob as it relates to the ongoing abuse of WP:MEDRS by the same select few.
    • [101] <---reverted (Undid revision 650497838 by 2602:306:836F:A3E0:A17D:786E:1D03:BE85 (talk) revert content based on WP:PRIMARY source per WP:MEDRS) Excuse me, but the passage he reverted was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and according to WP:MEDRS, Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals..... [102]. How is that revert not an abuse of the guideline to control article content?
    • [103] <--- reverted (Undid revision 646440329 by AmiLynch (talk) revert addition of content based on WP:PRIMARY source that violates WP:MEDRS) Same song second verse. The excuse that the passage violates a guideline is not cause for a revert. How does one violate a guideline anyway? Furthermore, the passage came from the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine 26 (2014) [104] Again, it appears as though he is controlling article content per WP:OWN which actually is a violation of policy.
    Granted, there are vandals and CAM spammers who need curtailment, but some of Jytdog's targets have been GF editors, including newbies who actually added passages citing RS in adherence to WP:PAG. In most cases, all it requires to become a card carrying bullseye of the quack-watch cabal is to express a little opposition or criticism of certain interpretations of mainstream views regarding WP:PSCI, WP:MEDRS and/or related categories. It reminds me of the trials and tribulations of Judge Roy Bean and his sheriff's posse, only now we're subjected to a 21st century mobocracy which actually determines what information will or won't be allowed in articles regardless of PAG. Hello WP:OWN and WP:NPOV - is anybody home? I don't doubt that the majority of editors on both sides of the isle have good intentions - most are highly intelligent experts in their respective fields - unfortunately (and representative of what happens when power corrupts), innocent editors inadvertently fall victim to the demands of the cabal, and open collaboration is replaced by censorship in a "police state" environment. Quite frankly, few editors survive such an onslaught. The result is an encyclopedia that reflects a one-sided view via censored topics.
    In the interim, Jytdog says whatever he wants to say, apologizes to those he has offended whenever he gets around to it, strikes what he says, hats and archives it, resumes bullying and his normal pattern of tendentious editing, attempts to baffle admins hoping they will swallow his BS diffs and misinterpretations of MEDRS because they're inundated with work and are less inclined to analyze the material presented. [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110]
    I can't help but believe it's part of his baffling exercise which usually precedes the dazzling. For example, it may be difficult for some admins to see his strikes as a tactical measure. If there were only a few, I might be inclined to believe he was being sincere, but are the strikes a true representation of regret for the right reasons? Admins will only see the one or two diffs he might provide in his own defense with a statement something like, I thought about what I said, realized it was wrong so I struck through it. The admins and/or reviewers may think, "Ok - he acted in GF by striking through that comment." Are you sure about that? I think it requires a little more research to see just how many strikes are involved in his repertoire. I find it hard to believe such behavior is a common practice among GF editors. Perhaps I'm wrong in my evaluation. If I am, I will gladly strike through my comments and archive them. Atsme☯Consult 21:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • These observations are in alignment with my own, and with several others. For example, in the midst of a year-long, intense debate at BP, Jytdog joined the discussion and essentially tried to take over the process. Here and here he apologized, exactly as Atsme describes above, and then left the page. In the comments on the page I've linked, Coretheapple said this about Jytdog's approach: I notice that you tend to characterize editors who disagree with what you're doing here as people who are "arguing" with you, in contrast to the nice people who are producing a "positive vision." and some of the editing has bordered on the tendentious and violative of WP:OWN, especially the hairtrigger reverts that I've seen. But the solution is not for one editor to appoint himself as impartial editor, "negotiating" an "apportionment" agenda[as Jytdog categorized his role].
    I do agree that his tactics deserve an impartial look from *uninvolved* admins. It is my opinion and personal experience that Jytdog come across as a bully/dictator and may be inadvertently working against WP's goal of retaining editors. I had an experience similar to David's in that I was editing here for a few years and hadn't seen the inside of a noticeboard aimed at me until I had the misfortune of editing a GMO-related article. This is a tactic Jytdog and his buddies use unabashedly. It serves to scare off editors who question the neutrality of his work, if nothing else, and the articles go ignored and remain unchanged. (It is not a done deal that the GMO articles are perfectly NPOV, and the claim is ridiculous on its face.) Even when no action from an ANI is warranted, the editor's reputation has been sullied - with David in this instance being lumped in, sans evidence, with the "anti-vaccers" (read: crazy and not to be trusted). petrarchan47tc 01:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atsme: And excuse me, but the most damning evidence you can find is Jytdog reverting the addition of primary studies? We don't use the thousands of primary studies published daily peer-reviewed journals; we use the secondary sources, and you already noted that according to WP:MEDRS, Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals. If you don't understand that publishing a single trial in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make it a literature review or a systematic review, you shouldn't be criticising the actions of editors who do. Jytdog was absolutely right to remove Escitalopram and venlafaxine for the prophylaxis of migraine headache without mood disorders, One hundred and twenty cases of enduring sexual dysfunction following treatment, and Persistent sexual dysfunction after discontinuation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors because they are case studies - primary studies and not of value for making medical claims on Wikipedia. The only "BS diffs and misinterpretations of MEDRS" are yours above. --RexxS (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @RexxS: no, it wasn't the most damning, there are way more, but those two were enough to demonstrate behavioral issues. FYI - the 1st revert sourced a published article that was cited in 2 different reviews - 1 systematic review - Migraine in Adults: Preventive Pharmacologic Treatments and 1 PubMed Central article Italian guidelines for primary headaches [111]. The 2nd revert sourced an article that mined data from 120 reports and summarized the findings in a report published in The International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, a book published by IOS Press, [112] which would fall under A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Atsme☯Consult 06:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's complete and utter nonsense. Two of the three sources are clearly primary and the other is dubious. If you even bothered to look at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19667978 you'd see "Publication Types: Comparative Study, Randomized Controlled Trial". Studies and RCTs are primary sources. http://iospress.metapress.com/content/1021h330k91qv844/?genre=article&issn=0924-6479&volume=26&issue=2&spage=109 is a report by the authors based on a website they set up to collect self-reported data. It's neither a systematic nor literature review - PubMed doesn't even classify it - see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24902508. If you read the third source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18173768 it says "Publication Types: Case Reports". Case reports are primary sources. Jytdog was absolutely right to remove them. If you think these are the sort of sources that should be in our medical articles, you need to be banned from ever touching a medical article article again. Competence is required. --RexxS (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Utter nonsense is believing dubious justifies a revert, or that the suggested guidelines in MEDRS must be followed explicitly, or that they should be treated the same way we treat BLP violations. Let's not forget that today's mainstream science was yesterday's fringe. WP:MEDRS reads: 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. It further explains: The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. You don't revert just because it doesn't follow MEDRS. Who came up with such a nonsense idea? The most important aspect of editing is having the freedom to do so in an open editing environment. Bottomline, the passages Jytdog reverted in the examples I provided above were not themselves considered policy violations as was Jytdog's WP:OWN behavior. DS, blocks and topic bans are not initiated because an editor wants to add information to improve an article and didn't cite a particular source Jytdog determines to be a RS. If other editors question a source, we have a citation needed template for just that purpose, and I'm pretty sure Jytdog knows how to use it. If I may recommend the following passage in the quote box at WP:FRINGE: ...This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinized. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries." I find the latter to be valuable information to keep in mind before your next revert. Atsme☯Consult 21:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So you've shifted your stance again. This time it's "give us the freedom to stuff articles with today's latest fad as illustrated by this single case study". Well, no. Here's what the opening line of WP:MEDRS states: "Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." (my emphasis) That has to be the first and foremost consideration for including content in any article that has medical claims. MEDRS has the consensus of the community and it spells out that it is vital to base our articles on secondary sources. Not "optional", not "preferable", but "vital". So of course the proper action is to remove dubious claims sourced to primary sources. And yet you want to pillory Jytdog for simply insisting that we only use the best quality sources for medical claims. I've seen far too many SPAs trying to undermine MEDRS to sit back and watch you try to do the same as them. MEDRS is the bulwark that prevents every pharma shill from stuffing our articles with "subtle" advertising; or every "true believer" from promoting their peculiar view of medicine - all based on readily available primary sources. Bottomline is that the edits that Jytdog reverted were clear breaches of MEDRS and he not only had every right to revert them, but a duty to Wikipedia to do so. --RexxS (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply by David Tornheim:
    I am glad that Jytdog is reflecting on his/her behavior that I raised about new users, when he said above:
    "comments on other editor's pages"... I could see how someone could have an issue with some of what I do there. I acknowledged that to David already and am thinking about this going forward.” (posted here)
    I do feel harassed by Jtydog and this feeling continues from these allegations and the vigor which he continues to fill my talk pages even during this ANI (here and here)—he has put more than twice as many edits to my talk page as I have. (see)
    How can I be stalking him/her, when s/he keeps showing up on my talk page with endless allegations like those lodged here? This is not about me: Jytdog appears to do this to anyone who tries to edit the GMO suite of articles in ways that he does not approve of, in particular new users who can be scared away. The only reason we are here (in ANI) is because I have been editing on Wikipedia for a while, and cannot be accused of WP:SPA, and have not been intimidated in letting Jytdog WP:OWN the articles.
    I disagree that a determination of whether WP:BITE has occurred is dependent on the outcome of a content dispute. New users should be welcome even if other users think correctly or incorrectly that the new user's POV is WP:FRINGE. Please note that a consensus can change, but organic consensus can be stifled by WP:BITING people who do not agree with a consensus achieved at one point in history. Also, a consensus can be achieved that does not adhere to other Wikipedia policies: For example, it may be based on inaccurate information, use of unreliable sources, original research or insufficient use of all reliable sources, WP:UNDUE, etc.
    It has been stated that that some GMO articles are “mature” articles. However articles on Wikipedia are never “done” (WP:PERFECTION and WP:EDITING). I am not aware of any policy that says a “mature” article requires a higher threshold for changes or improvement than a brand new article, and Wikipedia policies make it quite clear that users should be WP:BOLD and correct articles that have problems (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM). That an article has a long history is not a reason to avoid correcting errors and problems with it (WP:PERFECTION). WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM includes “adding other points of views to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced."
    To Guy (Help!): you said, “Your best bet is to offer new users advice on policies and how to stay on the right side of them (though I have to say I'm not convinced you know, fomr a sample of your edits in this area).”
    Jytdog has accused me of canvassing by talking to new or existing users anywhere but the article talk page (although sometimes my attempts to do that are censored by Jytdog here and/or KingofAces here). Jytdog has said I am stalking him/her if I interact with a new user after Jytdog scolded them and I have tried to encourage them not to feel intimidated.
    What do you propose I do if I were to see this behavior of WP:BITE from Jytdog or any other user? I noted this WP:BITE behavior in Jytdog and all attempts on my part to address it only made things worse. I am very open to any suggestions about the proper way to address it in a way that would not cause the reaction I witnessed from Jytdog, which is to accuse me of canvassing and stalking.
    I think the behavioral problems here are likely to go away if Jytdog learns that his WP:OWN , WP:BITE, and POV pushing behaviors are in violation of Wikipedia policy. I think he is a good editor who sometimes forgets that we are all here to make an encyclopedia, not to be the 'guardians of Truth” WP:The_Truth
    -David Tornheim (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to close

    • Support as proposer per the excellent comments by Lfstevens above. This thread no longer serves any purpose. There are problems with David Tornheim's edits in as much as there are issues with Jytdog's behavior. Dispute resolution is the best way to handle this, as ANI is not setup to deal with this current issue. Use the RFC process to resolve content disputes on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. There is a distinct imbalance between the evidence of problems with David Tornheim's edits and the evidence of Jytdog's behaviour. In fact the evidence adduced by diffs of Jytdog's behaviour was a completely unfounded misrepresentation of WP:MEDRS as I've shown above. You can't simply brush away the clearly documented problems with David Tornheim's edits by calling them equal to Jytdog's policy-compliant actions (that Atsme tarnished through Atsme's lack of understanding of the difference between primary and secondary sources). --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to read my response to you above regarding primary and secondary sources, and what guidelines are applicable to the actual passages that were reverted. Sometimes verifiable requires more than a click and a revert. Atsme☯Consult 06:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read it and it's clear you have no clue what a primary source is. If you can't tell the difference between case studies or RCTs and secondary sources, you have no business criticising someone like Jytdog who can. Your intervention here is spurious at best. --RexxS (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Read it again. You are confusing a suggested guideline with adherence to policy. Bullying people into using RS you and a few others consider acceptable is not acceptable, and neither is reverting another editor's contribution simply because you don't like the source. I think it contributes to the reason we are here now. Atsme☯Consult 21:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You read it again. There's nothing "suggested" about Wikipedia guidelines. They enjoy the consensus of the community and you'd better have a damn good reason to claim your edit gets to be an exception to them. What was so extraordinary about the edits that Jytdog reverted that they shouldn't be subject to MEDRS? It's the community that agreed MEDRS, so it's you and your tiny band who find MEDRS inconvenient who are pushing the limits to see what they can get away with. It's not my judgement of what's acceptable; it's the judgement of the community. It's not a dislike of a source; it's a dislike of POV-pushers who try to make medical claims based on feeble evidence. If you make a habit of pushing dubious medical claims based on primary sources - assuming you can figure out what they are - I predict you'll be back here soon enough. --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, guidelines are guidelines, and they are suggested best practices. No matter how good the intentions of MEDRS are, it's a guideline that can be abused to promote biased views. The same is true of the FRINGE guideline. Neither of these things are policies nor should they be treated as such. What tends to happen is that editors like yourself yell "MEDRS!" and/or "FRINGE!" when there is the slightest bit of criticism against a medical view or perspective that has substantial opposition and or alternative views. Often times we find that these so called "establishment" medical views are corporate-funded and distorted, such as AAAS uncovering the manipulation of NIH health guidelines by the sugar industry from 1959-1971.[113] Sorry, but medical content is not immune from corporate bias, and both MEDRS and FRINGE are abused to perpetuate this bias, which is why we rely on the NPOV policy above and beyond any project-promoted guideline. It is of note that GMO critics have made the same claims about corporate bias in the "established" GMO literature. MEDRS and FRINGE are frequently cited to prevent other perspectives from being presented. Merchants of Doubt covers the specifics of how this works in the real world. This is why, at the end of the day, this is a content dispute, with some editors trying to falsely elevate guidelines in order to bypass the NPOV policy and filter out critical viewpoints outside the consensus established by Big Pharma. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing contrary about it: guidelines are indeed documented best practice, as agreed by the community. There's nothing "suggested" about guidelines; they are not optional to be disregarded at will as you seem to think. Don't bother deflecting by going off on tangents, just concentrate on your campaign against MEDRS and your attempt to criticise an editor who followed "best practice" by removing claims that cited only primary sources. Let's be clear: do you support the notion of using primary sources to insert medical claims into Wikipedia? Yes or no? Then we can see what your agenda is here. --RexxS (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not belabor the point that guidelines are not policies because the tone of your responses is somewhat elevated, so I will end my participation in this sideline discussion by suggesting that you review WP:MEDRS wherein it clearly states: The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see: Wikipedia:No original research). I try to adhere to policy and use guidelines for...well, guidelines. You might also want to read: Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Enforcement and WP:IAR. To keep reverting and/or deleting the edits of others simply because you think the passage isn't properly sourced according to a specific guideline could very well be considered disruptive. Not following a guideline isn't the same as violating policy, the latter of which is subject to enforcement. Atsme☯Consult 00:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support to close and move to more appropriate venues such as dispute resolution, per Viriditas. petrarchan47tc 02:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is WP:Dispute resolution. Look at the page -> the box on the right -> third heading: "Conduct disputes" -> first entry: "Administrator assistance (Request)". That's here. The only other venue for conduct disputes is RfArb. Is that what you want? Are you going to file the case? If not, perhaps it's better to let the community come to a conclusion here, even if it takes a few days. --RexxS (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stop the badgering, RexxS. You know very well that DR in this context refers to "civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages" about content. ANI is not the place for that. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Don't accuse me of badgering when that's exactly what you're doing. ANI is one of the only two venues left for DR of conduct issues and you're simply trying to close down a discussion that's not going the way you like. This isn't a content issue, it's a conduct issue and it's disingenuous to pretend it's not. --RexxS (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's a content dispute about GMO. You are badgering people who disagree and I and others see no purpose or reasonable outcome to this discussion, which is why I've proposed closing it. I have zero involvement in the GMO debate. The extent of my involvement is from two years ago, when I covered the protests that took place where I live and when I wrote about the larger movement from a journalistic perspective. Get a grip. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's a conduct dispute about David Tornheim's behaviour, although I can see you'd like to pretend it's something else. Here's a clue: the title is "Canvassing and hounding with allegations of bad faith on GMO". Canvassing, hounding and allegations of bad faith are not content issues. So you can stop your badgering and attempts at deflection. If you want to talk about content, clear off to the article talk page and let those who understand the difference get on with discussing the behavioural matters. --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    guys, fwiw, you have each made your points and are unlikely to convince each other. Whoever closes will take your arguments into account. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support in agreement with DR. Atsme☯Consult 06:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support; overdue. It is not the function of ANI to sort out which of several problematic editors is more problematic than the other. I encourage all parties discussed here to reflect upon their own behavior and take steps to address the concerns raised, and worry less about the shortcomings of others. See The Mote and the Beam. NE Ent 11:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be fine with a close if folks feel that there has been enough discussion. However I disagree that this is a content dispute. I do not raise ANIs spuriously; I think David's canvassing and NPA behavior is at least warn-able. I came here looking for that; continued accusations of COI are DISRUPTIVE and I feel I am being stalked. David is doing these policy-violating behaviors because he believes I am corrupt (which is out of bounds) and that I have problems with WP:OWN and he doesn't know how to address problems in WP, and instead seems to be resorting to the kind of community activism tactics that he uses in the RW (per his user page). His attempts to raise BOOMERANG issues is normal, and I expected it and indeed hoped for it, so that whatever might be legit in David's concerns could be addressed in the appropriate forum, which is indeed this forum. There is no other place where it could be addressed. I am interested to get community feedback on OWN ( maybe the community will judge that I have issues with that - just because David doesn't understand WP doesn't mean he might not have a point, and we can all be blind to our own faults. I do think my behavior is OK. but I could be wrong. I expect random haters to pop up here and add garbage to the thread). I would appreciate if folks focus on the issues actually being raised and examples provided, as hard as that is with the TLDR posts, off-topic stuff, and our busy lives. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You can pretty much consider that David has received a warning here. But in all of the above, do you know if anyone pointed out the proper channel's where David might get assistance, instead of canvassing? Like adopt-a-user, the teahouse, and what ever? If not we could gather up a few links to what ever and give them to them.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Serialjoepsycho I explained to David how concerns about COI are handled at the bottom of this (in response to David's question about how COI is handled in WP). Dialectric gave more advice about dispute resolution here and here. The canvassing warning I gave David points to Wikipedia:Canvassing and that article explicitly tells you how to bring up concerns in various forums as well. One can lead a horse to water... I don't see that anybody pointed David specifically to Teahouse or adopt-a-user.Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its wp:teahouse and WP:ADOPTif he's not.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    fwiw, Serialjoepsycho... responding to what you wrote above ("You can pretty much consider that David has received a warning here"). David pretty much views my posting here as "bullying" - so while i might take what has been said here as a warning for David, what I would like, is that David take at least a warning from this - a warning from the community, not from me. The closer will judge if that is warranted or not, of course. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt. I agree with alot of the positions you have highlighted. I only mention the above so that if he does canvass again this can be pointed to. Also so that he can be informed about these places where he can seek help, whether or not he's banned.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support close with part of the resolution being that David seek help through either WP:TEAHOUSE, WP:ADOPT, or Wikipedia:Co-op, or some similar venue regarding matters of policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support close. This has gone on enough and is looking to just be a drama-fest for those with a chip on their shoulder. A formal warning at the close for David could still be helpful if it doesn't seem like the point is getting across that his behavior was problematic (not sure where he's sitting currently). It's hard to deal with folks pushing WP:FRINGE ideas into articles, and they often don't react kindly when they come in strongly with their own point of view to get it rejected. There are always going to be people that get ticked off about that in science topics especially, and I don't think there's much we can do about that unfortunately. Doesn't seem like there's anything more to do here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is really confusing. Yesterday, I saw this was closed. I mistakenly read that to mean it was like a court case, that it was closed, over, final, done, resolved, a decision was made, etc., and I (and others) could continue other more productive work without having to monitor it. I mistakenly also believed that if a new case or issue was to arise, I would get notice and new arguments would begin there. I am really glad I looked again, or I wouldn't have known that the resolution had unraveled and that a whole new set of voices have appeared shifting the balance yet again with old voices taking new positions vying for a resolution more to their liking hoping the new voices would side with them and those who disagreed might lose interest. To be honest, it seems pretty chaotic. I like the legal system a lot more where you have a non-partisan neutral judge who is an expert in the law and is supposed to give decision based on the law, work on specific time constraints and limits on the amount of material submitted and the relevance of that material rather than this chaotic free for all that is very partisan that seems to keep going on as long as anyone doesn't like the result... That said, I guess I need to respond yet again...David Tornheim (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) (struck word "partisan" per request by Atsme here and my response here. My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    • As you can tell above, I am frustrated this was re-opened. However, there may be some value to that. I have done some more research and learned some more things. I carefully read the WP:BRD, and see that I misunderstood it and that Kingofaces43 (talk) interpretation is more correct than mine, that it is indeed okay to revert without going to the talk page. I did go to WP:TEAHOUSE, WP:ADOPT and Wikipedia:Co-op and utilized all three as recommended above. As I said above, partisanship seems to be compromising the resolution process. It seems Jytdog and his supporters want me punished/warned and Jytdog to not be punished/warned, and my supporters want Jytdog punished/warned and me to be off the hook. (struck word "partisan" per request by Atsme here and my response here. My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)) From looking at what Jytdog wrote here, it looks to me like both Jytdog and I will be willing to admit responsibility for the problems between us if the other does the same. I will be willing to go there if: either:[reply]
    (1) neither of us is punished
    (2) or both of us is punished/sanctioned/warned equally.
    It would be grossly unfair if one was sanctioned and the other not sanctioned. That will only infuriate the side that loses and cause more drama down the road. I am hoping there is a way so that we can all be on the same "side". This does not need to be a "war" or a "battlefield". (struck word "partisan" and suggestion of "sides" per request by Atsme here and my response here. My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    SO INSTEAD I PROPOSE THIS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES HERE:
    (1) Everyone who has been partisan stops adding material and arguing with each other, including my supporters (<<<THANK YOU!)and Jytdog's supporters:
    Kingofaces43 (talk)
    Dialectric (talk)
    Guy (Help!)
    The Banner talk
    Viriditas (talk)
    SandyGeorgia (Talk)
    SylviaStanley (talk)
    Capitalismojo (talk)
    Atsme☯Consult
    petrarchan47tc
    RexxS (talk)
    -Serialjoepsycho- (talk)
    John Carter (talk) (struck word "partisan" per request by Atsme here and my response here. My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    (2) No new users come into the discussion except by mutual agreement of Jytdog (talk) and me.
    (3) Other than Jytdog (talk) and me, only those who have shown a strong middle ground (i.e. noting problems of both parties) stay:
    Lfstevens (talk), A1candidate, NE Ent. In fact, I would be okay with just a discussion between Jytdog (talk), NE Ent and me
    (4) The goal of further discussion per NE Ent "is not...to sort out which of several problematic editors is more problematic than the other." Indeed. That will not accomplish anything. However, I also think that to "reflect" on behavior will not make the problems go away.
    (5) Instead, the goal of continued discussion here will be to IMPROVE COMMUNICATION between Jytdog (talk) and me, using a NEUTRAL 3rd PARTY. I propose NE Ent for that.
    Jytdog: What do you think? With the help of neutral third party (NE Ent) and possibly also Lfstevens, A1candidate, I think I could answer the question you asked me here.
    David Tornheim (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    David, there are many things wrong or just odd about what your write above. Generally, you just don't understand how this place works, and you haven't listened to the advice that people have given to you. I won't address everything, but I really object to your (again, and wrongly again) guessing about my motivations and what I will do; you speak only for yourself when you write "That {namely one of us being sanctioned and the other not} will infuriate the side that loses and cause more drama down the road." And there is no competition here; nothing here is about "winning" or "losing" and I am sorry you view it that way. I have brought up issues with your behavior; the community will decide if those are real issues or not, and if so what to do about them. Your behavior is yours, not mine. The same thing is true the other way around. All that said, if you want to talk with me through some third party - if that would help you somehow - I would be open to that, as weird as that is. I recommend that you do not try to work with A1 on that, as A1 and I are often on different sides of disputes over alt med health content. But this is not a content dispute where mediation would be helpful. The two times you have actually raised content issues at articles, we have worked through those fairly well; we don't need DR/mediation. My issues are with your campaigning/canvassing, and your following me around accusing me of COI. You think I have issues with OWN. Those are things the community can and should look at it and make decisions about. Jytdog (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really need to talk to me in such a condescending manner? That is not helpful saying "you just don't understand how this place works" and "you haven't listened to the advice that people have given to you". I have listened to plenty of advice and used it, even in this discussion. Guessing about motivations? What about you and all your claims here that I am an "activist" and that I am applying activism to the articles? While you are a self-admitted biology scientist working at a University in real life and are practicing your slanted views of the science of GMO's in the articles, and trying to convince everyone you are neutral and objective when many can plainly see that you are not? You said to me that at Wikipedia "we don't care what you do in real life". Well, if that is so, why did you bring it up? It's a double-standard.
    I have not gone around accusing you of COI. You don't need to have a COI to put PR materials supporting GMO's in the articles any more than those who put Arturo's work on BP into the BP article. The people who did that might think BP can do no wrong and that everyone else who has something negative to say about BP is an "activist", a "charlatan", "crank", "Luddite" or WP:Fringe or anti-BP, anti-Oil and part of the conspiracy of the "War on Oil". If you believe the PR materials from industry are true and incorporate them, that doesn't mean you have a COI. But the article becomes slanted if it is composed of PR work from the industry. That's what I said on Jimbo's page--that the articles are slanted and pro-industry. I have never accused you of COI. I said the material is slanted. And when new users try to add material critical of GMO's I tell that that you and your colleagues will oppose addition of material that is critical of GMO's, why and how, which is telling them the truth about what happens on the GMO articles. I don't see why the users should not be informed of what is going on, why they are going to receive unreasonable opposition to reasonable proposed changes, and why they are getting allegations, threats and hints not to be BOLD on their talk pages. I think they have a right to know that when you show up trying to scare them off.
    "Your behavior is yours, not mine. The same thing is true the other way around." You speak as if the two are *completely* unrelated. They are not. That's why BOTH of us are here. I have said time and time again that my behavior that you call "stalking" and "canvassing", is my attempt to mitigate the damage you do in dealing with new users. Something quite a few others have noticed as well and brought plenty of supporting evidence for. I have asked others here specifically the best way to deal with that if you or anyone else treats new users inappropriately or condescendingly or with threats of ugliness as you did early on with me, and I am awaiting advice on that. Calling it "stalking" and "canvassing" is not useful feedback. I do not understand why that is not obvious. It seems to me you think you have a right to talk to new users on the GMO articles as you please, but if I talk to the same new user, that's not okay, then it is "canvassing" and "stalking". If rather than accusing me of stalking you said, "Yes, David, maybe I was too rough on the new user. I'm sorry for that", this entire ANI could have been avoided. But instead, you got mad at me for confronting you about it and can't see that the two are directly related.David Tornheim (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) here is David's post to the teahouse, which ends with "In other words, when we see the PR materials have not only infiltrated an article but have dominated the article, is there any hope of doing anything about it, or is Wikipedia been corrupted beyond repair to be just a new kind of advertising space for various industries?" And here is the new coop project David started - a project to "deal with industry slant in Wikipedia articles." Oy... more of the same campaigning behavior. But maybe someone will give good advice. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope they do give some good advice. Back when this was happening with the BP article, and if you were as new as me and wanted advice on how to deal with the WP:OWNers of the BP article who insisted on the BP PR materials, and you knew the owners were going to drag you to ANI accusing you of "canvassing" if you tried to talk to anyone but the owners about the problem of slant, how would you word it when asking for advice?David Tornheim (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First, if i were inexperienced as you, i would be way more tentative than you have been, and would hold back from drawing big, strong, global conclusions. I would go ask at the teahouse, "I think article X is messed up and not NPOV...how do I fix it?" They would tell you to WP:FIXIT - the same advice you have been given many times, which is focus on content, not contributor. Deal with actual content, one thing at a time. If you think some content is missing from an article, or some content is being given UNDUE weight, try to fix it, one bit at a time. One bit at a time. If people object to your edit, listen to what they say, ask for the basis in policy or guideline. Go read the policy or guideline, and try to understand its heart. Go back and look at the source and content under discussion, and really consider it again, in light of PAG. Let the source and PAG and what other people say, speak to you. If the objection still doesn't make sense to you, ask (really ask) more at the article Talk page.' If the responses still don't make sense, start working WP:DR, which is usually to go ask at the Talk page of the relevant policy or guideline, or relevant content noticeboard, and try to understand, and really listen to what other editors say. Once you have done all that, and the objection still doesn't make sense, use whatever next WP:DR process makes sense, to deal with that specific content. One thing at a time. If in the course of that, you find that some behavioral policy or guideline is being broken, bring that specific behavior up to the editor at his or her talk page, focused on the concrete behavior, supported by diffs (not focused on their motivations- as I have told you, we do not do psychoanalysis here, we don't speculate about what motivates somebody - we focus on concrete behavior, and actual content and sources) and citing PAG. If the editor doesn't change his or behavior, and you are able to establish a pattern of that behavior, you can bring a case here, at ANI, about that editor's pattern of behavior, concisely, supported by actual diffs showing the behavior, and citing the actual PAG that is being violated. Simple, concrete, step by step. Without all the dramatic, global language. Simple. Concrete. That is how we work here. Instead, you have charged into this topic with a very strong, glaring even, pre-existing POV on GMOs, and have thrown around these big claims around about corruption, POV, etc. in every place you can find. You are a campaigner and you have made me the target of your campaign. It is ugly, icky, and profoundly un-wikipedian. Not what we do here, not how we act here. Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    responding to this above, at 13:15, 12 March 2015. david, you alone are responsible for your behavior, as I am for mine. I am not a Big Evil Thing that You Must Defeat and we are not locked in some mortal combat. I am a human, and an editor here, just like you. Your focus on me is bizarre and is your choice, and the way you are dealing with your concerns about my behavior, is not how we do things here. And you do not understand how WP works. I and others have kept asking you to deal with actual content to which you object, instead of running around making these big global statements and trying to whip up support to Fight Evil. And again, the only two times you actually have engaged with content, we worked through it, and you saw that you were wrong. I am getting close to asking for an i-BAN or topic ban; you show no signs of respecting the community and its norms, or allowing the community to judge and act, and instead you are continuing your campaign, full steam ahead. Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC) (note what this is responding to Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    I was not continuing any "campaign". I followed the advice of two users above who said I should ask my question at the forums they suggested. "I am not a Big Evil Thing that You Must Defeat and we are not locked in some mortal combat." I never said you are. And neither am I. "I am a human, and an editor here, just like you." And so am I. Where did I suggest otherwise? You are imagining things. Talk about ascribing motivations to others. "making these big global statements and trying to whip up support to Fight Evil." I am not trying to fight "evil". I am trying to deal with the case where the WP:OWNers of the article, lead by you are unreasonable. the only two times you actually have engaged with content, we worked through it, and you saw that you were wrong. That's not true and you know it. We talked a number of times, and nearly every time you rejected anything I suggested adding using the same reason you almost always do, it's written by an "activist" organization. Therefore they should have no voice. Anyone who criticizes GMO's can't have a voice. So then, all you can get in the article is things filtered through the people who support GMO's. At some point we need to go to RS and/or NPOV forums to address that. I don't know enough about those forums to do that at this time. Anyway, this discussion is not productive. All you do is lodge more allegations as you always do. More intimidation and I'm really tired of it. I hope neutral moderators can see how difficult it is to try to talk to you. David Tornheim (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave the links to the two actual edits that you have made. Two. And on the other stuff, your words speak for themselves: "in other words, when we see the PR materials have not only infiltrated an article but have dominated the article, is there any hope of doing anything about it, or is Wikipedia been corrupted beyond repair to be just a new kind of advertising space for various industries?", teahouse and see the difs and what you said in them, in my original post, way, way above. Really, go read them. Canvassing, campaigning, from day 1. This thread is about your behavior. It is not about content. You are not dealing with how bad your behavior has been - you just keep making excuses for it - and you keep doing it, even today at the Teahouse. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and you alone are responsible for what you do. Just like I am for my behavior. As always, I will be happy to discuss content with you, at the articles and their talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - David Tornheim, I joined this discussion as an uninvolved editor, and have never collaborated with you to my knowledge. I have collaborated with Jytdog, and will admit that we have not interpreted policy the same, but that does not make me partisan against him. The only partisanship I have or have ever demonstrated on WP is to WP:PAG, particularly to policies that affect BLPs. Your list gives the wrong impression of me as being partisan to a particular cause or editor, and I imagine others on that list may feel the same or similar. Please remove or strike my name from your list. Atsme☯Consult 12:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To Atsme☯Consult: Sorry. Thank you for the feedback. You are correct, "partisan" was the wrong word, is far too charged and an unfair description of your participation and that of others. The idea of two sides is also equally problematic. I especially regretted my use of the word "partisan" shortly after I posted it and have since contemplated how to fix it to convey what I meant in terms of why resolution of the conflict between Jytdog and me would likely go smoother and be less charged if just NE Ent was mediating it without further evidence brought in and without new conflicts between various people who have entered the discussion making it even more complicated than it already is.
    For simplicity, I will strike the reference to both partisan and sides. I thank you for your input into the discussion and apologize for using an unfair negative label to describe you and others.David Tornheim (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, David Tornheim. I wasn't asking for an apology, and will humbly accept the one you volunteered. It was an extremely nice gesture considering a strike would have been adequate. I hope my typewritten words didn't sound harsh, but if so, I apologize to you. Happy editing! Atsme☯Consult 20:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Jytdog I've been meaning to ask you to provide evidence for your categorization of me as "anti-GMO", or correct your initial statements to reflect your mistake, lest this branding follow me around WP masquerading as fact. You are now the first and only person, both online and IRL, to refer to me as anti-GMO. You already apologized for doing this at BP, when you became the only person to ever call me an environmenalist, but no lesson was learned. As Core suggested a couple years ago, "I strongly resent [Jytdog's] effort to pigeonhole editors in this fashion, while he in effect positions himself as a kind of Kissinger-like mediator who is the only fair party here." petrarchan47tc 19:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Petrarchan. First let me say that I am sorry that David's canvass of you woke up all these old conflicts. I don't want to extend this already too-long thread, so I posted a response on my Talk page (you asked me not to post on yours, I think) Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You have highlighted cases where I challenge industry slant in GMO articles, your control over GMO articles (with your thousands of edits), and where I show that the idea of "scientific consensus" has been called into question. None of this can be construed as having any idea as to my personal view on GMOs, but rather my view about NPOV on WP. I haven't come to a personal conclusion about GMO's, so I am sure that there is no evidence proving I have. If you want to categorize me as "anti" industry slant, I accept. But no, I am not anti-GMO. I am pro-NPOV. WP readers come here to read about all sides of the story, but instead we are engaging in censorship, as Atsme mentions above re MEDRS. The first time I heard of MEDRS was when I attempted to update the Monsanto article here, and was quickly reverted by you. At the noticeboard you suggested, I am told that MEDRS prevents this addition. MEDRS is meant to protect readers from bad medical advice - but in this case the only ones protected are Monsanto stockholders. Your opinion seems tethered not to WP rules, but to how GMO's and biotechs are described to the reader. I have observed that you use drama and bullying to distract from this fact (David's talk page is a good example). I hate that people have to deal with this, but I don't hate you, as you claim on your talk page. :) petrarchan47tc 00:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs on my page are plenty clear as to where you come from. MEDRS is about health, not just medicine, btw. And that Seneff article you wanted to add, that I reverted, that was shot down dead as pure flake science. As long as you keep wanting to push that kind of content into WP you are going to be frustrated. I am sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I deny having an anti-GMO stance and ask again for you to strike that claim. From your edits previous to the above, I see you are ambivalent about how to avoid responsibility for your ad hominem label. First you decide it is about "scientific consensus" and compare me to Nazi'sWP:REICHSTAG(?) here. Then you decide that I had baited you and you are not taking the bait here wisely removing the Hitler reference. But you can't help but compare me to Nazi'sWP:REICHSTAG(?), so it comes back in here. Then you decide that the reason you can't be held responsible for name calling is that I am here to "right wrongs" and predict the future. here. An hour later, that all has to go, and you conclude these are not the real problems, that the real problem is that I'm helping Atsme with "conspiracy theories" and "Fringe" theories. here. petrarchan47tc 09:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC) (amended by Petrarchan47 in this dif, but changes were made without redaction marks; I showed redaction. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Errm - nowhere were you called a "nazi" and I strongly suggest you retract that accusation. I take it you are not familiar with WP:REICHSTAG? It has nothing to do with nazis. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:REICHSTAG has just as little to do with Nazis as it has to do with Wikipedia. It is a joke essay and has no reference to this discussion. However, the Reichstag building is associated with Hitler's rise to power. I'm not sure how you know what Jytdog meant by his comment, nor why you seem to speak for him and, along with his other buddies, fight his fights. Your participation here and at J-dgos' talk page does little to help your friend fight the accusations of WP:GANG behaviour and bullying. Indeed, it exemplifies them. I will correct references to Nazis and assume that I misunderstood his motivations. I doubt that I will receive the same treatment for my simple request. petrarchan47tc 20:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    writing screeds on jimbo's page has been linked to that essay many times. i referenced it myself in my response to David's continuation of your most recent post on his page. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    the level of cheap-shotting (citing comments I over-wrote as my thoughts/feelings evolved) and sheer ignorance, all twisted up into a self-destructive angry ball is typical and makes me sad every time I see it. it is just sad. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    would an admin please close this thread? it is just devolving. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Tumadoireacht and Circumcision

    The supports have it by a wide margin and supported by diffs that indicate personal attacks, sniping, battleground behavior, and general uncollegiality: User:Tumadoireacht is indefinitely banned from editing circumcision-related article and their talk pages. For appeals, please see WP:UNBAN. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Tumadoireacht was blocked in December last year for tendentious, disruptive and combative behaviour on the Circumcision article. Since then, things have not improved. The latest example is this obvious attempted baiting[114] of an admin (Zad68) for warning another editor about the WP:TPGs. In view of this continued uhelpfulness I propose that it would be for the good if Tumadoireacht were blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As Alexbrn is one of the small but co-ordinated group of editors maintaining the main Circumcision and other related articles in an unbalanced pro-circumcision state, as I have pointed out in recent edits, it may not be public spiritedness that leads to this call for a ban.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 11:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexbrn, could you offer some evidence of the problems that are persisting? I'm sure Zad68 is quite capable of handling themselves but beyond that can you substantiate current misbehavior?JodyB talk 11:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this the same JodyB who states "Marginal ideas and thoughts have a place but should be plainly shown to be marginal. If sourced, the reader can investigate for himself and determine whether the thoughts are correct" on his home page - even if not that JodyB - WP policy is positively disposed towards including the views of "activist" groups that is, in this case, those who question, from a scientific or human rights or other perspective the cutting off of the tips of male child genitals.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I linked to this edit which by itself is sufficient I'd have thought. But for more just review the previous few Talk pages edits such as this[115] (reference to a "small but well coordinated group of editors and admins") or this[116] where the use of anti-Circumcision groups' web sites and primary sources is being advocated, despite Tumadoireacht knowing that WP:MEDRS applies. Or just look at the problematic response above here ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposing worded changes to the article is the last of a list of eight ways the Talk Page Guidelines mention under the title "How to use article talk pages"
    In his eagerness and haste Mr Ollie has failed to notice that at least one of my contributions which he chose to quote from most selectively IS PROPOSING A SPECIFIC WORDED CONTENT CHANGE. Is it" time for Mr Ollie to see if Mr Ollie can be more observant and productive on some other topic ?
    My proposals for article content change are evident and numerous not "vague" There are about an equal number of cogent pertinent aspects of Circumcision which about a half dozen editors refuse to permit mention of. These same editors on patrol misrepresent WP policy on Primary Sources and on non medical aspects of the subject to any editor attempting to address this obvious imbalance. The WP policy for instance on both scientific and human rights activist groups ( in this case those who are against this from of genital cutting ) is a good example- it is quite contrary to the picture painted by Alexbrn et cetera. It is not "problematic" as Alexbrn chooses to label it, to point out these aspects of the article, in an attempt to improve it. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 23:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban The situation has to be understood in the context of the protracted, bitter content dispute that is Circumcision articles. It has already been said several times that topic-banning me would help. Yes it would help- it would help those editors that have been in a content dispute with me 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 I have raised some genuine issues here, and did in fact, originally raise some genuine issues on the article talk page. In the interests of attempting to find consensus I have largely stopped editing the article - all gets reverted by the patrol. On the question of proposing worded content - the pattern of the concerted pro circumcision group is as follows - "we/i have reverted or refuse to allow your edit because your source is too old ( older sources already used for pro C content) your source is a primary source( primary sources already used for pro C content) your source is non medical" ( non medical sources already used for pro C content) - then "your content is 'against XYZ policy" (which often has no relevance but serves the purpose of putting off the would be editor) and then when such inhibitings fail - sarcasm such as this to a new editor
    "Either get the journal to change there statement or publish you own review in a high quality journal and we will cite you."
    Send to ArbCom - This has been going on from time to time for months. This is the sort of content dispute compounded by allegations of conduct issues (tendentious editing) for which a full evidentiary hearing by ArbCom works better than letting the loudest and the heavily content-opposed editors from the subject area gather at a noticeboard and attempt to establish a false consensus.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban I feel a lot of the editors of the circumcision article are blatenly biased in favour of circumcision. It is helpful to have editors from both sides of the debate. For a cabal of those same pro-circumcision editors to ask for his dismissal is typical. Tremello (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Tremello is a single-purpose account (SPA) regarding circumcision and related topics; please refer to the user's edit history, and the linked page for Wikipedia's definition of an SPA. Zad68 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not poison the well zad. Assume good faith. I am here to create a neutral article. Tremello (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban Hello, I was discussing secondary sources for the part of the article on economic benefits with Tumadoireacht. I don't know what happened before but it seems this specific complaint here is that Zad came in to the discussion to tell us to stay on topic . . . kind of ironic because he could have just made an on topic post, such as showing what he might think a secondary source was. And I think instead of trying to get someone topic banned, everyone who has voted here could help wikipedia better by going to the talk page in question and discussing the topic. I read the guidelines here [1]. I think if anything, give Tumadoireacht a "final warning". To Tumadoireacht: I don't think there is any kind of "criminal cabal" on wikipedia that is pro circumcicion. I think the cabal exists in real life and gets trickled down to wikipedia. Either way, this isn't the battleground to fight a great wrong. What do the sources say? You have many good sources. If any other ediots on wikipedia make you angry, I say "kill them with kindness" by that I mean be helpful by giving good sources that they cannot deny. Popish Plot (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Topic_ban#Topic_ban
    • Support topic ban from WP:MEDICINE-scope content as first choice, and from this topic in particular as a second choice. NuclearWarfare blocked Tumadoireacht just three months ago for disruptive editing (see discussion here), but the editor has returned to the exact same problematic editing behavior as before. He simply cannot or will not accept or understand Wikipedia's standards for sourcing, personalizes nearly every comment to the point that it seems he's incapable of just holding a conversation about the topic and the sourcing, and regularly uses the article Talk page to air his personal views on the article topic with highly-charged rhetoric. Most of his comments are just paranoid complaining about what he perceives as a "cabal"; when asked repeatedly to actually provide a specific, actionable article content change suggestion, backed by a genuine reliable source, he never delivers. Overall, dealing with this editor is a huge time sink for no benefit. Zad68 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Zad is an industrious,productive, meticulous and often painstakingly helpful editor and admin. Unfortunately he has a blind spot when it comes to this subject. He can be regarded as the leader of the group of editors who maintain this article in a currently highly both positively and medicine focussed selective stance on the subject of `circumcision. He exhibits a mean spirited obstructive streak when the unbalance of the article is explored, attempting to characterize good faith teasing out of the articles weaknesses with the worst either mistaken or deliberately misdescribed negative interpretation. This habit is uncharacteristic, but still unworthy of such an eminent and valuable editor. Zad's proposal to ban me from all medical related articles is interesting. It dovetails neatly with Alexbrns idea to ban not just from this article but from the twenty or so related Circumcision and genital cutting articles, the two lads thus presenting a sentencing spectrum. The really funny part is that one of our chief bones of contention is whether Circumcision is primarily a cultural rather than a medical act - a conversation which is currently occurring on the talk page but which Alexbrn's shunning proposal seems to be inhibiting his and Zad's participation in. Lets list the points Zad has raised

    1/Previous "conviction"

    2/No change

    3/Non acceptance of WP sourcing standards

    4/Personalizes most comments

    5/Incapable of holding a conversation about the topic or the sourcing

    6/regular use of talk page to air personal views

    7/most comments are paranoid complaining about the cabal

    8/never delivers actionable content when asked

    9/this editor a useless waste of time.

    I suggest any editor can find these charges to be exaggerated or plain untrue by reviewing my many engaged and good faith practical proposals and conversations/debate on the talk page of the article. Further I suggest that Zad himself engages frequently in the numbers 3 and 4 and 5 behaviour which he professes to abhor.

    On a more general point it might be a positive influence on the article quality if those editors or groups of editors for whom circumcision has a religious, cultural or ethnic imperative or for whom it is second nature, made a conflict of interest declaration, or if not willing to do this, then at least allowed themselves (and thus the talk page and article) to examine ideas about its downsides.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 10:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have no objection to the type of content that Tumadoireacht, by and large, generally attempts to add to the article. However, the way he is going about it is unhelpful—routinely using non-MEDRS compliant sourcing, casting aspersions to other editors, and most importantly, not changing their behavior in response to requests from other editors. This is a serious matter, and I think it merits a block if not a topic ban. I have acted before as an uninvolved administrator, and I reserve my right to continue doing so in the topic area even despite this post. NW (Talk) 14:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose topic ban I don't see the behavior issue as per these diffs. They are just opinions. Discussing views is not a basis for topic banning. Zad's comment here "Overall, dealing with this editor is a huge time sink for no benefit" seems more of a behavior issue (PA) than info (diffs) presented here. If there's more, please enlighten. (UTC)--Pekay2 (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for topic ban. I'm only coming into this glancing at the diffs provided at the beginning of this post without looking into the actual article and I am seeing some decent amounts of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:ASPERSIONS towards other editors. It's one thing to bring up perceived problems about other editors in appropriate venues, but not to do so in that manner while trying to affect content as well. If this user hadn't been blocked already (and very recently) I would have wanted to see very clear diffs showing even stronger disruptive and tendentious behavior than I'm seeing now to suggest the ban, but given the past block, it seems apparent that the editor's behavior isn't improving. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be that I mention too often the possibility that there is a group of editors staging a co-ordinated campaign to present a positively selective view of Circumcision within this and related articles. I can stop doing this. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 00:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Tumadoireacht barely focuses on the article content, except to call it biased, and usually negatively focuses on the editors he disagrees with. Almost every time a Wikipedia rule is validly put forth by editors that Tumadoireacht considers part of "the cabal," he does not seem to understand the rule and/or disregards it, and instead rants about the editors' supposed biases. Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Crusaders have to be sent away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Flyer22's assertions are easily disproved - look at my edits and talk page entries and judge for yourself. There is a habit that some editors engage in -mentioning a WP policy when they encounter content they disagree with and then getting cross or going silent when the actual content of that policy is brought to their attention. The undue weight policy may be the best example. Those who love to use it as an inhibitory tool do not realize or choose to forget that it applies mostly to proportionality and not to utter exclusion of minor views on a subject. As for Baseballs Bugs cryptic quip - no crusader here folks - just looking for a balanced article that references all aspects of Circumcision -not just the medical ones and not just the positive ones.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 21:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What you call "negatives", i.e. unsterile conditions or botching it, are issues with any surgery, they're not peculiar to circumcision. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @BaseballI think you are misunderstanding the use of the word negative and misunderstanding the difference between medical and societal circumcisions also.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 01:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd have thought that you had enough on your hands defending your own behaviour and reputation on this page at present Jytdog but I am not surprised to see you here chiming in.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 16:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at the difs presented and your behavior; the topic ban is well warranted. I hope you can find happier fields to work in within Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And I,Jytdog, in turn, wish you the same happiness in attempting to successfully carry out your undertakings to modify your aggressive behaviour towards other editors, given elsewhere on this page. The many areas of health related articles, including Circumcision, where you have had problems in the recent past will undoubtedly benefit.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 17:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you really know what tendentious means Alex?
    Shortcut
    - it does not mean another editor on a talk page proposing content that you yourself or your friends simply do not like. Are you aware that accusing others of tendentious editing thus may be naughty?
    Shortcut
     ?. On those now very rare occasions when I edit the Circumcision article, I work the 1RR which is the opposite tendency. Please re-examine your own recent behaviour here and elsewhere after revision. "Like sands through the hourglass.. so are the Days of Our Lives."Blah blah et cetera--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 01:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban Zad68 and DocJames

    The editors who should be banned are Zad68 and DocJames. They evidently have religious bias in favor of male circumcision that causes them to exclude all content that is negative on male circumcision.

    Sugarcube73 (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Boomerang. If would be helpful if the closing admin could go "two-for-one" and TBAN this obviously unhelpful circumcision POV-warrior too. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes a boomerang indef topic ban of User:Sugarcube73 would be reasonable. The came here making claims without evidence stating that I have a "religious bias in favor of male circumcision" and "exclude all content that is negative on male circumcision". However, the article in question states "The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering neonatal circumcision as having no benefit and significant risks to having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks. No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization for parts of Africa), or banning the procedure" Hardly a statement in favor of the position. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Doc, I've no doubt this section was bad faith, and a poor attack but do you really think Sugarcube needs a topic ban or are you just responding to the personal attack with calls for procedural strikes. (because there's no tone on the internet I want to be clear I'm not judging either way just want to be clear)SPACKlick (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sugarcube is attempting to comment on the religion of editors on Wikipedia. I have never disclosed a religion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose and boomerang terribly POINTy and disruptive. 18:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Roscelese

    I am not able to get this user to understand that a discussion and subesquent Rfc about sources needs to be resolved with consensus before cite tags repeatedly are removed [118], [119], [120] [121] [122](with personal accusations just about every time) from the article's text. Much stronger claims about the sex life of that biography's subject person have recently been added to the article. I have no objection to that (contrary to repeated personal insults made against me in that discussion, alluding to my own sexuality) as long as those allegations are clearly and reliably sourced, which I do not believe is the case now, at least not yet. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewing Talk:Christina, Queen of Sweden the overall consensus appears to be the claims are adequately sourced, and given a 1654 death year WP:BLP does not apply. NE Ent 23:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I came to the same conclusion as NE Ent. It's SergeWoodzing himself who began the ANI and POV-worded RfC which he is appealing to in order to justify edit warring over adding citation needed tags where there is evidently a citation. A discussion looks merited, but why not leave the article alone while the discussion is ongoing (like you've requested Roscelese do with your own version)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • An RFC is absolutely warranted, for that issue and probably a couple of others. But Serge's "RFC" is simply a list of his opinions and a demand that we all acquiesce to them. Any suggestions that is the case are met with accusations of "personal slurs". Nobody, for example, has "alluded" to his sexuality. Serge seems to disagree with what is in the article because he personally disagrees with those who wrote it like Crompton (regardless of their reliability) and agrees with the opinions of others like Stolpe (regardless of their reliability). All of that is perfectly fine (he is entitled to his personal opinion) but of late it has manifested as edit-warring and talk page tactics that have ground all meaningful discussion to a halt (with a POV he has been pushing unsuccessfully since 2012). Last time people simply gave up arguing with Serge and allowed the WP:WRONGVERSION to stand and it stands to this day (without LGBT categories; he simply edit-warred until everyone else gave up). St★lwart111 00:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, so, Roscelese is under some ArbCom restrictions after 7 March, including "indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day" and "indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes". Most of the diffs are before March 7, but the second one is after and could be classified as personalizing the dispute although it's not a personal attack. Roscelese made two reverts within a day [123] [124], but they were consecutive edits so I don't know if that counts to the restriction. If there's more, next time it should be filed at WP:AE, not on this board. --Pudeo' 03:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." NE Ent 14:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serge has continued his (deliberate) misinterpretation of other editor's comments, now claiming that Rhododendrites' comments justify further edit-warring ([125]). Even if that were what Rhododendrites was trying to suggest, continually tagging the same sourced quote because you don't like the source (though, literally, everyone else says its okay) is plainly disruptive. I've reverted the tendentious addition of those tags, because Roscelese can't (and surely that was the point of quickly adding them back in). I hate to say it, but I think consideration needs to be given to topic-banning Serge from Christina, Queen of Sweden and related articles. St★lwart111 22:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw the edit war first, which looked to be based on CN tags when clearly a citation was there. So I reverted and pointed out that cn is not an appropriate tag (that there are others). That's not an endorsement of tagging, just an invalidation of one tag. But perhaps it was misleading since after I read up on it it looks like -- as I mentioned in my comments -- Serge is the only one who thinks the statements should be tagged. I think a discussion is reasonable, but that sufficient consensus exists to remove the tags until which time as Serge convinces others they're merited. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear everyone, I only want to be able to see in the text of the source that Queen Christina had affairs with women that were noted in her life time, if that's in the source's text. I don't see it there, can't find it, and feel we should all be able to. It's my experience that we are encouaged to ask for clear sources. If I'm wrong about that, that's what I need to learn: that I'm wrong about that. How can my problems be so extremely controversial and lead to so much animosity? Can't someone just help me find that? Please! I'm asking real nice. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue (for about the 10th time) isn't the content dispute, which everyone seems to agree needs to be resolved. It's your behaviour and the way you have sought to "resolve" that dispute. You have form in this area, Serge, and the rest of us are sick of being bullied. There is no way we can even begin to address the content issues you have raised until you agree to conduct yourself with decorum, to stop the edit-warring and to stop it with the disruptive talk page tactics. St★lwart111 22:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not adhering to rules regarding WP:USCHARTS

    (non-admin closure) MOS is a guideline. No editor can be 'made' to follow them. They are just strongly advised. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On What Kind of Man (Florence and the Machine song), I know that Ellis.022 isn't setting out to be intentionally unconstructive, but I have been asking him for about 7 months to please pay attention to WP:USCHARTS and study which component charts are not allowed to be included in the charts table if a song has charted on the main chart. I have gone though all the warnings on his talk page for doing this on lots of articles and still this happens. The addition of two components (Alternative and Adult Alternative) which are not allowed to be included (as the song charted on the Hot Rock Songs chart and Rock Airplay chart), which I removed just 5 days ago, with an edit summary echoing what I am writing now. He is aware of the rules but keeps on breaking them. I know he means well (it's good that he updates articles with Billboard chart positions every week), but it's getting really frustrating to constantly revert additions of component charts that he keeps on adding which are not allowed in the tables. Has also been warned for doing this on Time of Our Lives (Pitbull and Ne-Yo song) for example (I removed Dance Airplay, Ellis added it back, then I removed it again) as well as other articles, for which I warned him on his user talk. He must start adhering to the rules of WP:USCHARTS because it makes the history of these articles unstable.  — ₳aron 17:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just seen this too, which looks suspicious.  — ₳aron 18:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Guidelines/MOS are not policy. No editor is required to follow them. They are not 'rules' they are guides to editing which can be ignored. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    doxing attempt report

    User 70.83.108.59 has attempted to dox me on the trajan vuia page. [126]. His attempt, including a link to a picture which he thinks is me. Probably the same vandal who was using 70.83.124 to post on this page, but was blocked for 6 months for doxing a user on the wright brothers' page on Feb 1. I can't supply a diff for that because Binksternet immediately erased that, unlike the current case which he has let stand on a page he is monitoring. Interesting how he only observes the rules when they don't interfere with his own personal campaign of obstructive edits and abuse.Ion G Nemes (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if this qualifies for WP:RevDelete, but I think RD3 should apply. Any thoughts on the matter? -- Orduin Discuss 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever is going on here , the truth about User:Ion G Nemes is that all hs editing is disruptive: he persistantly attempts to edit Traian Vuia to reflect his own higly biased view of the subject, and does not engage on the talk page. Not that there is any point in blocking him as a disruptive SPA who is clealy not here to build an encyclopedia, because I'm sure he'd pop up under another name.TheLongTone (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And here comes the doxers pal to wikistalk and abuse me! Do I have to make ANOTHER report for this too? Longtone's abuse is RIGHT HERE FOR YOU TO SEE. I really want to know what this kid's problem is. And I'd also like to know why he's so sure you won't do a damned thing about his wikistalking and abusing me RIGHT HERE ON THE ADMIN PAGE. Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what to do with this case, but I believe it needs attention.

    User Rhode Island Red is angling hard for the Helmut Diez article to be deleted, and is attempting to make it as worthless as possible in an attempt to get the deletion to stick.

    I don't know who Helmut Diez is, nor do I know if we should have an article about him, but I do know that as long as Rhode Island Red is in the dispute, any intelligent debate is going to be lost in a flood of bad-faith wikilawyering.

    Why am I not assuming good faith here?

    1. Rhode Island Red deletes material from the article. Compare a good version, albeit roughly translated from German, to the current incarnation being discussed at the open AfD. Yes, I am aware that a bad translation needs to be made better. But I'd like to see some sort of discussion as to whether or not the article or its subject is worth that sort of time investment before tackling what would in the end turn out to be a fruitless endeavor.
    2. Rhode Island Red not only PRODs the article, but seconds his own PROD.
    3. When Rhode Island Red finally opens the AfD, he not only deletes material to make the appearance seem worthless, he stuffs the ballot box by voting on his own motion there, too.

    Whether or not Rhode Island Red is intentionally acting in bad faith, I cannot say. All I can say is that he is preventing any discussion and attempting to force his will by taking it upon himself to get this article deleted, by any means necessary. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't say I'm familiar with it, but for context it looks like there's a recent failed dispute resolution case on the subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's mindboggling that Jsharpminor would call attention to his violation of WP:AGF by filing a petty and baseless grievance like this. Material was deleted from the article, consistent with WP:BIO because it was poorly or improperly sourced or failed verification[127] and was written incomprehensibly about a subject with no apparent notability. It was deleted long before the article went to DRN 2 weeks ago and before it was nominated for deletion. JSharp seems to be implying that I removed acceptable conetnt content from the article to gin-up the deletion nomination process but that's demonstrably false.
    I find it offensive that someone would petition against an editor in this manner, particularly when I was acting in good faith and engaging constructively on the talk page and at DRN, when the issue is nothing more than a content dispute in which the other disputant (Hans) has yet to make a compelling case to support the notability of the bio subject or the inclusion of poorly written, poorly sourced, and irreparably badly written material. I explained at great length how/why the material conflicted with WP policy and that the onus is on the editor who wishes support the inclusion of contentious material in a bio.[128][129] I nominated the article for deletion, after going through lengthy but fruitless discussions, because doing so would bring much needed additional scrutiny to the article from other editors and finally resolve the issue -- a complete logical part of the WP process. I made the nomination right after Hans abjectly failed to make a compelling case for his edits at DRN. All one has to do is read the admin's conclusion to the dispute 2 days ago.
    "The general finding was first, that all of the sources provided were in German which, though permitted on WP, is not ideal. Second, many of the sources provided did not appear to meet WP guidelines (ie the YouTube source) or contained only minor mentions of the BLP subject. Furthermore it is not clear to me that the sources being offered are about the same Helmut Diez. It may be they are sources for the same person, but because no biography of the life of Helmut Diez has been presented, the various sources are like pieces of a German puzzle. Thank you Hans, for your good faith attempts to provide reliable sources but unfortunately, DRN is designed for "small content disputes" and not for prolonged analysis of sources and text that you are still in the process of being developed and researched at your local library. My feeling is that RIRed has some legitimate concerns about the sources and text you have proposed both here and at the BLP talk page. I suggest this issue be taken to another more appropriate community forum such as a WP:RfC on the article talk page or WP:AfD. At either of these forums Hans could provide a link to his sandbox with a list of sources and members of the community could review them and give an opinion as to whether or not the BLP subject is notable based on those sources and qualifies for a WP article. Based on the sources I've seen here in this DRN discussion I think notability is in question and a legitimate concern and consideration."[130]
    Needless to say, this grievance on the part of Jsharpminor is completely unfounded -- obnoxiously so. In other words, nothing to see here (except one editor abandoning WP:AGF for no reason and making a bewildering attempt to intimidate another productive editor who's following proper procedure). Rhode Island Red (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Jsharpminor, I see that you have described your impressions very precisely. A kind of behavior, which I would also call detrimental for our collaborative project. One of his ways is to invent one reason after another to make us believe that the article's subject is not notable. First it was the language of the sources, then their notability, even in which library you can find the sources became a core argument (he seems to believe that only the library of congress has got adequate literature in its magazines) and so on. If he really believes what he is telling us all the time, he is probably too illiterate to understand, what we are talking about. I never thought of lawyering, becausse I don't know the exact meaning. So, I cannot decide, if you are right or wrong. Destroying an article is no good thing, destroying it during a discussion of this kind is one of the reasons why people of that kind keep good authors far away from participation. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hans, you know full well that I did not "destroy the article" during discussion. The page was edited prior to your bringing up your dispute with DRN -- the chronology of events and the diff edits I posted above make that abundantly obvious. Nor did I "invent" anything. You're completely ignoring the fact that the outcome of the DRN went against you and echoed the concerns that I had raised. I'm following procedure to the letter.[131] If you think the subject is notable, which the evidence strongly indicates is not the case, then you must make an attempt to prove it, and so far you have failed to do so. But this isn't the place to argue about notability. The article has been nominated for deletion so you had best make your case at the deletion discussion page rather than attempting to pile on in this non-incident witch hunt. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rhode Island Red, now I'm absolutely surprised: You see yourself as a victim of a witch hunt? I really do not know why I have the same impression, but exactly the other way round: You are the witch hunter, and you try to intimidate me, whenever you can. You make use of your advanced knowledge of the incredibly complicated processes here, and whatever I bring forth you don't accept it - with a variety of "reasons". And you seem to believe that anything is allowed here. Simply compare the article and my sandbox, or have a look at the step-by-step destruction with the help of the article's history, and everybody, who is capable to read can see what you are doing here. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again Hans you're ignoring the writing on the wall. The moderator at the DRN made it clear that the material you were proposing was problematic for a a variety of reasons, seconding what I had told you. When you ignore the outcome of the process you initiated, try to make yourself look like a victim, and blame me for the result, you do a disservice to yourself and all other editors involved. Again, I urge you to focus on trying to demonstrate notability of the bio subject lest the article disappear forever. Concentrate on content instead of personal attacks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that Jsharpminor violated WP:AGF and made a completely unfounded ANI report and personal attack (i.e. "as long as Rhode Island Red is in the dispute, any intelligent debate is going to be lost in a flood of bad-faith wikilawyering", an apology is in order. I'll be waiting. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, where do I begin here?

    1. Assuming good faith does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary.
    2. When an article is up for AfD, the article must not be blanked, and [the AFD] notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. Blanking the page first, and then submitting it for AfD second, is just a way to lawyer around the rules.
    3. BLP only justifies removal of controversial content, not just content that you happen to think doesn't pass WP:N.
    4. Edit warring to delete large blocks of information from a page is not constructive; it is vandalism.
    5. Some of the sources are problematic, this is true. Some are not WP:RS, others don't make significant mention of Mr Diez. However, deleting the references for the article along with everything else, is problematic because it doesn't allow anyone to see what's going on.
    6. You are not "following procedure." You may be following the letter of the law in some instances, but you are clearly violating it in others, and certainly violating the consensus spirit of it.
    7. The moderator at DRN gave up and said that the article needs to be taken to AfD. He said that there are notability concerns here, and this is a point about which you and I are in agreement. The only point on which I disagree with you is that you are trying to take it upon yourself to turn a C-class article into a stub for the express purpose of proving that it is bad. This is circular and unethical.

    You are free to wait as long as you like for your apology. I will accept one only if it is accompanied by your ceasing of the specific behaviors mentioned here. It would be much more productive if you would actually allow the community to view the actual article in question and decide whether to keep or delete it; not the bastardized stub that is left after you get done decimating it. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Assuming good faith does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary".
    Except there is no legitimate evidence to the contrary. You just gave yourself carte blanche to dismiss AGF at will.
    • "When an article is up for AfD, the article must not be blanked, and [the AFD] notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. Blanking the page first, and then submitting it for AfD second, is just a way to lawyer around the rules."
    The article was not blanked after it was nominated for deletion. Questionably sourced, trivial and illegible text was removed weeks prior to it going before DRN, where it was then reviewed in detail, and then subsequently nominated for deletion. You’re ignoring the actual chronology of events to suit your own manufactured narrative and egregious violation of AGF.
    • "BLP only justifies removal of controversial content, not just content that you happen to think doesn't pass WP:N."
    Your assertion is demonstrably false (and I never cited WP:N as a reason). The relevant WP policies refer to “disputed” not “controversial” content, and there is a world of difference between the two. You would have known this had you bothered to read the diff edits I posted above, talk page, or DRN where I reiterated the policies that justified the content deletion.[132][133] I’ll make it easier for you and post them again, lest you keep repeating the same off-base accusation:
    WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE: “To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material.”
    WP:SOURCE: “Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.”
    WP:ONUS: “The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”
    WP:NPF “Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.”
    WP:NOENG: “Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.”
    Is that clear enough for you now?
    • "Edit warring to delete large blocks of information from a page is not constructive; it is vandalism."
    Were you just sharing a bit of well known WP trivia or was that a backhanded accusation? I didn’t edit war and I certainly didn’t vandalize the article. You’re the first to make such a charge, and it was scrutinized closely by a moderator just last week during DRN.[134] Is your logic that making 20 false accusations might create the perception of one legitimate one? That's some questionable calculus.
    • "Some of the sources are problematic, this is true. Some are not WP:RS, others don't make significant mention of Mr Diez. However, deleting the references for the article along with everything else, is problematic because it doesn't allow anyone to see what's going on."
    Virtually all of the sources were problematic. Of the 27 hyperlinked references provided by Hans previously all 27 failed a verification check,[135] and when challenged during DRN to provide even a single sentence of content that was reliably sourced, comprehensible, and noteworthy about the bio subject, he was unable to do so.[136] This too should have been painfully obvious to you had you read the DRN that I pointed out. As for not being able to see what’s going on, how hard is it to go back and look at a previous version in the edit history? Hans already provided the link. It’s not like it’s hiding. Mercy, what a burden! About 1/100th the effort it’s taken me to respond to this ANI.
    • "You are not "following procedure." You may be following the letter of the law in some instances, but you are clearly violating it in others, and certainly violating the consensus spirit of it."
    I am in fact following procedure – i.e., the letter of the law -- as well as the spirit. I’m not sure what sort of personal standard you hold editors to or how you assess spiritual violations, but the standards I adhere to assiduously are WPs policies and guidelines, and I have done so in this case. There has been no consensus to violate. The closest thing to a consensus was reached at DRN and it echoed my sentiments to the letter. I have clearly NOT violated the consensus spirit of anything.
    • "The moderator at DRN gave up and said that the article needs to be taken to AfD. He said that there are notability concerns here, and this is a point about which you and I are in agreement. The only point on which I disagree with you is that you are trying to take it upon yourself to turn a C-class article into a stub for the express purpose of proving that it is bad. This is circular and unethical."
    He gave up because despite pleading for days on end, Hans couldn’t provide a single sentence of decipherable text that was noteworthy and supportable by reliable references.[137] You shouldn't speculate about what you think my motives are. I did not delete material to prove that the article was “bad”; I deleted material because the material was "bad". In conclusion, I call BS on every accusation you made. Your charges are so off base that it begs the question as to why you would even bother to file such a superficial and petty ANI. It's still not too late to atone by apologizing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, let's have another go at this.
    I'm starting the arduous process of sifting through the article, and I'm slowly being able to sift through the data. However, you would do well to keep the following in mind:
    1. Sources for English WP do not need to be in English.
    2. BLP does not require deletion of all unsourced material – only what's contentious and possibly untrue. No one is disputing that anything in the Helmut Diez article is factually incorrect; in fact, it likely is all correct, though possibly colored with a bit of marketing puffery.
    3. It looks bad to second your own PROD nomination.
    4. It looks bad to vote "yes" on your own AfD.
    5. It is unconstructive and possibly even vandalism to continually wipe a page that another editor is actively working on.
    In the end, you're probably right when you contend that Helmut Diez is an unsuitable candidate for a Wikipedia article. However, the manner in which you're trying to run around and force the issue is likely to generate responses from uninvolved editors. It throws up big red warning flags, and invites editors to ask you to stop. I suppose if you thrive on conflict, you're welcome to keep going the way you are, but you should expect to meet lots of resistance at every step when you try to steamroll process. The wheels of Wikipedia justice turn slowly, and trying to circumvent process to make them go faster will only cause unnecessary pain and distraction.
    Let the AfD go forward with the article fundamentally unchanged from how it is. If you want to make minor corrections, I won't tell you not to. The article will probably be nuked. In the mean time, please refrain from blanking it further. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, everyone who abandons the assumption of good faith seems to have an excuse that in their mind that justifies it. You've managed to misrepresent pretty much every relevant detail in this case, and it serves no purpose since the situation is now resolving itself through proper channels -- as a direct result of my input on the DRN and my nominating the article for deletion. For now, I'll simply refer you back to my original rebuttal which negates the bulk of your accusations. No point wasting more time responding while you clutch your pearls about non-existent conduct issues, acknowledging that the article is likely to get nuked. I wish I could say it's been fun. I'll still accept that apology when you're ready. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting. Wasn't it you, who started dreaming of a witch hunt? After all this, nobody except you can Assume good faith any more on your side, and I could imagine that Jsharpminor is not completely wrong. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And again, Rhode Island Red, one of your contortions: It was me who put the case on DRN, and the result - only a little bit different from what you expected - can be seen here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_110#Talk:Helmut_Diez. In short: "Although clarifications were made based upon WP guidelines, there was no clear resolution ..." --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hans, instead of doubling down on this BS ANI, you should be concentrating on the editorial issues at hand -- i.e., defending your claim that the bio subject is notable by providing the requisite details that have repeatedly been requested of you on the talk page and during the DRN, which you have so far failed to provide. I don't dream of a witch hunt as you suggested; I dream of no longer having to waste WP resources on a substandard article about a non-notale subject that should have been deleted long ago. Additionally, you now seem to be alleging that I "contorted" something about the DRN. Would you care to elaborate on that, or are you content to just sling mud from the sidelines? If you're going to accuse someone of doing something improper, have the decency to be specific. Once again, I'll post the conclusion of the DRN so there's no ambiguity, as you now seem to be trying to misrepresent what was said:
    "The general finding was first, that all of the sources provided were in German which, though permitted on WP, is not ideal. Second, many of the sources provided did not appear to meet WP guidelines (ie the YouTube source) or contained only minor mentions of the BLP subject. Furthermore it is not clear to me that the sources being offered are about the same Helmut Diez. It may be they are sources for the same person, but because no biography of the life of Helmut Diez has been presented, the various sources are like pieces of a German puzzle. Thank you Hans, for your good faith attempts to provide reliable sources but unfortunately, DRN is designed for "small content disputes" and not for prolonged analysis of sources and text that you are still in the process of being developed and researched at your local library. My feeling is that RIRed has some legitimate concerns about the sources and text you have proposed both here and at the BLP talk page. I suggest this issue be taken to another more appropriate community forum such as a WP:RfC on the article talk page or WP:AfD. At either of these forums Hans could provide a link to his sandbox with a list of sources and members of the community could review them and give an opinion as to whether or not the BLP subject is notable based on those sources and qualifies for a WP article. Based on the sources I've seen here in this DRN discussion I think notability is in question and a legitimate concern and consideration."[138] Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -- Rewrite of Article with RELIABLE SOURCES that are VERIFIABLE
    I saw this claim early on by the user who brought in the allegations:
    Rhode Island Red deletes material from the article. Compare a good version, albeit roughly translated from German, to the current incarnation being discussed at the open AfD
    It appears each is at an extreme. The "good version" needs to be better sourced as was pointed out by Rhode Island Red here. My suggestion is that the user who brought the ANI close the discussion with apology for inadequate sourcing, fix the sourcing problems, show us a "good version" that is properly sourced, and let us see where we are then.David Tornheim (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IP-user - disruptive editing on Current Events

    User 70.190.111.213 has multiple complaints on talk page going back a few months. Recently, they have been adding excessively-detailed items about stories of questionable notability to the Current Events page, while removing valid & concise items posted by other users. March 12 and March 14 are good examples. User frequently opts to avoid discussion, and what discussion does happen is peppered with derogatory statements about both the person initiating the discussion and the actual subjects being discussed (see their recent response to my question about removal of Taiwan protest item). Farolif (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ADD: Demonstrated bias on user's part by writing-off the logic which they used for deleting an item (Taiwan protests) when the same is applied toward their own contributions (Social Security scam). Farolif (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    you add this into the middle of your statement way after the fact - its a miracle that i even noticed it - the logic you used is literally beyond contempt - in fact it reeks of contempt - your statemtent is non sensensical - how could i even try to refute it - you might as just said that red and green are the same colors--70.190.111.213 (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have addressed each and every addtion or deletion that you question - NOT ONE SINGLE item have I not done so - seems pointless you now to come to the AN/I to cry that you did not get your way - have I been a prolific editor of the Current Events page?, of course, is that supposed to be a bad thing?--70.190.111.213 (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    the thing I dont understand about your move to the AN/I is that other editors seem just fine with my work over at the Current Events page - the problem I run into is sockpuppets and vandals that endlessly challange the page with bios, irrelevant material, or just general disruption - the general disruption is to be expected from kooky people so this does not bother me much - the other two does bother me - you in the last few days are the latter - you have attempted to remove material that clearly meets the notability requirements for the page and yet you also attempt add trivia like a few people pounding the pavement with signs to whatever crackpot ideas these tiny fractions of the population currently expose - but i have already covered all that on the talk pages and history as YOU WELL KNOW--70.190.111.213 (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    as for your most worthless statement that i quote "has multiple complaints on talk page going back a few months" you well know that is rubbish - i have addressed each and every one of those sockpuppets and vandals on my page - any ADMIN that cares to do so can review them - almost everyone of the items came from a vandal or sockpuppet who could not get whichever of the types of items above i have already described (namely again bios, irrelevant material, or just general disruption)--70.190.111.213 (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    also i should address your statement about two recent additions to the current events page or as you say they are "Recently, they have been adding excessively-detailed items" - one of my biggest pevs is that sometimes to prove the notablity of a thing the story MUST be somewhat lenghty - i can promise you i have no interest to tire myself writing up such items - they take a long time - BUT if they are part of history that needs to be known later then they (1) do need to get written up and (2) do need to be lengthy - I will give you the two most common types of events that do often need to be lengthy - they are medical/science and legal - often i see others try to say write up an opinion of the US Supreme Court and they do so in just one sentence - such lazy activity is abosultely useless - the legal matter may have had special condiitons under which the law is only true and have been reviewed for then - other situations may not apply - hell sometimes the ruling is the most narrow and yet editors write it up as if it is a blanket - thus these editors do our readers no good service because they have actually done more harm then good - medicine write ups have the same problem - in regards to you statement that "RECENT" additions by me were too long - guess what? - they were both legal issues that would literally be completely false if someone tried to abbreviate them in a write up--70.190.111.213 (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The personal attacks at ANI and referring to somewhere as a Shithole location on your talkpage isnt really a good idea as per WP:CIVIL. Also can you provide some evidence of sockpuppetry with regards to User:Slvofjstce, User:TheMagikCow, User:FourViolas and User:Cubby666 as you have claimed at your talk page. Amortias (T)(C) 22:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed word that you found offensive since has really nothing to do with discussion--70.190.111.213 (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasnt that I found it offensive it just didnt appear very civil. Can you address the sock issue I've mentioned above? Amortias (T)(C) 22:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement from FourViolas I recently made 70.190.111.213 aware of WP:ASPERSIONS on their talk page, where, in conjunction with this unresolved prior AN/I about them, my history with them may be found. I have not engaged in content disputes with this user beyond one explained revert, so I am involved only insofar as I have tried to offer guidance and been accused of sockpuppetry. The user claims to have been editing for five years, but their contrib history only goes back to the beginning of the year; I believe it would be relevant to this discussion to know which accounts or IPs this user was editing under for the previous 4.75 years, and if they encountered criticism then. FourViolas (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify my concerns: this user has

    all in the past three months of what they say has been a 5-year career. Their talk page shows that they have been duly and repeatedly warned about their behavior, and have chosen not to change it. Is this enough evidence yet? FourViolas (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This guy now seems to think nationwide protests in Canada aren't notable for some stupid reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2015_March_14&action=history 63.135.26.46 (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    this from an editor with just five total edits - another sock of a banned user using a varialble IP address maybe?--70.190.111.213 (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you address Amortias's concern about casting unsupported aspersions? This criticism isn't about your contributions to Current Events but how you interact with other editors. Regardless of the quality of your contributions, collaboration is the nature of editing on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 15:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The issues with regards to edit summaries and incorrect interpretation of policy appears to still be in effect [150] . Amortias (T)(C) 21:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry have you EVER AND I MEAN EVER EDITED THE ARTICLE YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES??? no then how can you come over there and suddenly override my experience - what trivial background do you have there to make such a determination?????????????????????--70.190.111.213 (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I show you as having just begin in wiki in May 2014 and yet you override me there with absolutely no experience as to what if anything is notable in that article--70.190.111.213 (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    in fact that move just looked like a violation of WP:STALKING--70.190.111.213 (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit summaries are still uncivil, you have claimed someone is not noteable however their article (which requires them to be noteable) does exist, if they are not noteable with regards to a specific incident or event then that may be true but purely claiming they are not notable when they must have passed the notability criteria for inclusion doesnt appear to be an accurate evaluation of their noteability. WP:Harassment#Wikihounding states that viewing a users contribution for places such as ANI is a valid use of a contribution history, your edit summaries are part of the discussion here so this appears relevent. Amortias (T)(C) 23:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    dude do you know how many times i have had to defend that article from trivial additions of that type?? I will go through it again since you have NEVER ACTUALLY EDITED That article before - the article could have any number of such trivia obit additions the problem is then the article about the only superpower on the earth would EXPONETIALLY MUSHROOM in length to some monolithic 1 to 10 mega bytes per year - and yes i have done the math to make that statement - if you had ever followed the article before you would know those numbers are correct - your addtion is one of trivia - the article would end up as some non sensical endless hodgepoge of data not fit for an encyclopedia--70.190.111.213 (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    just because someone has an article in wiki it is not notable enough for that article - and many other editor have already reviewed that article and AGREE with that - but you through STALKING did not ever review that - you just went over there with no experience and overrode me--70.190.111.213 (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    further, do you have any idea how wrong what you just did? - I will put it to you in very simple terms - do you have any idea how much work each and every day I have to do to keep an article about the only superpower looking as good as it currently does? and then someone like you comes along and alters it with no experience to back you up BUT EVEN WORSE you then force me to waste my little time on DEFENDING IT - I WILL ASK YOU FLAT OUT are you planning on taking over the good-sheperding duties for that article to keep it looking good - my guess you will need to put in at least 40 hour of your life per week - no? - what you have done is waste my time - and it is heinous--70.190.111.213 (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately you still don't appear to be willing to address the key points. This thread is getting far too close to being WP:TLDR so I've pulled them out and added them below.

    1. Edit summaries being uncivil [151][152][153][154]
    2. Unsupported accusations of socking
    3. Personal attacks in this ANI
    4. What appears to be ownership issues with regards to the article you have accused me of making heinous edits with regards to my revert.[155]

    Anyone else is welcome to add anything I've missed Amortias (T)(C) 08:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence may be found in my bolded statement above. Per WP:OWN, having edited a page in the past confers no special rights or immunities. FourViolas (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The allegations against 70.190.111.213 (talk) come with supporting evidence that is clear and convincing. The defense by the accused comes with unsubstantiated allegations and confirms problematic behavior of 70.190.111.213 (talk). What relief is being sought? David Tornheim (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin's discretion, especially because most complainants, including me, seem to be fairly new. The user contributes content positively, but their failure to demonstrate collaborative competence constitutes disruption and must be addressed.. Options:
    1. 1RR on Current events and YEAR in the United States, with a stern civility warning
    2. Temp block for incivility, aspersions, and edit warring (unlikely to improve their opinion of WP and not long-term helpful before)
    3. indef block until willingness to relinquish ownership and improve civility is demonstrated in unblock request.
    I hope this discussion can have significant long-term benefits. Current events seems to attract newbies, and it's not okay to have an environment of biting there. FourViolas (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive user removing DS notice from article talk page

    Bold close. SteveStrummer has been directed to make a clarification request with ArbCom and has self-imposed a 1 week topic ban. It is recommended that SteveStrummer follow through with their request for clarification. Blackmane (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A user known by the handle SteveStrummer (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing a DS notice from Talk:Donbass. The article falls under the scope of the WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions. Please entreat this user to stop being disruptive. Much obliged, RGloucester — ☎ 19:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The tag is unjustifiable based on the discussions and page history. I have never been faulted for my behavior on Wikipedia, and I'm standing my ground on this one. The tag is just a transparent effort at intimidating future editors who may come across the discussion. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It has nothing to do with "intimidating" anyone. It is merely an alert that DS apply to the article. They do, whether the tag is placed there or not. RGloucester — ☎ 19:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And have I? My remarks have all been civil and modest, while yours routinely display an unseemly aggression. There was nothing disruptive to justify this tag, except your own repeated attempts at ownership of Russian-related articles. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no involvement in "Russian-related articles", so I simply don't know what you are referring to. Nothing "disruptive" is needed to justify a tag. It is merely a notice of existing DS. In fact, it is much more transparent to place the tag on the page, so that people are aware of what they are getting into. Those DS apply to me as much anyone. RGloucester — ☎ 19:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict" according to Arbcom [156]. By the same token, any editor can place such tag on the talk pages of appropriate articles. Tagging articles themselves is a different matter. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "By the same token"? No. The rules you point to say explicitly "the editor's talk page": there is no broader permission to tag article talkpages. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, here is my reading of this (by the spirit, not by the letter): there is nothing wrong with alerting other users about DS if this is done appropriately, for example by using an official template in an article that clearly belongs to the area of conflict... My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading of it hews to the actual terms: this tag is only used when "discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict". There are no such sanctions in place and never were. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This article definitely falls in the scope of ARBCOMEE and hence discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Standard_discretionary_sanctions; specifically these. -- Orduin Discuss 19:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ARBCOMEE notes that relevant articles may have discretionary sanctions imposed rapidly, but it does not say that every page may be tagged as such. The tag implies an existing conflict that has already induced sanctions. It is not meant to ward off any and all new contributors. Few EE articles have this tag, including several that were page-protected at one time or another. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't understand the DS system. All articles within the scope of WP:ARBEE are already covered by the sanctions, tagged or not. Tagging has no such implications. It is simply a notice. RGloucester — ☎ 20:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another personal attack. That's wrong, and so is your claim. Tagging does have clear implications to the readership: that's their whole point. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What personal attack? There is nothing wrong about it. Do you want me to summon arbitration clerks to verify this? I know that it is the case, and it is very easy to prove. Tagging cannot have any implications for the readership, as the readership does not look at talk pages. RGloucester — ☎ 20:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Just leave the tag there. It's not that important whether it's there or not, an the article is clearly in scope. NE Ent 20:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, I'll just say: you don't understand what it means to have a "readership". The page in question had over ten thousand page views in the last thirty days, while the talkpage earned a mere eighty-seven. Assuming most of those were us, are you going to tell me that those scant few explorers – potential contributors all – would not be dissuaded by having this tag in their face? We never had any ArbCom adjudication here, and there is no justification for labelling it as a disputed page. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "We never had any ArbCom adjudication here" is incorrect. Donbass is in Eastern Europe as usually defined. The topic area of Eastern Europe is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Read WP:ARBEE. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not the issue; the issue is the tag. If all EE pages were to have that tag displayed without existing disputes, they would all have it right now. They do not, and neither should this. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really think that the use of the tag on article talk pages is improper, I suggest that, rather than edit-warring over the tag, which is what brought you here, you request a ruling at ArbCom Requests for Clarification or Amendment. I think that everyone here except you (SteveStrummer) thinks that ArbCom will clarify that the tagging is entirely proper, but if you really think that the tagging is improper, that is how you can ask ArbCom to clarify whether any editor may apply the tag to any article in an area that is subject to discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's obviously no question of whether or not I this the use of the tag is improper, and if a neutral administrator says that I was wrong, I will indeed follow that link. Thanks for your input. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't believe that there is a problem tagging the article talk page. Whether or not a tag has been placed, the fact remains that the article is covered under the scope of DS regarding EE. Therefore the tag is merely informative. I think awareness of a DS is a more preferable outcome than ignorance of it. —Dark 23:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • SteveStrummer, the tag isn't there for readers; it's there for editors. Sure, not every page on an Eastern European topics tagged in that way, and if a page isn't tagged, that's probably because editors didn't see a need to tag it--presumably because there hasn't been a problem. Apparently good-faith editors signal either a possible problem, or the likelihood thereof, in this case, and it seems to me that therefore its placement is valid. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I sense that at least one of you knows that, despite the persistence I showed in this particular case, I am not a member of the Wikipedia warrior class, and I appreciate the collegial tone of your replies. Still, both your explanations appear to me to be post facto deduction, and not supported by the actual wording of the ARBCOMEE policy in question. Accordingly, I reserve the right to raise this question at ARCA. As for the rest of it – the ill-considered page move, and its "review" – I continue to believe strongly that what's happened is very bad for the project, but I can see that I have exhausted my reasonable allotment of objections and I will offer in good faith my own self-imposed one week topic ban, extendable at your discretion. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    VANDALISM FIXED & IP BANNED
    Nothing else to see. All fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please see this talk page. Hope this is in the correct place. I'm pretty sure it's just a troll, but still. - Amaury (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I was being dead serious. I have contacted my local PD.71.96.64.169 (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, you're a little ray of sunshine... Anyway, already blocked fro 6 months by Acroterion. But it looks like someone may need to take a mop to some of the other Talk pages this IP vandalized... --IJBall (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone believes the IP, I have a slightly used bridge to sell to them. Some assembly required. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Working Looking at any of the talk pages + contribs. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The term "pussy" when referring to a lack of strength comes from the word "pusillanimous" which means "showing a lack of courage or determination". It has nothing to do with female bits. Chillum 16:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like etymology convergence.[157][158] Either way, it signifies "unmanly". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User refuses to engage in discussion

    There's an unusual editor "User:AcidSnow" on Harar and various other pages. He does not engage in talk pages and refuses to provide any reliable sources to back his claims. Here he says that he wont provide any sources because it wont do any good. [159]. I have provided the source for my addition on Talk:Harar and in the article before it was removed. He seems to not want to discuss the matter. Can an admin intervene and force him to participate or initiate sanctions. Zekenyan (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Links: AcidSnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --IJBall (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) After a quick look, and it looks to me like AcidSnow has engaged you on at least one Talk page... --IJBall (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I have engaged in the discussion every since it started. You, on the other hand, had not for four days. In fact, you didn't return till after I called you out for it. Any admin or user interested in being involved in this issue, I highly advise you to check out this discussion on admin Kurus talk page, here: [160]. Or at least by attention to this part:
    "I was the one who first told you to go to the talk page, I was the one who started the conversation, I was the last person to reply, etc......last article was on the Harari people; which I too was the creator of the discussion and the last to reply. Even then, I too was once again the creator of the discussion and the last to reply on the Harar page. I didn't talk about consensus? Dude the whole point of going to the talk page is to get consensus; which you have consistently failed to receive. Isn't it ironic that you accuse me of not discussing even though I have been involved since day one? You, on the other hand, haven't in more than four days! But nonetheless, you still had time to continue to break consensus."
    Anyways, as I, Middayexpress, and Awale-Abdi pointed out earlier all your sources are fringe. AcidSnow (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been involved in all of them IJBall. AcidSnow (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Yep. A quick scan belies the claim that you do "not engage in talk" discussions, from what I saw. --IJBall (talk)
    What? AcidSnow (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind. I thought you were typing "believes" and not "belies". AcidSnow (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    All sources are fringe? Can you provide your sources? Which you have not been doing at all. Your refusal has brought me to this board. Zekenyan (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup. Try to pay attention next time. AcidSnow (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    AcidSnow and Awale-Abdi are right. The various claims being made are fringe and are based exclusively on a handful of modern links. The actual historical documents on the Adal Sultanate, particularly the medieval Futuh al-Habash (the main treatise on the kingdom), certainly do not indicate that the Argobba were one of the Sultanate's main populations or that its constituency was largely Afar. Middayexpress (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Historical sources are not gold. Provide your counter claims on the talk page for the last time. Zekenyan (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    We all have, but you don't care. Instead you have opted to edit war, make false accusation, break consensus and so on. AcidSnow (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ok i hope admins see that you refused on Talk:Harar even though another user dwpaul said that your suppose to. Zekenyan (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    *Sigh*, once again I never refused to do anything. You just don't want to read any that goes against your fringe beliefs. Ironicaly, this made quite clear on the Walashma Dynasty's talk page where after being proven wrong you have now refused to disscuse any further. It's been over a week now too. AcidSnow (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me quote the other user '"Wikipedia articles cannot be used as reliable sources for edits in other Wikipedia articles. When introducing information here that requires a reliable source, the source must be cited here. If a source can be found in another, related, article, it can be copied here, but you cannot simply refer to its presence in another article and claim that your edit is reliably sourced"'. Do you understand? Zekenyan (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    *Sigh*, if you had bothered to read anything that has been written here you would know that this "wasn't what I was trying to do". But this isn't surprising since "Zekenyan has refused to listen" consistently. Anyways, as the individual you quoted above states: "When introducing information here that requires a reliable source, the source must be cited here". Ahmad ibn Ibrahim being a Somali is well known and undisputable fact. In fact, it's already cited there. But sadly you don't care even the slightest. More importantly, instead of break policies why don't you try to follow them? I highly recommend that you check out WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL, WP:PERSONATTACK, and WP:EDITWAR. AcidSnow (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Requesting sources is an attack? Perhaps you have me confused with another user. Zekenyan (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No I am talking about you. You have made numerous attacks against me and other users. Though, isn't ironic that you only dispute that one and not the other :)? AcidSnow (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    False accusations have consequences. Zekenyan (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence why I told you to stop. AcidSnow (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that there are faults on both sides here:
    • It would have been better if Zekenyan had added FACT tags instead of deleting the information as in this edit: [161]. I think we can assume that Zekenyan knows that citations can be provided for Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi being Somali; so deleting the information for lack of a citation seems like gaming the rules to provoke a confrontation.
    • But having said that, why one earth did AcidSnow not provide a citation? Wikipedia:Verifiability backs up Zekenyan's demand for a citation - and given that some sources dispute that Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi was of Somali ethnicity, it is an issue that a reasonable person might want a citation for.
    -- Toddy1 (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How are you Toddy? Anyways, it's well known fact that Ahmad ibn Ibrahim was an ethnic Somali. However, the dispute is based off his Arab Genealogy which all Somalis. So it's hard to actually despite that he wasn't Somali. Anyways, the source for him being Somali was provided months ago. See here: [162]. I would also like to inform you that Zekenyan deliberately removed that Nur (Ahmad's nephew) was Somali. See here: [163]. Shockingly, he acknowledged that Nur himself was a Somali: "Other figures such as Nur ibn Mujahid are not disputed as his clan is well noted". AcidSnow (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me clarify the edit mentioned by Toddy. That particular revert has nothing to do with Ahmed being somali but the Adal sultanate being somali. Which is why i brought up a source on Talk:Harar that explains the adal sultante is afar. And no you cant find a source that says adal sultanate was "somali". Emir Nur is not notable for being an ethnic "Somali" per say. He is actually noted for the Harar walls being erected during his rule. Zekenyan (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Both books you provided have already been proven fringe by three users. Nur being an ethnic Somali, an Emir of Harar, and the founder of the walls of the city were all already noted prior to your arrival. See here: [164]. More importantly, are you seriously claiming that there's no source for Adal being Somali? Hahaha, please stop with these foolish claims! Numerous sources for the Walshama Dynasty, as well as both Adal and Ifat have already been provided. See here: [165]. Though, as several users have already pointed out "Zekenyan has refused to listen". You have even opted to abandoned the talk page for the last eight days! See the revision history: here. AcidSnow (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All you are doing is refering to other talk pages and showing previous versions of articles. It seems you will not cooperate. Zekenyan (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point I can't tell if you're either trolling/completely oblivious to what's going on around you or not. AcidSnow (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I really don't see the point in arguing with "Zekenyan" as he clearly just has an agenda of some sort. Anyway, for any admins reading this, here is your evidence that they were Somali with sources:

    "Zekenyan-> there are plenty of sources on the page showing the genealogical traditions that trace them back to Somali figures such as an ancestor shared with the Darod clan which was shared by such figures as Ibn Khaldun [-]. Hell, you should know that a Harari historian claimed they were descended from a Somali saint (Yusuf bin Ahmad Al-Kawneyn) [-]. Enrico Cerulli also noted down this fabled origin from the Somali saint from a Harari record with I.M lewis taking note [-]. And as I said in an edit-> I.M Lewis does refer to them as Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis & even for example touches upon their fabled connection to Yusuf/ "Aw Barkdhadle (meaning; Blessed Father)[-] and Ethiopian historians somewhat unfamiliar with a good part of their history at best considered them Arabs such as in the case of Asma Giyorgis [-].

    The more generally accepted and shared by most historical sources genealogy is the Aqeeli one via Isma'il al-Jabarti, the fabled Somali Darod clan ancestor whose only known descendant to have ever affected the Horn in anyway is Abdirahman bin Isma'il al-Jabarti (Darod clan founder) whom everyone associating themselves to "Jeberti/Jabarti" including the Jeberti people tie themselves to. To claim this dynasty was anything but Somali after the plethora of sources tying them to such figures is practically dishonest. Anyway, you wanted sources so I gave you some.

    You will never find a legitimate source claiming they were "Argobba", Braukämper is as Acidsnow said; a fringe figure with wildly incorrect notions about a good number of things. He once claimed the Harla people were likely Ethio-Semitic only to immediately concede that he had absolutely no evidence for this claim..."

    The only sources that ever even try to claim they were Ethio-Semitic are Braukämper and one other source who also tried to claim the Hadiya Sultanate was ethio-Semitic (Do I really need to explain how retarded that is?). Again: there is no discussion to be had here. When both of a dynasty's genealogies (as even shared by Harari historians) clearly point to Somali ancestors-> they're Somali.

    It's only icing on the cake that the majority of their soldiers were Somalis (read any source on the matter on the Adal, Walashma or Ifat or pages) but of course all of these legitimate sources mean nothing to Zekenyan who wants the truth to be what he wants it to be (real truth and those clear cut genealogies be damned). I advise any admins to deal with an editor accordingly when he has enough of a bias to him to say that "historial sources aren't gold" (but your fringe sources are, yes?) when the Futuh was written by a man who was in Adal territory (Shihab Ad-Din) and described the origins of the troops in question clearly (it's also been studied by a plethora of scholars). He's not looking for a discussion here... Awale-Abdi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Once again Abdi, I thank you for your assistance. Shall we make a block/ban proposal? AcidSnow (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is well know that AcidSnow is promoting his POV in certain articles, engaging in edit wars and stalking other users. I have reported this to the administrators.124.181.107.97 (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, is this coming from the block avoiding Ip? AcidSnow (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your not providing any direct sources that says adal was somali. I have provided on Talk:Harar a reliable source that directly gives Afar credit for the Adal sultante. BTW dont spam this forum take it to the talk page. Zekenyan (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We did. You have a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. AcidSnow (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to me like the 3 users are associates of some sort as user awale abdi has started to personally attack me now here [166] calling me a "moron" Zekenyan (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Insults others but cries when he's insulted. AcidSnow (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Provide evidence like i did, for your accusations. Zekenyan (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You never provided diffs for my accusation, let alone did I ever make any attacks. AcidSnow (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    I meant I have provided diffs for the user Awale Abdi's personal attack. I am asking you to provide diff of the personal attacks that you claim I have done against you. Zekenyan (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, this is petty. Please take the content dispute to the talk page and work it out there. Also, bear in mind that all actual historical documents on the Adal Sultanate indicate exactly what Awale-Abdi does above; especially the main such treatise, the Futuh Al-Habash. Middayexpress (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bryce Carmony and civility

    Background: Bryce Carmony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had been trying to merge most "Criticism of..." articles into the main article, with no concern for why they had been split in some cases such as Criticism of Facebook. I and a few others, including User:Lukeno94 and User:Andyjsmith, tried to discuss the mergers in various places. Bryce removed several attempts to communicate, calling them spam and harassment. I asked User:5 albert square to keep an eye on him, because she had blocked him last.

    At 21:07 UTC yesterday, she blocked him for 24 hours with the rationale "argument is getting a little WP:POINTY". Since then, we've had many personal attacks, massive walls of text, Lukeno94 and I trying to explain his errors, and an arguable 3RR violation. Apparently Bryce feels that IAR covers this violation of WP:BLANKING. In general, this user has just been uncivil, and I want a resolution. Origamiteⓣⓒ 04:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Bryce simply will not listen to anything anyone has to say, and any attempts at discussing issues with them will eventually be dismissed as being spam and/or harassment - which is ridiculous, because there is no way on earth that anything has been spam, and the claims of harassment are almost as unfounded. They seem incapable of understanding that the issue centres around their lack of WP:BEFORE, in that they were nominating large pages for merger every 10 minutes or so at one point - a rate that clearly shows they never even attempted to look up the histories of each article, or to determine whether a merger may actually be appropriate. And the actions of User:Aladdin Sane, such as this attack post, have been little better, and have only made the situation worse. I'm not sure if any further sanctions are warranted for Bryce yet, but someone needs to talk some sense into them - I tried, but failed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bryce Carmony is a truly terrible editor who has no place on Wikipedia. This is the second time in two months that his behaviour has been discussed here, and since January he has been blocked four times. His edits are often very clumsy, his manner is irrational and extremely aggressive, he wilfully misrepresents (often abusively) any attempts to discuss or challenge his actions, he refuses to follow guidelines and he is quite prepared to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. The worst thing is that he (wilfully?) misunderstands fundamental issues and will not accept that he might be wrong - in many ways the apparent stupidity of people who disagree with him seems to be one of the sources of his anger.
    His activities on Wikipedia have fallen into two phases, both based on irrational notions.
    1. Until his 1 month block last month he spent his time removing "unnecessary words" from articles. In some cases this led to improvement by removing verbiage but in many cases it damaged the articles. He even edited direct quotes. It came to a head with a row over a single word which led to a short block. When the block ended he deliberately damaged the article in question, leading to a one month block.
    2. In his current phase his target is articles with the word "criticism" in the title, on the bizarre grounds that since in the phrase "criticism of X" the word X is the subject then so too in an article with that title the subject must be X, and since criticism is of necessity POV then that article must be a POV content fork of the main article about X and should be merged into the main article. This idea led to a wave of drive-by tagging and now to a sustained effort to merge some major articles including carrying out one merge against consensus. When challenged his response was a disruptive edit that earned him his most recent block. He pretends not to understand the reason for the block.
    We dare not leave him alone to have his fun since experience shows that he will take silence for consent. We cannot persuade him since he rejects all discussion. Blocking makes him froth at the mouth but does not drive the message home.
    We should show him the door. andy (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy I would like to take this oppurtunity to engage in you the discussion that you feel I try and avoid. NPOV puts forward 3 standards. I apply these standards to every article. The idea is that every article meets these standards not two articles combined meets them. This is the discussion I try and have with you. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had no interaction with this person and no involvement in any of the articles under dispute, but I've just read through the user's talk page since January (It's not archived so you have to keep checking past revisions). What I see is a shocking refusal or inability to listen to anything anyone says, coupled with an apparently unshakeable conviction that he can't possibly ever be wrong, and repeated personal attacks on anyone who tries to engage in discussion. I hate to say it, but this looks like someone who is simply incapable of working collaboratively with other people. Squinge (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As a matter of process, I hope no action will be taken until Bryce Carmony has the opportunity to respond to these complaints. Liz Read! Talk! 13:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I offered him the chance to write something on his talk page that I'd put here when I notified him about the discussion. Response was negative in tone. Origamiteⓣⓒ 14:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I see he removed your comment. And judging by his recent addition to his user page, it appears as if he wants to focus his editing on merging "Criticism of" articles with their primary subject article. I think properly merging articles, even when warranted, is a tricky job and should be undertaken by more experienced editors. But that's just my 2 cents. Liz Read! Talk! 14:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A huge issue, irrespective of experience and attitude, is that he is a very clumsy editor and frequently writes very poor English. This edit is typical, introducing a grammatical error and a spelling mistake in two short sentences. And this edit which leaves a single, almost meaningless sentence as the sole content of the article. I doubt that he ever checks what he writes, and as has been pointed out he simply will not accept that he makes errors. andy (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I make the occasional error. No one is perfect and the point of Wikipedia is that no post is the last. When I see an editor make a mistake like say that Isaac asimov is "the most prolific writer of all time" I'll chuckle to myself, think of how I can improve it, and edit accordingly. I'm not perfect but I never have claimed to be. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes my point, I'm afraid. The article in question never did contain the phrase "the most prolific writer of all time" but merely said that he was one of the most prolific writers. You deleted this without checking, as you so often do. In fact this claim was made in a wikipedia article about prolific writers and was properly sourced. You edit clumsily and without any kind of checking, frequently damaging articles, and then say anything you like to try to justify your actions. andy (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaac_Asimov&diff=prev&oldid=590127928 "One of the most prolific writers of all time" Which is impossible to verify since the future is unknown. the point is that when someone writes something like that, it's not a big deal. we can easily improve it. Andy I feel like you're upset. I'm sorry if I offended you. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly agree with Liz here, that nothing should be actioned until Bryce Carmony has had the chance to examine what's being said here at ANI and respond as he sees fit. He clearly wants to contribute constructively, and we shouldn't close the door on anyone who wants to help until all other avenues have been exhausted. Squinge (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, something I feel I should have put in my original post is his insistence that "admin abuse" and hostile editors are the reason that women don't edit Wikipedia. Personally, as a woman, the implication that we're more likely to run off than men in a mildly hostile environment is insulting. The gender imbalance has a number of causes, none as simple as this. Origamiteⓣⓒ 14:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you look back in his Talk to February you'll see that his problem at that time was with Irish admins rather than misogynistic ones. He wasn't, as it happens, under attack by Irish people at that time, AFAIK, any more than he is currently under attack by alpha males. The problem is that when he feels cornered, which is frequently, he says anything that he thinks will gain traction. Sometimes he's ultra-reasonable and compliant and sometimes wildly aggressive, but whatever it is he then goes straight back to doing what he wants. So don't waste your time thinking about the sexism thing - he doesn't mean it anyway. andy (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made him aware of the discussion, he has said he will comment when his block expires, which it should have by now.--5 albert square (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fellow editors,This is Bryce, I hope I did not keep you waiting I had family over for dinner. Let me start of by saying that I assume that your criticisms, and proposed bans are all made in good faith, that while I disagree with you, I know that you all have wikipedias interest at heart no matter if any of your actions are misguided. That being said let me say that my intentions are only to make Wikipedia better.
    • I have been accoused of disrupting Wikipedia, an accousation I feel is without merit. My actions have been in the interest of and informed by the Neutral Point of View Policy. for the sake of the discussion I will recap the policy for you.
    • The Point of view article is the the bedrock of Wikipedia. the ideal that has enabled us to coordinate millions of individuals to creating the greatest free encyclopedia that the world has ever seen. Due to it's importance the NPOV policy can not be supersede by a consensus of editors, and it cannot be overridden by any other policy (Including Ignore all rules).
    • There are 3 standards laid out of how information in an article must be presented. 1- Fairly 2- Proportionately and 3- As far as possible from bias. the conjunction And is used (as opposed to or) so all 3 standards must be met, a violation of any of these 3 things is sufficient to create a NPOV conflict. I submit evidence that "Criticism of..." Articles violates information being portrayed fairly.
    • under article structure a warning is given that"Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."
    • Criticism of articles are not only in a different section but go so far as to remove text into completely different articles. making the main article disproportionately portray non criticism and unfairly resigns criticism to articles that are void of the structure and information needed to create an encyclopedic article. defenses of this practice have been offered such as WP:article size, but as NPOV has a supremacy clause article size is void as a defennse for violating NPOV.
    • The solution is easy to achieve. instead of breaking up a single topic into 2 articles ( criticism and non criticism ) we break up a large topic into smaller subtopics. For example, Apple could have ( Apple Controversies, Apple Litigation, etc ) Often lawsuits are put into "criticism of articles" implying that lawsuits in themselves are crticisms. Criticism of articles include "Controversies" as criticism. Criticism of google states that simple the existence of a competitor is a "criticism" posting the information for "Scroogle" as a criticism.
    • NPOV is just words on a page, the only way it is given power is when we as editors take the words to heart and act on them. If we abandon NPOV when an article gets long or when someone sources an unflattering reality, then we resign wikipedia to fail. I do not believe in personal criticism, but I do believe in editor criticism, any editor who violates NPOV should be reasoned with and persuaded. If you feel that "Apple Inc." is fairly protraying all sources by banning criticism, if you think Google is proportionate when it bans criticism from the article, then say so, and we can discuss the matter. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't really address the point of this ANI, which is your behaviour. Blackmane (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not here to get into a petty argument, if anyone thinks I'm rude I apologize , I never insult people personally I just disagree with editors and I respect any editor who disagrees with me to voice their opinion. I want to make wikipedia more inclusive not less so I'm not here pushing for bans. If people's feelings are hurt I suggest they be bold, wikipedia needs every single editor here and 10x more so I'm done wasting time talking about non issues. If you are assuming bad faith just say so nowBryce Carmony (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bryce, regardless of whether or not what Luke has pointed out above is a personal attack, it is still a civility issue. --5 albert square (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Luke, I don't insult people personally, there's a difference between a personal attack, and a criticism about someones capacity in their job. I'll use an example to try and help you understand. "George W. Bush is a bad president" is not a personal attack. it is a crticism. "George W. Bush looks like a monkey" is a personal attack. I have the right to think certain admins are bad admins, you have the right to think certain editors are bad editors. If you need more examples to help understand the difference I'm happy to help you out. I assume good faith and that your concerns about avoiding "personal attacks" are well intended. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How dare you respond in this arrogant and self-important way? Several serious-minded editors have called your behaviour into question and your response is to say that they are all "misguided", the accusations are "without merit", this is a "petty argument" and it is a waste of your time. And you have the presumption to lecture us on the principles of wikipedia? I agree with user Squinge: "this looks like someone who is simply incapable of working collaboratively with other people". andy (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, let me start by saying I assume good faith, that everything you have written here comes from an earnest desire to improve Wikipedia. There's not a doubt in my mind, however, I think your actions are not productive. I am trying to focus on a important topic. If your feelings have been hurt, I earnestly appologize that I made you feel bad. But let's focus on what's important. we have 500+ articles titled "controversy" a article format I strongly favor, and 150 articles with "Criticism of" a title I believe undercuts Wikipedia NPOV by segregating a single topic into two POVs creating a content fork. If you would like to write a few more posts that I'm arrogant, if that would make you feel better, by all means let it all out I encourage you. But I would really value your feedback on this. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposals

    Topic ban

    How are the merger requests invalid? I've gotten support in multiple articles supporting the merger. see Yahoo! for a case where people agree that we need to merge. Everyone says that my mergers have no merrits but no one will answer these questions:
    • Does banning criticism from Google give readers of the Google Article all information presented fairly?
    • Does banning criticism from Google represent all information in the Google article proportional coverage?
    • Does banning criticism from Google show a lack of bias in the Google article?

    take a moment to answer those questions honestly. I assume good faith that your concern over these mergers is well founded, but I think you are misguided, I'm happy to engage in a conversation but if you refuse to discuss NPOV then there isn't a lot I can do. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. I was on the verge of supporting this proposal until Bryce Carmony's most recent edits. This is not a person you can do business with. He will simply find another way of "fixing" wikipedia which will be equally disruptive. It also does not address the substantive issue, which is his attitude. His responses in this discussion show that he neither understands nor cares about our concerns. So I'm going to make a counter-proposal for a ban. andy (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, once again, I assume good faith, I believe in my heart of hearts that everything you're saying you believe to be in wikipedias best interest. I care about your opinion, I have repeatedly reached out to you in article talk discussions to try and get your opinion. If you feel like NPOV is best represented by segregating a topic into two articles with different POVs please say so, we can start from ground level. and take the policy page sentence by sentence and discuss the meaning, whatever it takes for us to see eye to eye. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, then why not reach out to me one more time by explaining this edit?
    Absolutely, Andy I have been working on trying to find a way to increase the amount of female editors on Wikipedia, a local coffee shop I frequent I've had multiple discussion with friends about why they don't edit Wikipedia, one of the reasons I got was the hostile environment, I think 5AS is a hostile admin, I think you're a hostile editor. I assume good faith and know that both of you have the best intentions for wikipedia, but I want to extend a challenge to you, to be less hostile, and to be more inviting at Wikipedia, if someone starts a discussion about a core policy, engage them. I do my best to respond to any discussion from anyone here because I want you to know that I care about what you think. Just because we disagree doesn't mean I don't. Andy you are willing to ban editors over a single word in an article. I don't mean this in any way personal but as a professional opinion, I think you are hostile. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Six month block

    Proposal: Six month ban. There is no evidence that this user has learned from anything that anyone has ever said to him on wikipedia, nor from any previous bans. There is plenty of evidence that he could not care less about our concerns. His arrogance is breathtaking, his attitude to other editors is deplorable and his editing is mediocre at best. Clearly, no sanction short of a ban will have any effect at all but a lengthy ban might, just might, make him stop and think. I doubt it, but for sure nothing else will work. andy (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose I assume good faith in Andy, I know that he feels this ban proposal is best for Wikipedia, I politely disagree. As editors we are encouraged to be Bold. I do not consider my actions reckless, if you look at my merger proposals you can see an evolution to them, I take every objection and consider it truly. I try and make the mergers as easy as possible and break them down into small workable units. Look at the proposal for Yahoo! for an example of this. I am being bold and starting discussions on an issue. do we want these 150 "criticism of" articles to become 5,000 Criticism of articles 5 years from now. I think its important that we take a moment to really think about it. to truly go over our policies and look at what we want to do. If I have offended Andy in my boldness, I do apologize, but let's use the opportunity to look at this discussion. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume good faith in Luke, I think he means what's best for wikipedia when he suggests I be banned for 6 months. that being said, I have to disagree. I ask questions about articles and NPOV. Luke if you could indulge my question, do you assume good faith in me and my actions? do you think I have wikipedias best interests at heart or do you think I want to make wikipedia a worse place. I value your feedback and would love to hear your response. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume good faith, when luke says that my tone is sneering, I know he means it in the best interest of wikipedia, that being said I have to disagree. I am being sincere Luke, sometimes when we read words on a screen we put our emotions into those words. I want to avoid that and be as unambiguous as possible. I value your opinion, every edit I make is to improve wikipedia, if my boldness has offended you I sincerely, truly, and wholeheartedly apologize to you. I hope you don't read this as a sneer. it is not how I intend it. If you would like to discuss NPOV we can, if you aren't interested in that that's alright as well. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Luck, I assume good faith in you, when you call me a troll I know that it is because you have Wikipedia best interest at heart. The only thing you could do to make me stop my good faith in you is if you were to blatantly vandalize articles. You've never done that so my faith in you is complete. I have to disagree with you, I am not trying to troll you, I am not trying to sneer at you, I am not trying to disrupt your work at Wikipedia, the only thing I am trying to do is work with you if you'd like, or without you if you wouldn't like. To improve the work in progress Wikipedia. You say that my mergers are without merrit, but when I look at mergers that gain support for example User:andyjsmith agreed that we should merge criticism of communism and communism , my meger for Yahoo! has 100% support so far. I hope you see that my efforts are sincere. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is another example of the way that you lie and misrepresent in order to make a point. I certainly did not agree to that merger. You carried it out without consensus but since it was a very short article anyway I did not object. I confined myself to cleaning up the mess that you left behind after a clumsy series of edits (which points up what Liz was saying earlier in this discussion). andy (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry I didn't mean to misrepresent you. It's hard to tell what you mean sometimes. Do you support creating "Criticism of communism" as an article? returning it to the 100 words that it had? I don't want to "lie" about what you mean. If you want to revert the edits and go back to it. Let's go back and we can take it up in discussion. I assume good faith in you Andy Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bryce, when you repeatedly say things like "I assume good faith, when luke says ...., I know he means it in the best interest of wikipedia, that being said I have to disagree", can you really not see how condescending that is? Squinge (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this discussion isn't about the merge proposals themselves, it's about the way you interact with other people. And your style of interaction over the past few months has been truly horrible. I think that's what you need to focus on here, and not the actual merges. Squinge (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't find it condescending at all, being 100% honest if Luke were to tell me that he had good faith in me, I would appreciate it. Squinge, I have good faith in you, I don't mean that to be condescending I mean it sincerely. I want us as editors to look at these words on these pages and to take them seriously. I attend a university where professors mock wikipedia every day, I wear my Wikipedia sweaters and Track sweater ( the blue one I dunno what it's called ) becuase I'm proud to be apart of Wikipedia. I want people to realize how amazing wikipedia is, and I want wikipedians to believe in the words. when we say "neutral point of view" I want us to mean it. I am bold, in my boldness I might have been over critical of other editors, if that is the case, I don't know how many times I can apologize, but what I can say is I'm open to the NPOV discussion. I don't want to hack it in broad strokes. I want to reach a mutual understanding. The way I interact with people is with respect. Users like andy have a different style, if you add a broken link by mistake they might be hyper critical, call you sloppy, say it's "incredible" that you don't get it, and be hostile. I understand that is his style. My style is different. When I see mistakes of others I try to fix them not criticize them. I'm a sucker for that Dale Carnegie style of working. When someone disagrees with me, I respect them enough to give them 100% of my full opinion why I may disagree with them. I hope everyone respects me enough to give me 100% of their opinions if they disagree with me. when you say that I am "horrible" I know that you have wikipedias best interest at heart. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say *you* are horrible, just the way you have been interacting with people. Anyway, I've told you how I think you're coming across, and several others have offered their thoughts too. If you don't want to listen and instead keep on insisting you've done no wrong then that's entirely up to you, but I'll spend no more time trying to help. Squinge (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying I've done no wrong. Why would I appologize if I haven't done anything wrong? I'm being bold, I know that, and I know that some people think my ambitious merger of 150 out of 4.7 million articles is ambitious. but when I read the NPOV policy its the direction I see, I hope to discuss and convince you of that vision. 10 years from now how many Criticism of articles do we want in wikipedia? do we want every company to be able to white wash their "main" article and make it look great while their "criticism" article looks horrible and therefore uncredible, that isn't the Wikipedia that will best serve the reader, that's what this is about I hope to rally your support. If you don't want to work with me I understand, but I hope we can come together to make wikipedia a better encyclopedia. The way I interact is when you call me a sneering troll , I chose to be bold, I chose to not take that personally. Luke isn't "personally attacking me" he is just frustrated, I cut him slack because there's no point in arguing over stuff like that, he's a good guy, that is what matters. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bryce, I have every confidence that you are trying to improve Wikipedia in the way you know best. However, we are a community. We have to work together to work on articles. When you saw how many people were against your mergers, why didn't you stop to consider if we were right? Instead, you made personal attacks and were just inconsiderate as a whole. Anyway, one of the reasons I started this was to get other people's input on the situation. @Andyjsmith: and @Lukeno94:, why don't we step back for a bit and see what other people think of this? Origamiteⓣⓒ 11:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

    Origamite, NPOV is immune to consensus. I am willing to discuss the NPOV policy. I keep asking the question if people feel that Crit of articles meet the 3 standards set out in NPOV. but they have been reluctant to engage in the discussion. When I'm called a "sloppy" or "terrible" or "Horrible" or "mediocre at best" or "clumsy" editor, I don't take it personally. I chose to be bold, learn from my mistakes, take the feedback , and move forward. A recent edit I mistakenly posted a broken link, I didn't realize it, a editor pointed it out, I checked how to see if links are broken, and then removed the links since they were broken. I learned and now I know. I'm open to learning, I open to any single person telling me I'm wrong. But I have to go by policy. NPOV has a supremacy clause, so when you say WP:Article Size. that doesn't matter, NPOV trumps it. So we have to get down to a discussion. is segregating a topic into a criticism and non criticism article NPOV appropriate. we need to ask ourselves the 3 standards we have. You say my attacks are personal, I don't think I make personal attacks, I think any criticism I have towards anyone here is in their capacity as an admin or an editor. I am not inconsiderate I just consider the NPOV policy. Origamite I assume good faith in you, I know you have the best interest of wikipedia. I'm glad you feel the same way about me. I want to move past this so we can get on to more important issues. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that I have appologized multiple times to multiple people. If anyone is offended that I think this sort of hostility towards boldness is off putting, I'm sorry. I don't think this is a very welcoming community right now. If an editor was passionate and bold and proposing ideas to make wikipedia better, I would be thrilled, that editor is needed, can we at least agree on that? that 125,000 editors is not enough for 4.7 million articles? We need to band together and bolster our numbers not turn on one another and hack down our ranks. Andy wants to "show me the door" but I wouldn't ever dream of banning him. I value his contributions, I hope to convince him to be less hostile. but every single person here is needed, I can't stress that enough. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is getting pretty long but I would like to add some discussions I've really been enjoying these merger proposals:

    I know some people here might feel that my mergers are without merit but I disagree. and I think looking at these discussions is a fair look to how I interact with fellow editors. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Bryce clearly doesn't understand how to work within a community. He has continued to blatantly disregard community agreements. Assuming good faith only goes so far; once a user repeatedly continues an action after the community disagrees with that action, good faith can no longer be assumed. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What has the community agreed on? 1 - there is no agreement that the community has reached. some people support these mergers some don't, I'm facilitating discussion and particpating. what "agreement" are you referring to? 2 - NPOV cannot be overwritten by a consensus, so if there is an agreement that says "we won't merge any crit of article with any other article" and people ( like me and others ) view that as a NPOV conflict, consensus doesn't get to mute that. I am trying to work WITH the community, not against it, which is why I am proposing merges not cutting and pasting entire articles together. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly support - Unfortunately, I am now coming to the conclusion that a topic ban isn't going to be enough. Bryce's persistent walls-of-text and wikilawyering is just getting absolutely ridiculous now, and enough is enough. This is now my preferred sanction. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A topic ban would not be enough as it will not stop the civility issues. I support this and would suggest that if the same behaviour happens once the block has finished that the next block be indefinite.--5 albert square (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: I oppose this on several levels (having been already WP:TROUTed above, probably the big one, actually).
    1. I thought the sanctions were designed as escalating. The next block, I thought (I admit I could be wrong), would be a 72 hour block, not a 4,392 hour block, would it not?
    2. Wondering aloud, because I'm not an advanced comprehender of admin policies, to what extent is Admin 5AS "involved" having led the previous block regimen applied to the subject of the discussion, and do we not need an "uninvolved" admin to make a measured proposal here?
    3. I've yet to see any diffs here, having tried, that have so offended another editor as to justify such a draconian sanction. Indeed, much of what has transpired is actually a content dispute, and belongs at WP:DR, not here.
    4. I can be against Bryce's proposed merges, and argue in favor of his actions, to which he has now ascribed quixotism, an apt description, at the same time. One does not preclude the other. I cite Evelyn Beatrice Hall in my defense of this "oppose" to the proposal here discussed, in order to argue in Bryce's favor.
    5. It seems nobody will defend Bryce, including those who've experienced this same, or a similar, strife in their own life. So I will. Call me "Sancho".
    6. The proposer refers to a "block" in the title, and a "ban" in the proposal. As this is basic, not advanced, policy, I do not think the proposer knows what he/she is talking about in the first place. Which are we, the above, supporting or or opposing? I call the proposal on procedural grounds, as improperly proposed in the first place.
    7. While I agree with User:UtherSRG's argument above that "AGF only goes so far", I disagree that this is the time to drop that faith. In another (totally different) context, I recently did drop my faith in the case of proven spam by an editor. That's the time to drop that faith, not this.
    For these seven reasons, and others here not yet argued, I "oppose", and request of ANI in general and Admins in particular, a more measured and well considered sanction against Bryce Carmony, if any at all.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bryce has previously been blocked for a month (for edit warring, a very similar sort of thing), so they were very lucky to only receive a 24 hour block this time around. Every time they've come back from a block, they've almost immediately resumed some kind of disruption. 5AS is not involved. Trying to wikilawyer around a user being confused between the differences of bans and blocks is lame. I think Bryce has shown that they can't be trusted to respect the community's wishes, and I don't really buy the so-called apologies - I view them as a last-ditch attempt at getting away scot-free. Call that a lack of AGF if you will, but people this stubborn don't just cave in like that without an ulterior motive, and experience has shown it to happen over and over. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    NPOV Discussion Proposal: We discuss NPOV It has become clear that among us there is a difference of opinion on interpreting the Neutral Point of View policy. The policy is vast so this isn't entirely surprising, however, The best thing for us to do, is to discuss this. I propose that we sit down, and go over the policy and find common ground, make a plan, and act. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    SupportBryce Carmony (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you seriously believe that this fatuous suggestion is the best way to answer the well-founded concerns and criticisms of so many editors? Surely you cannot have managed to convince yourself that this discussion about your lack of civility and aggression is actually a debate about wikipedia NPOV policy? This is pretty much your last chance to sort things out - there can be little doubt that a sanction of some sort is impending. I suggest that you acknowledge these concerns and accept that the fault lies with you, and make it clear on this forum that you are now prepared to edit collaboratively and within the guidelines and above all to behave civilly and without contempt towards other editors. andy (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, I respect you, I want to have an open and productive conversation with you. if you feel like I am being aggressive, I apologize that is not my intention. I don't want to make this a fight at all. I feel like you are being the aggressive one, but it doesn't need to be that way. I am being civil towards you, I am exercising good faith, will you do the same? Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I have more than apologized for any offense I've given you, I know that I'm not perfect and I have faults. But I am not being uncivil. I think we need to state what our objectives here are. My objective is to apologize to anyone who has been offended and to promote the open discussion about a serious look at the NPOV policy as it relates to certain articles. What is your objective here? so we can get on the same page and understand one another. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    oppose , I understand that what I'm proposing is difficult for some people. I understand 100% how it is easier to create a "Criticism section" that grows and grows , we chose not to weave in the content into a single narrative until finally it's so big we make it it's own page. it's happened a few times, not that many, only about 150 (give or take) times. Turning back now will be difficult, I understand that 100% but if we continue the trend, of allowing Criticisms to be segregated instead of integrated, we won't like the end result and it'll be even harder to stop it. We have the opportunity as editors to correct course, to sit down, consider NPOV, discuss the best course of action, and act. I respect Somedifferentstuff, but I disagree that I should be banned forever because I have proposed a few mergers. People say that Wikipedia is a mob rule rabble, but I disagree, I know that we respect our policies and our rules. If Somedifferentstuff or any other user would like to have a discussion about Articles that purge criticism into a separate article and if they pass the 3 standards of NPOV. I am happy to have that discussion. I don't mean to offend. I don't mean to disrupt. i'm here to make wikipedia better. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to sleep, I want to say to origamite, to andy, to luke, to somestuff, to 5as, to liz, and anyone else I might have forgotten. I am not trying to cause problems. the merger workload I have right now is a lot. I'm not planning on adding more since I have a lot of work getting the current ones completed. The Yahoo! merger is unopposed and I suspect will begin soon. I won't lie, my goal is to reach a wikipedia with 0 "Criticism of" articles. but it doesn't have to happen over night. I respect every single one of you, i respect your opinions, I respect your feedback, I read everything you write to me and I offer the invention to anyone, if you truly in your heart of hearts feel that I am wrong on NPOV. I want to discuss this civilly and openly. Years from now wikipedia could look a lot different depending on how we act today. I don't want to cause trouble, I never have. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    before I go to bed, here's how I think I like to interact with others. here's a post of mine from 3 days ago about a merger to Aladdin Sane ( who disagrees with the merger )
    Even if we don't end up merging "criticism of linux" and "linux" together, I like that you have done a lot recently to improve "criticism of linux" you don't need my approval by any means but I wanted to express my gratitude I think you're awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    Why, thank you. I've some other suggestions I may bring up on the Talk page. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Yahoo! merger has 1 other person's views. Why not let some others weigh in? Origamiteⓣⓒ 18:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MERGEPROP has some clear guidance on merging, including advising other editors and usually waiting for at least 30 days. Given the tone of this discussion, a merger on Yahoo! or any other article "soon" would clearly be intentionally disruptive. andy (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, you have refused to wait 30 days, you've taken down the merger banners before the 30 day mark, I feel like that is a little disruptive, but I'm not here to argue with you. I haven't taken any action in Yahoo and I don't plan to until the discussion is complete.
    I am waiting for others to weigh in, that is why I have taken NO ACTION about the merger. what I have done is repeatedly link to that talk page here to try and get additional feedback on that merger. If you want to criticize me and say "you don't care what anyone thinks" then why do I try so hard to facilitate discussion? You can call me a sneering troll, an arrogant editor to and ask me "how dare I talk about NPOV" you can say all those things if it makes you guys feel better, I don't care if that's what you say about me, what I do care about is is getting your feedback on the issues. Also, WP:NPOV has a supremacy clause, there is no supremacy clause in WP:MERGEPROP, I'm not trying to be disruptive, I'm just trying to address an NPOV issue but I am the only one. when I propose discussion I'm greeted with "how dare I" Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's worth reading the comments by user:Rjensen at Talk:Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Merger_proposal - they illustrate the issues that Bryce Carmony is wading into, and the need for these matters to be handled by an expert and well-informed editor. He gives strong reasons for not merging based on the specifics of the subject and the article's history, but Bryce Carmony's response is to sidestep this and instead deliver a homily on how "writing NPOV is hard but it is something we can do". andy (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect User:Rjensen, we're lucky to have him here at Wikipedia, and I agree that some of these mergers will be hard, some are pretty easily ( criticism of communism wasn't hard at all ) but the question is NPOV. I'm going to quote from NPOV a section I quoted before and I said "how dare I" but let's look at the text. "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure" That is what is happening here. I'm not trying to work against RJensen, I'm trying to work with RJensen. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When you chose to use language like "spouting" instead of "stating" to me it shows that this is becoming personal to you. You've made repeated personal attacks at me, and in response all I have to offer you is my apology, I am sorry luke. I can tell something I did really seemed to hurt you, you don't have to accept my apology I wouldn't dream of demanding that, but I do offer it. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what it is about my behavior that bothers you so much. when I ask you direct questions to try and resolve an issue you lie or play games or insult me or say it's justification to ban me. I feel like you might not have good faith in me, the same way that I have good faith in you. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is worth noting that Andy might have an agenda, he has taken me to ANI before and called me "hysterical" along a few other insults. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#Edit_warring.2C_disruption.2C_incivility_and_harassment_by_user:Bryce_Carmony Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -- Bryce Carmony has a bee in his bonnet-- several bees. Worse, he has been unable to learn anything from his too-intensive and too-frequent interactions. All that buzzing means he cannot recognize a consensus when it is against him. That inability to learn, in my opinion, has been highly disruptive. It disqualifies him from proposing mergers, especially regarding controversies. Rjensen (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never proposed a merger of a "Controversy" article. I have proposed a few mergers of articles that split topics by the POV ( Criticism vs non criticism ) an article Dungeons & Dragons controversies is not the same as Criticism of Dungeons & Dragons Bryce Carmony (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Clarification request from User:andyjsmith

    Andy J smith when asked what the subject of "Criticism of Libertarianism" is, stated : Eh? The subject of the one article is libertarianism and the subject of the other is criticism (specifically, criticism of libertarianism). In general, the subject of a wikipedia article is given by its title. andy (talk)

    Then when he wrote to 5 albert square he said that the topic of "Criticism of Libertarianism" is in fact "Libertarianism" I just am confused, since he is saying that his advice to me on what the topic was is his justification that I have disrupted wikipedia. I want to know what the topic of "criticism of libertarianism" is. is it criticism? or is it libertarianism? thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide andy. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I officially redact all merger proposals

    Fellow editors, I appreciate your feedback and agree. my mergers are not appropriate for wikipedia at this time. I have begun the process of removing the proposals, It took me a while to see the light but I realize now that you guys are right. These mergers aren't the way to go. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a breathe of fresh air Bryce, good job. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks some, I know it took longer than it should have been I see that you guys are right. I was trying to argue against the consensus which isn't the way we should do things. I have removed all the tags. I want to apologize to everyone for being too zealous. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Although this change of heart followed immediately after my intervention here, I'll wait a little while before concluding that the leopard has definitely changed its spots. andy (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize for being incivil

    in my zeal I was tilting at windmills, I got caught up in the moment and in that lapse I didn't treat you with the respect and civility you deserve, I realize that now, I was in the wrong. I am sorry for letting this escalate so much. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bryce, there are WP:FIVE equally important pillars (or bedrocks), and none has supremacy over the others.

    Others: ANI is not supposed to be Wikipedia's version of the Colosseum where we engage in the public spectacle of thumbs-up, thumbs-down block this editor! (e.g. WP:PITCHFORKS). Additionally, in general neither the veracity nor the persuasiveness of a position is enhanced by repetition; on ANI specifically it's a good way to help a thread devolve into a wall o' text few editors are going to wade through. NE Ent 09:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User removing content from RSN discussion

    User Formerly 98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly removed content ([170], [171]) from a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. I believe this content is relevant to the discussion, as it provides context for the question being discussed. Formerly 98 apparently considers the material a personal attack, per his edit summaries. Regardless, this user should not be deleting comments from an ongoing discussion. Please advise.

    Note: This user has an extensive history of what I consider disruptive editing, for which I will probably create a separate posting eventually. This posting is specifically for his disruption of the RSN discussion. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Further information: we had a brief, unproductive exchange about this on my talk page; also Formerly 98 has a section about this on his user page in which he (mistakenly) claims that this behavior is justified by WP:NPA. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boomerang. The removed content is a personal attack, and has no business being at RS/N. It's your putting it there (not its removal) that is disruptive. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I contend that my comment was directly relevant to the discussion. Users had expressed confusion over why such an obvious issue was being brought up. I cited a specific example of disruptive editing to clarify why this was being discussed -- i.e. we have a problem editor on our hands, this user is is willfully misinterpreting the policy to support his disruptive edits, how can we explain to him that what he is doing is inappropriate? 67.188.230.128 (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    RSN is not the place for discussing "problem editors". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, fair enough. Sounds like the best thing to do would be to remove portions of content regarding Formerly98's conduct and rephrase the comment to focus on the portion relevant to the discussion, to wit: "This discussion is getting rather abstract, but in practice the answer is usually obvious, as in this example: [...]". 67.188.230.128 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What I would like from you is a discussion of content and sources. Content disagreements can usually be handled without making assumptions about other editors motivations. If we don't agree, we can do an Rfc, and of course will both be bound by the opinions of the overall community.
    I am as concerned by your editing style as you are by mine, but that is neither here nor there, and questioning your motives will not help us reach consensus. Let's debate the sources and their interpretation on the article Talk pages, and do an RFc if we cannot agree. And lets keep the discussion on the Reliable sources page limited to whether sources are reliable. If either one of us violates 3RR, vandalizes pages, or calls the other a "ninny", that is suitable material for ANI.
    If we can agree to work together on this basis, I think we can get along and not waste our time battling it out here. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, this diff removed the accusations of user misconduct, leaving only the facts and my position on the question at hand. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I appreciate the gesture of goodwill and look forward to working with you to address our differences. I would also like to apologize for my comments on the Criticism of Coca Cola Talk page, which were unnecessarily provocative and which undoubtedly contributed to this conflict. I have struck the same. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am privy to this discussion thread on the noticeboard. On the one hand, I am slightly dismayed that the IP editor feels the need to go straight to AN/I with this. It seems like something that could be resolved with a bit of discussion. The IP editor must know that they aren't coming here with clean hands: the material which they posted (and which Formerly 98 removed) assumes bad faith on the part of Formerly 98 and accuses him of "clear[ly] deliberately disruptive editing" in a case that is not clear at all. Why was that obviously disruptive editing? There are many reasons why material might be culled from articles. Furthermore, I do not see how that was even relevant to the discussion on the RSN. The fact that the IP editor feels so certain that s/he is correct and that administrator intervention may be needed for that issue, too, shows, in my opinion, an unwillingness to engage in the normal dispute resolution mechanisms on Wiki before jumping to the AN/I noticeboard. Did you even attempt to discuss those other edits with Formerly 98?
    On the other hand, it is arguable if these are clear-cut "personal attacks" which would entitle Formerly 98 to summarily remove them himself -- in their entirety -- per WP:RPA There is an actual point in those comments about Formerly 98's editing history (however possibly irrelevant or badly stated). There is a good argument to be made that this was really an "uncivil comment". Uncivil comments are different from personal attacks, and according to WP:RUC: "In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it may be appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording . . . It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment." (Emphasis added.) Even if we assume that it was a personal attack and not merely an uncivil comment, I don't see why Formerly 98 would remove the entire text himself (despite its possible irrelevance) instead of only the phrases which directly accuse him of bad faith. So, possibly some room for apology on both sides. Xanthis (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Response by Formerly 98 -

    • I don't believe I removed material other than the personal attack. If I did so, I apologize for having done so. It was my intent to remove the WP:NPA violation only
    • On the other hand, the removal of personal attacks is justified by WP:NPA, which states in its very first paragraph:
    "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks."
    • If 67 disagrees with my edits, I am more than happy to discuss these on the relevant Talk page, and to cooperate in an RFC if we are unable to come to agreement. What seems unacceptable to me is that every disagreement should immediately be met with unsupported allegations and personal attacks.
    • I respectfully request that this discussion be closed immediately with a warning to 67 to abide by WP:NPA and WP:GF. Respect and civility are not merely guidelines, but policy. They are part of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. I've been a contributor here for over a year, working in good faith to improve the content of the encyclopedia and trying to follow the rules. I have never been blocked or even warned. I deserve to be allowed to edit in peace without personal attacks.

    Formerly 98 (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    These were neither uncivil comments nor personal attacks. Rather, the IP violated AGF quite blatantly. This was bad, of course, but it wasn't a proper basis for removal of their comments. Their comments should be restored and Formerly98 should be warned not to edit other editor's comments in these types of circumstances. The IP should be warned not to jump to easy conclusions about their fellow editors' motivations. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy to discuss my behavior with the community and I respect and appreciate Dr. Fleishman's opinion in particular. However,
    • WP:NPA defines personal attacks as including "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence."
    • 67's accusation was a serious one: "t's clear that the user is deliberately misinterpreting this and other policies in order to remove criticism from corporate articles." He presented no evidence in support of this accusation other than diffs of some edits he disagreed with. Yes, this was a presentation of evidence, but not of serious evidence. At some point the point needs to be made that "disagrees with me" is not evidence of COI or ill intent, and that making serious accusations based on "he disagreed with me" arguments is not acceptable.
    • Even accepting Dr. F's premise that this was a WP:GF violation and not a WP:NPA violation, it is difficult to understand why he thinks it should be restored. (67 has already restored it). In either case it is a violation and at a minimum, 67 should be asked to strike
    I am trying my best to deal with a difficult situation in a way that is respectful of the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. There is a cadre of editors here with whom I have frequent content disputes, who respond to every difference of opinion with accusations of COI and bad faith editing. I have not responded in kind. Their accusations were recently reviewed here at ANI and dismissed. I request that the decision at the ANI board be respected and that I be allowed to edit without continuously being required to address the same unsupported allegations over and over again.
    Respectfully, Formerly 98 (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll note that I did present evidence for the accusation in the form of a diff, etc. It seems that the real problem is that I chose the wrong forum to raise my concerns. I would be glad to correct this in the RSN discussion per my reply to Alexbrn, above, and raise my conduct concerns elsewhere at a later time.
    Also, I hope it is not the policy of Wikipedia administrators to grant any user a "free pass" for future scrutiny of their behavior. It would seem like the frequent complaints about Formerly 98's behavior indicate if anything a need for greater, not lesser, oversight. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I noted above, I am as concerned about your editing style as you are about mine, but have not made any assumptions or accusations regarding what motivates you. You are unhappy with my edits, but this is a content dispute which I believe can be handled by good faith negotiations, and if necessary, and RFC or two. There are good reasons for the rules WP:GF and WP:NPA, as comments about the editor rather than debating content and sources is usually energy intensive and non-productive. I respectfully request that you strike your comments on the reliable sources board (which I have not re-reverted) and discuss specific concerns on the Talk pages of the articles in question. It is very difficult for me to provide a specific response to a broad accusation such as "Formerly 98 is a POV editor who is misusing the sourcing rules". thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Formerly98, the ANI concluded that no action was necessary at the time. That is not a statement about your future editing, or about your history, but only about the specific diffs brought to the noticeboard. There exists no policy to support your request that you "be allowed to edit without continuously being required to address the same unsupported allegations over and over again" based on a past ANI. No one is immune from scrutiny. To attain NPOV takes a village. Welcome the feedback - this is fodder for a more well-rounded editor. No human is perfectly neutral. You shared with me (on Gandy's talk page) that you are very closely connected to the pharmaceutical industry; it seems possible that you may have a blind spot regarding your own POV in that area. As I stated previously, your edits could be described as nothing short of "spindoctoring on steroids". I've never seen anything like it since I've been here. I see why it would be desirable, but I highly doubt that you will be 'left alone' unless a more neutral editing style is attained (and perhaps things have changed, I am referring to edits in May/June 2014). Thank you for hearing me out. petrarchan47tc 06:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    P, I think the problem here is that bias is in the eye of the beholder. Your suggestions that
    • That my editing style is not "neutral"
    • That my that edits could be described as nothing less than "spin doctoring on steroids"
    • That I have a "blind spot regarding my own biases
    Are all based in your implicit definition of your own POV as "neutral" and assumption that the "bias" of others can be measured by the extent to which their point of view differs from your own. I'm sure that if you think about it, you will recognize how indefensible such a definition is. I am also sure that upon further reflection, you will understand how inappropriate it is to attempt to use the ANI process to deal with differences of opinion. Rather we discuss, and compromise on the article Talk page. There are no Thought Crimes at Wikipedia. Thanks, Formerly 98 (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You work in the pharma industry. You should probably be editing articles outside of this realm so that your contributions are more neutral. A strong passion either way can make NPOV impossible. I am not surprised that I continue to see you at this noticeboard. Your "blind spot" is evident with every response you make. It's worrisome. petrarchan47tc 17:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that it should actually matter, but I haven't worked for a pharmaceutical company for close to a decade. In any case it would only be a COI if I wrote about a current employer. Following your line of reasoning to its natural conclusion, we would not allow doctors to write about surgical procedures or the diagnosis of illness. Expertise is not the same thing as COI.
    Please think about what I said. Disagreeing with your POV is not evidence of COI or "biased editing". It is instead a sign of the diversity that makes Wikipedia effective. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The legal threat was retracted. I'm closing this thread before the bickering gets further out of hand. Certain users would do well to read WP:NPA and WP:NLT. Non-admin closure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I had a content dispute with this editor but I do not think that the legal threat posted on their talk page by Wakanebe Wizard is appropriate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also worthy of note is that Shhhhwwww!! has posted a retirement notice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, please, I am not threatening him/her but I'm just leave some note to remind him/her to become more cautious of his/her disruptive editing. Wakanebe Wizard (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote "I will forgive you at this time but I will not hesitate to take any legal actions on you in the near future if you continue to doing any WP:DISRUPTIVE editing . . ." which reads as a legal threat to me. I encourage you to withdraw the threat, Wakanebe Wizard. It isn't allowed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I will retract that words. Apologise to you as well to the editor. I'm actually never intend to be involved in any dispute with other editors. Once again, forgive me. Wakanebe Wizard (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wakanebe Wizard has blanked the comment in question, with my thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst we're discussing Wizard can someone strip his rollback considering the edit warring hes involved in? Corporal Applegate (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Better yet can we agree on a consensus to community ban Wizard entirely for threatening legal action, biting a newbie and abusing his tools and being a jerk? Corporal Applegate (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are you? A sockpuppet of Shhhhwwww!!? Biting a newbie? Are you sure that Shhhhwwww!! is still a newbie? And who are you to calling someone a "jerk"? This is more like a personal attack to me. Wakanebe Wizard (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Corporal Applegate, since the problem has been remedied, please supply some diffs that back up your proposal to take further action. Liz Read! Talk! 12:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wakanebe Wizard I was calling you a jerk but am sorry I offended you and take it back. Im not a sockpuppet of Shhhhwwww!! but I do stand by my allegation you were biting a newcomer and considering you did the same albeit less severely to me I request that you do not contact me again. In return I will do the same. Corporal Applegate (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This, this and this are enough in my opinion to justify further action. Corporal Applegate (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah? Now who is the one should been called "jerk" for? You are not just lying to me but to the whole Wikipedia communities. Like people said "What goes around comes around". I trust with that principe. Wakanebe Wizard (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Talk page harassment by User:Mabelina

    CLOSED
    After some encouraging advice on their Talk page, this seems to be revolved. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Mabelina is continuing to harass me on my talk page. She has not only refused to respect my formal request that she does not make any direct contact with me in this way but she has also restored comments she made which I had already removed. This is completely unacceptable and I request that appropriate action be taken. Her behaviour is both harassment and stalking. Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mabelina is now continuing her pattern of seeking support from other editors on their talk pages and also making derogatory comments about editors she has some bee in her bonnet about. All of this needs to stop. Afterwriting (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Afterwriting, please provide some diffs that support your claims so admins will not have to search for them. Liz Read! Talk! 12:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know how to create diffs. The evidence is easily found in Mabelina's recent editing history and on my talk page. Afterwriting (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a reminder at User:Mabelina's talk page. Perhaps this is all that is needed. JodyB talk 12:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Afterwriting, it's very simple, a diff is just a link to an edit that you find problematic. Go to the page history to find the edit in question and then the diff would look like [PutURLHere description of problem edit]. See Help:Diff for more guidance. But perhaps JodyB's message will be sufficient. Liz Read! Talk! 13:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continued ignorance of policies/guidelines by User:MaranoFan

    Before I begin, I must admit that I have not handled this in the best of ways, and would not be surprised if a partial boomerang occurs and I end up with a block for some of my recent actions.

    Simply put, MaranoFan is a diva and a problem editor. I'm sure several editors will agree with me that this editor has been stirring up a lot of unnecessary drama at various locations since late last year. That may sound harsh, but I (and others) have made many attempts to assume good faith, but there comes a point when someone simply becomes too stubborn to collaborate with. I could list a number of problems with his/her editing, but I'll save everyone the time and just get to the main issue at hand:

    Willful ignorance of policies and guidelines, mainly in regards to non-free file uploads. A month ago, s/he was blocked for repeated problematic uploads – specifically, replacing JPGs with PNGs when there is no difference in the files beyond a different format and a larger file size, and not tagging orphaned files for deletion, despite multiple warnings from other editors. These warnings were typically responded to by blanking and imposing userspace bans.
    Eventually, MaranoFan stopped trying to fight the block and agreed to serve it out, without demonstrating an understanding of what led to this block. Now that they are returning to similar behavior (uploading non-free album covers at an arbitrary size of 300x300 px, even if this makes file size and/or dimensions larger – violating WP:NFCC#3b – or if the cover was not originally a perfect square, or both), it's apparent they're just going to continue on with their ways until they end up blocked again.
    Not that this applies exclusively to file uploads. Here, s/he restores an unhelpful acronym dab for a subject not known by its acronym after being made aware of WP:DABACRONYM. As noted, attempts to discuss on their talk page are usually blanked with some sort of "bully"/"stalker" name-calling.

    My recommended course of action, since this user is clearly going to ignore temporary blocks and edit however they wish without regards to policies and guidelines, is to indefinitely block him/her until s/he agrees to a topic ban from non-free files (both uploading them and altering their use in articles). –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins, see discussion at User_talk:Only#Frequent_removal which was brought to my page in the last 24 hours. I've sent the discussion here because I'm not looking to get heavily involved in this on-going drama. I hope others are willing to look into this and take action. I think all three users (Chasewc91, MaranoFan, and Winkelvi) are disrupting the project with edit wars and personal attack-laced debates across multiple pages and action must be taken to prevent further disruption. only (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remember that blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. I have acknowledged that some of my recent behavior (namely, the warring with MF) was in the wrong, and I have also stopped it. I brought this here to sort this out so that hopefully no further action will be necessary (including for MF, should s/he properly address the problematic behavior). At the moment, I do not see how MF's continued ignorance of P&G can be prevented without a block. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non admin comment: I would strongly suggest an interaction ban between all three users involved (MF, Wink, and Chase). They clearly don't want to play nice with each other. -- Calidum 16:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, the problem is between myself/MF and WV/MF – WV and I have no problems with one another. Second of all, the problems I have with MF (I cannot speak for WV) stem from MF's inability to accept criticism of their edits or abide to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Anytime any editor has a problem with MF's edits, s/he is quick to cry "bully!" and announce bans from their talk page. Imposing interaction bans for attempting to correct MF's errors is going to send us all down a slippery slope where MF will exaggerate any conflict with any user, which will in turn require interaction bans for anyone who doesn't edit to his/her liking if we're going to follow such a precedent. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose IB proposed by Calidum. The facts show otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support interaction ban between Chasewc91 and MaranoFan as well as ban between MaranoFan and Winkelvi. Nothing to warrant a ban between Winkelvi and Chasewc91, though. We don't need anymore arguments between them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose your proposed IB per WP:HA#NOT. When one looks at the history in depth, the problem is MaranoFan, not these other editors. I admit this has not been easy to see, considering that I supported your proposal in the recent past. However, it has become clear over time that MaranoFan isn't willing to conform to what's expected of him. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Viriditas. While I admittedly have not handled my own behavior in the best way in my interactions with MF, the root problem is their inability to edit according to guidelines. To restrict me and WV from cleaning up after MF when s/he edits contrary to P&G would harm, not help, the encyclopedia. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, I'll withdraw my initial idea and limit it to a interaction ban between MaranoFan and Winkelvi. -- Calidum 23:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that necessary? Why can't we just deal with the problem under discussion? I don't see how Winkelvi has contributed to the current situation. The solution here does not involve any kind of IB, so I wish other editors would stop bringing that up. I think this is a case of "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". No hammer is required here. MaranoFan has a problem that does not involve anyone else. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is. If you think more needs to be done sanction MaranoFan, that's fine. But that doesn't excuse Winkelvi for the actions he's taken. This recent edit war is just one example. -- Calidum 03:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that you participated in the RfC on the talk page and voted in favor of MaranoFan's image choice (and against Winkelvi), as well as participating in a very minor "hatting" war on the talk page, you may not be the most neutral party here. In other words, you are involved in a content dispute with Winkelvi, and may be proposing this IB to gain an upper hand. I don't think Winkelvi should edit war, and I believe he should try to hold himself to 1RR, but that has little to do with the problem under discussion. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Glad you think so highly of me. I previously backed Winkelvi when he filed an SPI against MaranoFan and defended him in a related thread here. -- Calidum

    • Comment As Chasewc91 pointed out at the beginning of the AN/I and Viriditas also noted, MaranoFan has a definite problem working with other editors and following guidelines and policies. None of us are perfect, but I think a quick once-over of the history of MFs edits, edit wars, talk-page postings (on others' userspace as well as his own), and various other questionable actions (listed above by Chasewc91) gives a complete picture: something needs to be done about his attitude and approach. He just came off a month-long block and is already back at AN/I? That's the sign of something more than the usual "doesn't understand Wikipedia", in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-admin comment: (edit conflict) There are a lot of things that I noticed when going through this discussion. I realised that MaranoFan disliked people calling him/her "MF", but it seems like nobody gives a damn about that here. MaranoFan tend to call just anyone a "bully" and used the term "wikihounding" incorrectly. Replacing JPEG files with PNG files are common, but the users usually change the file to 300px (if it can be) and upload the new one with a lower file size, before removing the old one and replacing it at the article. This one misconception is that users tend to use the {{db-f1}} template, but they are just supposed to tag the original JPEG file as orphaned. I can name you editors who do that, including me, but I will just not waste time. I think the interaction ban is a great idea, as I do not think Chase would want to meet with this editor anymore. MaranoFan is a really troublemaker editor. S/he tells people to "assume good faith" when s/he him/herself does not do that, and even calling Chase's action as "vandalism". Such hypocritical acts cannot be tolerated, regardless of gender, religion or size. However, Chase might really have been wikihounding MaranoFan too, or it just turned up to be pure coincidences that Chase just kept bumping into MaranoFan. MaranoFan also asked at my talk page, regarding on whether a website is a reliable source. This shows that the user might be gradually improving on his/her demeanour, which serves as great news for us. Please ping me if any of you replied to this comment. Thanks, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 03:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. We are just going to be back here in a month. If there's no consensus for a block, which I would support, then what about preventing the problem, such as a ban on image uploads and image editing? Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a supporter of draconian solutions such as topic or interaction-type bans, but I think in this case -- since the editor has apparently bolted, isn't taking part in this discussion, and refuses to change his behavior -- it's about all that can happen. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • MaranoFan has been a problem editor for a long time, that much is clear. Interaction bans are typically more trouble than they're worth. As far as I'm concerned (since we don't do "preventative" blocks) one could decide if MaranoFan should be blocked indefinitely for a battleground attitude and for, frankly, lacking the competence required to edit here. But if they're really on some sort of a break right now (first time I heard of that--Bishzilla, a javascript pocket?), what's the point of it? Or did this break start while this was going on? Drmies (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, the "break" started not long after this report was filed. Which is interesting to me, because I thought it strange he was able to come up with the script so quickly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please help me how to protect myself from INSULTS of others users while editing

    Appears to be a simple misunderstanding, rest of this can be resolved elsewhere. Quinto Simmaco with the best of respect, I hope to never come across you here again either :P Mdann52 (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Respected Sir, I am very much new in this wikipedia , First I have done a page of my favourite author mr. Kishalay Bhattacharjee with other members help, and they were so helping and kind to me that I got inspiration to write the second topic of my favourite book, Che in paona bazaar as I have bought the book through online, so I gave the link to other readers to get the book easily, there was no other bad intentions of mine. And the entire thing was written by me only, But Sir, I got mail from one of other member who was taken initiative to edit the materials, He/She wrote me as harsh as possible that my parents also never speak to me that much of rudeness. His wikipedia id is: Quinto Simmaco , And he attacked me directly by accusing as publisher or author, secondly, he/she insulted me that I might have copied the whole writings from the back cover of the book , Without reading the book how he could be insulting me like this ?

    I wrote him/her that entire writing was mine only, and I hardly know the author of the book... I requested you to help me in writings not to insult me like this, though I thanked him/her for such a ruthless behaviour. Then he/her deleted all his/her conversations from talk page immediately. I am requesting you to eye on and take a step against these kind of harmful wikipedia users, for them We the newer users can get psychological problems. Thank You Sincerely Yours, Gargi

    Gargi 17:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choudhury.gargi (talk • contribs)

    Are you asking to block e-mail access from other users? If so, you can disable your e-mail in your preferences. Epic Genius (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he's referring to this. Does that seem like an attempt to make someone out themselves or am I mistaken? Also, no need to be so formal here, my good sir. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 24 Adar 5775 17:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see he means a talk page message, my dear sir.

    Anyway, removing talk page posts is allowed per talk page guidelines, but outing a Wikipedia editor requires administrator or oversight revision suppression. The talk page post seems to be a conflict-of-interest warning, since uploading an image of the book's cover to Commons under the rationale "own work" is only applicable if the author and this editor are one and the same. Since Choudhury.gargi does not claim to be the author, that assumption is mistaken and the image on Commons should be immediately deleted as a copyright violation. Epic Genius (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ha, sorry, the no need to be formal was directed at the OP, probably should have used proper indentation. I've informed Quinto on his talk page. I think that going by AGF, the putting it as his own work was an accident and would be incorrect anyway as it would be the publisher's copyright for the actual book cover. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 24 Adar 5775 17:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is no longer on the Commons; it's here, and it's now appropriately tagged for fair use. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Choudhury.gargi:: Please accept our apologies for the behaviour that you found as insulting. Obviously there's some cultural differences here that are at least partially responsible for the problem. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just received the notice, so apologies for my lateness here. I had asked if the user was either the author or someone working for him, due to the overly promotional material (including the earlier version of the article where the only two citations were links to buy the book), his edit history, and that the author's photo is apparently one taken or owned by him as per the usage rights on the Commons. I understand that editors with a COI are only encouraged that they disclose their identity (and not required), unless they are a paid editor. Given the user's possible attempt to sell the book prior on the article, the heavy promotion, etc... I was concerned that aside from COI or paid editorship, there may also be a copyvio. I could have been more diplomatic, and assumed good faith, but at that point, I thought there were too many issues. You may look at my response to the user at the take page, and all relevant edit histories. I asked for the advice of two far more experienced editors (Huon and Lixxx) as to how to proceed to avoid any missteps. I asked them to take over the situation. I'm unfamiliar with copyvio and BLP, so I wanted to step back. MY only interest was solving these potential issues, but given their complexity, it's a bit beyond me. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have checked for copy vio, and the current revision is fine. Revision 651477187 has some unattributed copying from The Sunday Indian, so I have done some rev-deletion. The earlier version of the article before Huon's re-write was indeed overly promotional. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that Diannaa. Thank you. :) As you can see in my reply to the editor (on my talk page), I explained who I was, what my intentions were when asking him about the possible issues, and I apologised for any possible misunderstanding. And that I was stepping back. I really do think this may have been a misunderstanding either cuturally and/or about attempts to have the article conform to policy. Huon,, as you indicated, has apparently rewritten the article to comply with Wikipedia standards and avoid copyvio; something which I had offered to do myself. Please, if I did something wrong, let me know. I think I was civil, and I know I'm allowed to ask if there is a conflict of interest or paid editorship... Though in the former case, they're not required to answer. As I said, I apologised for any perceived "insult", as the editor claimed. And I washed my hands of it. I was surprised to see my name appear here. I spend most of my time here on Wikipedia welcoming new users and helping them to learn to edit (especially as a helper on irc), and had never encountered a possible copyvio or BLP issue (I didn't even check the article, but an uninvolved editor told me there were issues there). I'm happy to distance myself from this, and even apologise again for any misunderstanding. But I'd also prefer to avoid any missteps, though I tried to do so here in this case. So please, let me know how I can approach such a situation in the future. I was told that if talking to the user failed, I could report it to COIN or contact an admin, which was my first inclination. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have viewed / repaired a large number of Indian articles in the course of my copy vio work, and one thing I have noticed is that all the villages are famous, and all the movies are super smash blockbuster hits. Spend some time reading the articles and sources, and you will see what I mean. Even if they are not a paid editor, new editors from India will have trouble adapting to our environment and grasping the concept of how to write a neutrally-worded article, because of the difference in the way even reliable top-tier newspapers are worded. There's also some unexpected differences in the way people speak to each other, what is insulting and what is not. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy to understand given how diverse India is. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 24 Adar 5775 18:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually know this quite well. Heh. I'm usually the "third shift" helper in irc, due to my insomnia. In the early hours of the morning, of course, it's actually daytime there due to the time differential. So the vast majority of the people I help in irc, and those who post help requests on their users pages, are Indian or Pakistani. Mostly organisations and CEOs trying to promote themselves; apparently, English Wikipedia is thought a bit of as a directory for who and/or what has "arrived". Notability and reliable sources are almost always the issue at stake. A small minority of them do meet the criteria. Of course, I'm willing to help any and all, and try to encourage them to stick around and contribute constructively, even if I know their article doesn't have the independent, secondary sources to support inclusion. Perhaps I should have just tried to be more clear and concise, or bluelinked more of the relevant policies into what I was saying... Honestly, AN/I seems like a bit of a scary place. Nice as all of you are, I'd rather not be back here again. But I'd still like to try to make sure the articles are up to snuff. I guess it's necessarily a precarious proposition? Quinto Simmaco (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have the data to back this up but I think that providing a commercial external link is a common mistake for new editors and they do not view it as promotional so much as directing interested readers to where they can purchase a copy of the work or find more information at a fansite. It's an opportunity to educate them, I think. I wouldn't jump the judgment that there is some deep COI, just a misunderstanding that in their attempt to be "helpful", it is not appropriate in this context. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. There was some confusion, mainly due to differences in communication, because the OP was from India and most of the rest of us are not. Epic Genius (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be a bit more than that. I was ready to simply chalk it up to that (despite some lingering but moot suspicions), but... Someone who saw this brought this to my attention: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/webmasters/zIDKGyYPSQU/JH8pw7bvWL8J … and this: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!category-topic/webmasters/o9e_FvSuUw4 What started me down this rabbit hole in the first place was in part the suspicion that the user took the author's picture on the article about the author (and thus knew them), and was intentionally trying to promote sales of the book. But as I said, this is beyond my ken, and I'm happy to wash my hands of this. I figure you guys know how to follow this sort of labyrinth, if there's anything to it, and you were so inclined. But I'd be remiss if there was actually something, and I didn't bring it to your attention. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for digging that up. I have placed a COI template on his user talk. I would not be surprised if he abandons the account. We shall see -- Diannaa (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Thank you for following up on it. You all enjoy your evening (or day, as it were). Quinto Simmaco (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing by IP 189.7.227.232

    Sent to WP:AIV. Amortias (T)(C) 18:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The IP has been persistently adding unsourced (and often questionable) information to several gang articles. IP has been reverted by multiple editors and been given several warnings[172]. This diff is a good example [173]. IP hasn't responded to a single warning, not left a single edit summary. Closest thing to a response was an attempt to vandalize my user page [174] Niteshift36 (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Links: 189.7.227.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) --IJBall (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thrown to WP:AIV for whats usually a quicker response to pure vandalism. Amortias (T)(C) 18:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Morty Smith 2.0

    Blocked and Talk page revoked. Amortias (T)(C) 21:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Obviously a personal attack only account. WP:DENY may also apply. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed his talk page access as he was plainly abusing it after being blocked. Davewild (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    109.151.127.186

    IP blocked for 31 hours by Davewild. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 21:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I recently reverted some edits to Spike and Tyke (characters) that appeared to be vandalism—changing cartoon titles like "Heavenly Puss" to "Pussy PUSSY", etc. I also deleted some sections listing unsourced trivia and catchphrases and removed some unsupported fields from one of the infoboxes 109.151.127.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (who I don't think made the original questionable changes) has been blindly reverting these edits, giving me "warnings" about "removeing good text," and deleting any comments I make on their talk page. Would someone care to intervene? Trivialist (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    trivialist is doing a bad job this is uncalled for lets just forget the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.127.186 (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I not a admin so I can,t block this ip but in my view I say the ip needs blocking trivialist is being bullyed by this ip. does anyone back up what I think?.

    --Iniced (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment)The IP is a bit of a funny vandal, but he's still a vandal, unfortunately. Someone should make him go poof. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 24 Adar 5775 20:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked them for 31 hours for vandalism, not here to sensibly contribute. Davewild (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Iniced:: I didn't feel particularly bullied, but thanks for your concern. :) Trivialist (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Err, we may need help on his talk page.... [175] -- Orduin Discuss 20:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BLANKING I don't see why they can't blank the talk page, though the personal attack in the edit summary was uncalled for. Davewild (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, it just says that they cannot remove declined unblock requests. -- Orduin Discuss 21:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, really? Sorry, had no idea... I'll leave it be. The guard kitten I left there seems to have scared him off though. Must be an ailurophobe. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 24 Adar 5775 21:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope sorry -- Orduin Discuss 21:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Better keep an eye on him when the block expires though. -- Orduin Discuss 21:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Interaction ban request

    Respectfully,
    • The IBan discussion was 11 months & 11 days ago,
    • An editor can ban another editor from their talk page, and,
    • The diff you provided is not, by itself, evidence of WP:HOUND.
    If you have recent evidence showing hounding, please provide diffs. Otherwise, it does seem to be a content dispute. Regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not disputing when the original IBAN discussion took place, nor am I disputing banning someone from a user talk page (I have done that myself, but only in rare occasions; plus, when I do that, I certainly have no interest in further conversing with the user elsewhere). And true, the diff taken by itself may not look like hounding on the surface, but in conjunction with the other diffs I posted, it is. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User: SPIKE SPIKE BAD (again)

    USER BLOCKED
    User indef blocked for Disruptive editing by Davewild. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There has been a previous ANI discussion about User: SPIKE SPIKE BAD here- it was effectively ended because they claimed to have retired. However, this user is now back, and their conduct doesn't seem to have improved.

    He claims to have uncurated one of my edits 1, without giving reason for it. Doesn't look like it was actually uncurated either.
    Attacks on User talk:Maruff: 1, 2, 3.
    Strange replies on User talk:Vanessa Shoshaj: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

    Given that the user admitted to abusing multiple accounts in the [previous discussion, I believe that they should be blocked. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, the userpage Vanessa Shoshaj was an attack page (speedily deleted by RHaworth), including accusations of being a sex worker. These "reviews" were entirely inappropriate. This user is NOTHERE. Recommend indef block. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 13:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Links: SPIKE SPIKE BAD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've revdelled part of the history of the User:Vanessa Shoshaj talk page as continuing the allegations on the now deleted article Vanessa Shoshaj and I suspect that this user might be SSB anyway. Peridon (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) An indef block definitely seems to be warranted here. This is certainly a WP:NOTHERE case. --IJBall (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked them indefinitely for persistently disruptive behaviour. Davewild (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Creambreek, sockpuppet of LTA Sju hav

    is currently making a lot of low quality WW II related edits to German Red Cross. The edits include copyvio/close paraphrasing from this article (and probably other sources). He is already under sockpuppet investigation and CU has confirmed sock puppetry, but closing and blocking of the accounts has stalled pending further CU checks. Iselilja (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Links: Creambreek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Frequently incompetent editor promotes himself to page maintainer

    Non-admin closure by OP, issue seems resolved, discussion seems off-topic Choor monster (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Winkelvi (talk · contribs) proved to be a frequently incompetent editor on Helen Hooven Santmyer, and worse, usually edit-warred first, Talk-paged second on matters that he clearly knew nothing about.

    • He deleted biographical details on the grounds they were "trivia", when in fact they were significant details that Santmyer incorporated into her fiction in a major, unforgettable way.
    • He rewrote prose, changing the meaning into versions that went beyond the sources, or worse, contradicted the sources.
    • He even claimed to have never read the online linked-to NYT obituary—the utter bare minimum reading even the laziest of those claiming knowledge about HHS have read—as a not very plausible defense against plagiarism.

    These are all in Talk:Helen Hooven Santmyer/Archive 1, and the Edit Summaries. I wish to emphasize he made many good edits along the way, removing puffery, finding the right words, and so on, but overall these were at the level of copy-editing skills, not expert knowledge on HHS or any of the sources. And worse, he preferred to revert/edit-war first, ask questions later over anything which he couldn't figure out its greater purpose, rather than ask first.

    There is also history. WV has the atrocious habit of mini-WP:HOUNDING editors who cross him, finding one (and only one) article and then locking on, just so he can Template their Talk page and more. So far as I can tell, that is WV's only interest in HHS. About two months ago, WV received his second edit-war ban, and more or less swore off of interacting with people he edit-warred with, at which point he stopped editing HHS. Now he has added his name to the maintained-by Template on Talk:Helen Hooven Santmyer, in open contradiction to the documentation for Template:Maintained.

    More precise links will be added upon request, but as usual, it's extremely boring.

    Incidentally, there has recently been a discussion on Template talk:Maintained to delete this Template, just because of this sort of issue. Choor monster (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The same sort of issue on Bobbi Kristina Brown. I it's a good thing he has taken charge of the article improvement, but it really does start to feel like ownership and then there comes to maintained template with an edit summary of "+". I think Template:Maintained needs deleted honestly, unrelated to WV. Or maybe a rewording of some form. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Maintained/doc specifically rules out articles subject to POV-controversies. That could be broadened, like requiring consensus, but yes, WV has obnoxiously self-nominated himself in other articles for maintainance in the past. And yes, it does look like deletion is the way to go. Choor monster (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Template:Maintained. Now this discussion should focus back on the editors behavior, and template discussion should happen over there. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a case of an editor wearing his disability like a badge and expecting special treatment? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    By which you mean this? I don't know, but this discussion reminds me of this monster from a few weeks ago. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not "good with vagueries or ambiguities" but then violates one of the clearest rules in the book (3RR). Hmm okkk EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing by Timothyhouse1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    This user keeps posting false information in the Time Crisis (series) pages and he did the same on the Time Crisis page several months, if not years ago. I'm absolutely certain they're the same person as both seem to love to edit/vandalize pages about Singapore stuff like transports and such. The false information include imaginary ports/remakes of games to console on imaginary release dates, all without sources. If you also take a look at his talk page you'll notice that it's full of people complaining about his edits, including myself.

    Sorry for how i've written the report but it's the very first one for me. I was redirected here by another editor after i posted it in the wrong section (for vandalism). All those commands are still too obscure for me. I just hope that you take severe actions against this person.82.56.4.21 (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) You neglected to do something, IP:


    I did that, however. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, something else is odd here, considering an IP's very first edit is an ANI thread. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, like i said, i'm a noob at using Wikipedia for reporting people. I think he's not going to get the message, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.56.4.21 (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • The IP makes a good revert here, but I don't see any reason for an ANI thread. IP editor, you're not so new that you can't find your way to ANI immediately; what you should have found first is that editor's talk page. Now, if you can present some evidence of this age-old pattern of disruptive behavior, produce it--if you can't, well, look up WP:BOOMERANG. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, i'm not so "new", i've done small edits for years, but when it comes to report problems, i AM new. I did find the spammer's talk page, though. I am CERTAIN the guy from years ago was from Singapore, and the new guy is also from Singapore. Look here, it's the same nonsense: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time_Crisis&diff=593233833&oldid=583781837 (search for "Remake" and "Soundtrack"), then search for the recent edits in the Time Crisis (series) page. That guy is also blocked, under the same username, on other wikis. Sorry again for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.64.100 (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User repeatedly adding unsourced lists of samples to album articles

    Madvillain2009 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly adding unsourced lists of samples to album articles. Even after I warned him not to add unsourced content ([176][177][178]) and some other users also tried to stop him from adding unsourced content to album articles or BLP articles ([179][180][181][182][183][184][185]), he keeps adding unsourced material ([186][187][188][189][190]). I'm not sure if he is the same person as Madvillain2010 (talk · contribs) or Madvillain2012 (talk · contribs), but I believe it is time to seek administrator intervention for Madvillain2009's lack of understanding of Wikipedia:Verifiability. 114.150.49.100 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor on a reversion/spam spree

    Can some admin review the recent edits of Gamera1123, who seems to be on a reversion/spam spree? Posting without attempting prior discussion with user, because the fast pace of edits may require a quick response. @Ohnoitsjamie:. Abecedare (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note:User:Drmies has blocked the user (don't know if they saw this report or not). The edits need to be reviewed to see if a mass-rollback is required. Abecedare (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Temporary block applied: 48 hours while we figure out if this is a kind of sock of User:Factsearch (those edits looked eerily familiar!) or if there's something else going on, like someone just hating on Ohnoitsjamie. Factsearch didn't care for whales, nor did Gamera seem to care for energy companies and policy. Note that I rolled back a number of their edits but not all of them--I stopped before I got to the whales, I think. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I can tell on their talk page, they were given a warning regarding their addition of external links which might have set this revert spree in motion. I've rolled back a handful of the reverts as well. Nakon 01:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question is, how did this go on for so long without attracting attention by any of those vandal-fighting RC patrollers that have their automatic Twinkle weapons locked and loaded constantly? Don't they see someone reverting the edits of someone older than Methusalem without edit summary? Nakon, thanks--it may have been this one that Ohnoitsjamie saw and reverted. Anyway, I strongly urge Gamera1123 to start talking (on their talk page): please explain what's going on. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the account was compromised. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm always suspicious when I see any user canvassing links to some sort of atlas/almanac/area code page. Apparently I struck a nerve when I reverted a few link additions from Gamera1123 that looked spammy. I highly doubt this is related to User:Factsearch or Bignewsnetwork; it looks like they were just reverting all edits of mine where mine was the most recent. Given how pointy and time-wasteful Gamera's edits have been, I think 48 hours should be extended to indef. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Collect

    Querulous complaint remitted to AfD and WP:DR if the OP refuses to drop the stick after that. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User Collect has been involved in a very lengthy conflict (going on for more than a month now) over the article Project for the New American Century. Recently, this dispute has spilled over into other articles as well, most notably this spin-off list article and the resulting AFD discussion. It's been a long, messy, and complex debate so I could write a novel here, but I'll try to keep this as concise as I can: if more context/evidence is needed I can produce it.

    Misrepresentation of Others' Position/Arguments/Actions: In this edit on Jimmy Wale's talk page, about the list article, Collect recently stated that "the group pushing this" (by which he apparently means myself, Ubikwit, MrX, and Jbhunley) had "brought me to a bunch of drama-boards for being 'obstinate,'" and that "I got a block for standing on this." Both statements are falsehoods. I had made one post to NPOVN here shortly after my first entry into the debate over the PNAC article. All of the other "drama board" posts about the article (that I'm aware of) have been created by Collect: see this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one. Collect was also the one who made the report that resulted in his block, which was for edit warring, not for "taking a stand".

    He has also charged the same group of editors with supporting the creation of the list article. This is untrue in both myself and Mr. X's case, I'm not sure about Ubikwit. More importantly, however, Collect also charged all four of us with "preferring" this this old version of the article, repeating that charge here. This is a willful misrepresentation of all four editors edits and ideas:

    • My first edit to the PNAC article characterized it as "a bit of a mess," and I have put significant effort into improving the article from its original state in the past few weeks, removing much of the content that Collect that Collect also opposed, but which he has now claimed that I support adding to the article. Collect knows this - since he thanked me for my edits.
    • As Mr X has correctly pointed out, he had no role in creating the list article, and has never edited it. His involvement has been limited to his response to this request at BLP/N, providing comments and evidence that he thought might be helpful.
    • JBH also objected to Collect's characterization of his position, and Collect's quoting him out of context without a ping or notification of any kind. JBH has also pointed out that Collect has compared the creation of the article to promoting a conspiracy theory, and implying support for McCarthyism here. Like me and Mr X, JBH also noted that his first involvement with the PNAC article took place nearly a month later than the version which Collect has claimed all four of us "prefer."
    • Ubikwit also pointed out that the list had been in the main PNAC article for years.

    All four of the editors that Collect misrepresented (without even informing us of the discussion) have asked him to retract his false/misleading statements and apologize. He has refused, responding with posts like this, and this.

    Other Incidents: The above is just the most recent event in the dispute over the PNAC article were I believe that Collect has acted in bad faith, and failed to listen to reason, or been uncivil. I could point to many other examples, such as seeking backup on unrelated talk pages without informing involved parties, his practice of adding more of the content that he objects to in order to make a point: (here and here and here) and his refusal to respond to or acknowledge arguments (or just simple questions) that are earnestly presented to him - some of which I detailed at length in this post over at BLP/N.

    Vague Aspersions: I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that while Collect rarely makes an outright accusation (he's very careful with his words), he has kept up a steady drumbeat of comments and edit summaries which backhandedly imply that his opponents are promoting anti-semitism, conspiracy theories, or McCarthy-style "guilt by association." Some examples: [191][192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204].

    I've asked him to stop doing this repeatedly, here, and here, for example, as have others. He has refused to acknowledge that his insinuations are an issue and continues to make them constantly.

    Full Disclosure (Collect and I have argued a lot): Finally, in the interests of full disclosure, I have taken Collect to task several times for what I perceived as unacceptable behavior. He is likely to suggest that I'm harassing or hounding him here, and I want to stress that I have nothing to hide. I have told him in no uncertain terms what I think of his behavior here, and here, and engaged in an ill-advised debate about what is/isn't FRINGE and and reliable source here. I also mistakenly accused him of sockpuppetry here, which I promptly apologized for here once I realized I was wrong.

    Thank you all for your time, sorry this was so long. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse - Fyddlestix's general characterization of events as well as the specifics relating to me. I will comment more tomorrow on the issues raised. Jbh (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I see no specific request for administrative action here. Personally, I have disagreed with Collect a few times openly and even more often silently, and am sometimes quite irritated by the editor's style. But never once have I doubted the editor's sincerity and commitment to upholding BLP and NPOV on this encyclopedia. Without editors like Collect, some of our more "progressive" editors would take far too much delight in pillorying conservatives in Wikipedia's voice. I am progressive in my private life but strive for NPOV here on Wikipedia. Thanks to Collect for forcing us to think seriously about real people's lives instead of simply going with the flow of conventional thinking. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Close, per Cullen328 and policy, as this thread makes no request for administrative action. In fact, Collect has been the only editor still trying to stop a huge POV-push with the PNAC list, which was worse at the beginning and which now is still being opposed by the majority of uninvolved editors. No doubt that Collect is tired from being the only editor to care about BLP issues and intellectual integrity enough to try to prevent the most egregious BLP violations and tortured misrepresentations of sources and use of shady sources [205], [206]. The solution is not to punish Collect for his delusion that he should behave like an editor of the world's most widely used reference and for the rest of us to start acting like encyclopedia editors. A sign of hope for the latter wish is the community's comments on the POV-pushing PNAC list. Dear0Dear 07:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think @Fyddlestix: is new at this and did not know that they should ask for a block or a ban from editing in a topic area or specific type or class of article for some number months or some other administrative action. As I noted above I intend to comment tomorrow and I do have specific and appropriate sanctions to request. I feel it would be inappropriate to ask for sanction before presenting my own evidence. I am, however, willing to do so if asked by an un-involved administrator - (please ping if requesting me to do this so I get a notice) I also believe, from comments on Jimbo's page, that there is another editor who might want to address Collect's behavior here. Jbh (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The timing is poor. Administrator MastCell (talk · contribs) is already discussing behavioral issues with Collect (talk · contribs) and other editors at the appropriate talk pages, and I suspect that MastCell's attention suffices. Why do you think that additional action is needed? Which action? Even if MastCell were not already quite active, a question that ANI must face is whether any action against Collect allow BLP-compliance to suffer. Dear0Dear 08:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion you refer to shows Collect once again denying the problem that many editors are telling him about. That's why this ANI is needed. To summarize: the continuing misrepresentation of other editors and his refusal to admit there's a problem. This has been going on for far too long and needs to stop. That's why there's this open ANI on Collect. It's entirely unclear, however, if Collect is purposefully engaging in personal attacks or if he has a reading comprehension problem. I'm in the middle on this question, but I'm leaning heavily to the latter. He simply doesn't seem to understand what other editors write, and this leads to the current problem under discussion. I really don't think we can block other editors for confusion, but when it borders on competence issues, that's when others start talking about a topic ban. I think if he was prevented from continuing to work on American politics article and would simply confine himself to, let's say, writing about gardening and houseplants, everything would be fine. Since the American politics topic area is under arbcom restrictions, we should be considering an enforcement action if the problematic behavior continues. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your passive-aggressive personal attacks about "reading comprehension" continue the harassment of Collect for which you were recently warned by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) [207] and by other administrators. Please let MastCell discuss issues with the relevant editors, and let MastCell come to ANI if more input is needed. Dear0Dear 08:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fyddlestix claims he and Collect have been in a lengthy argument. I would say this should be rephrased and admitted as what it is, which is that Fyddlestix doesn't agree with Collect so he's going to seek sanction against Collect. In his 1500 edits since starting in earnest last November, Fyddlestix has already filed a misguided SPI claim against Collect and has committed 20% of his edits to various venues surrounding the PNAC debate. Most annoying is the unreadable walls of text and diffs that show zero except the normal back and forth one is likely to encounter if they decide to participate in POV pushing on hotbutton topics. If this witch hunt by Fyddlestix persists, the block and or site ban should probably be leveled against Fyddlestix. Please stop seeking sanctions against those that have the right to oppose your POV pushing.--MONGO 09:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close this and let the AfD run it's course. I believe Collect is correct that a new spinout list about an organization that died out 10 years ago and statement of principles that was signed 20 years is a POV fork with BLP and NPOV issues (the controversial bullet points are basically US foreign policy now and adopted by both parties post 9/11 so list inclusion criteria are rather unworkable). It's obvious that some editors disagree but it's already playing out in AfD. This type of canvassing is not much different than the canvassing charges leveled above. --DHeyward (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The problems predate the AfD, as has been indicated above. These diffs may not represent canvassing, but they show Collect attempting to get an administrator to intervene in a content dispute.
    Collect complains about my edits at PNAC to Swarm, making unsubstantiated BLP violation claims, etc:
    1. PNAC
    2. "PNAC: FGS do something"
    3. "PNAC: and yes - he keeps on!"
    Only one other editor commented in that thread“Yup”
    --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice to see yet another drama board section-- again at no time and in no place have I called anyone here an "anti-semite" nor have I accused anyone of being a McCarthy supporter. I consider my posts - including a bunch of RfCs I initiated to be within what WP:DR actually requires. I note the AfD which arouses ire was not started by me, and (quite oddly) appears to indicate that a strong consensus of other editors agree with my view on the "list" article. The above seems, in fact, just another example, in my opinion, of misuse of the stated purpose of this notice board. I, in fact, editors here to examine the discussion at the AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_PNAC_Members_associated_with_the_Administration_of_George_W._Bush and the discussion at UT:Jimbo [208] and examine the unanimous nature of what appears to be a quite vocal and iterative minority at the AfD page. Cheers to all and Happy Saint Patrick's Day to all. Collect (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    For funsies: [209] an editor did not like the fact that a source he insists supports a particular claim, does not actually do so. Therefore the part he does not like in his own source is "clearly a mistake." Um -- if the part of a RS which does not support a claim in a BLP is "clearly a mistake" is it remotely possible that someone found the source by google-minecraft, and the source actually does not support the claim? I have this horrid and admittedly annoying habit of actual reading more than a single sentence found in a google search, and if the source clearly contradicts a claim, I do not assert that it supports the claim, but that it has a mistake when it does not do so <g>. It is a tad embarrassing when anyone points out absolute misuse of sources, no? Collect (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Anticomintern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred against two other users on Hong Kong ([210] [211] [212] [213] [214]). When warned by STSC, he replied with a legal threat [215]. More recently the user replaced the Chinese flag on China with the Nazi flag ([216]). His username also implies pro-Nazi sympathy (see Anti-Comintern Pact). The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. -Zanhe (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The legal threat is kinda irrelevant. This is a troll. Show him the door, with prejudice. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 03:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User was indef blocked about an hour ago by another admin. -- Diannaa (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nerdypunkkid

    User:Nerdypunkkid is an editor who has created a several promotional articles about non-notable or barely notable subjects. (articles created) The editor has also gone on a couple of sprees adding very spammy links to articles without any common connection (it was another editor's recent warning which brought my attention back to the problem). I think this is an undisclosed paid editor. I've tried to ask the editor about the spam a couple of times, once in October[217] during this AFD, and once again today,[218] but no response. After cleaning up Caroline Klebl I think this editor is doing more harm than good. In addition to that, there may also be sockpuppetry involved. User:SimpleBlueBlazer readded some links to the same site to the same articles just today (new:[219] old:[220]; new:[221] old:[222]). This was a couple hours after Nerdypunkkid finished his/her batch, although there was no other overlap between the two accounts. I think the promotional editing is more serious, which is why I'm taking this here. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Willy Moon

    Follow a bit of controversy on the New Sealand X-factor show the article for Willy Moon has been the subect to vandalism this has made its way to a FB page with 100,000+ fiollowers[223] can we get some more eyes watching this page Though I suspect that full protection may be a necessary option. Gnangarra 07:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) See below... Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)revdelled, nothing to see, anymore Kleuske (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Vandalism"

    Vandal blocked, talk page access revoked--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Just to let you all know that "palestine" does not exist, and I'm removing it from Wikipedia. Thank you.101.160.175.244 (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a Wikipedia article called Palestine, and it appears to be a real entity, not a hoax. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Bugs. IP has been blocked for vandalism. -- Diannaa (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP account needs its user talk page access revoked as well, as it's using it to make personal attacks. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    122.148.163.131 / Pabdelma / SweetPoet345 : disruptive, vandalism, incompetence

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

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

    SweetPoet345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Repeated attempts to create articles with insufficient competence, beginning with lack of minimum English language skills. An example of their idea of a good Wikipedia article can be found here. Multiple disruptive/vandalism warnings by multiple editors. Significant disruption at WP:HD, creating at least seven sections, two of them containing nothing but profanity. I was prepared to ignore until they came back with a brand new username. (Redacted). Help. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, the aforementioned user page has been deleted, I guess because it contained the user's full name and address. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I emailed oversight. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've just blocked SweetPoet345 as an obvious sock account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Which colours for band members timeline? Closure requested

    We could use an uninvolved editor to gauge the discussion and determine consensus so as to close the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians#RfC:_Consensus_on_band_timeline_colour_schemes. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JimmySavileFan

    Judging by his userpage hes a definite troll. I say an admin needs to indef him. 146.199.60.249 (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=651776308"