Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drovethrughosts (talk | contribs) at 15:25, 21 March 2015 (→report on user "AdamDeanHall": comment (with tons of diffs)). 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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    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]
    • Oppose not sure this will help . Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 19 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]
    (That request has since been declined.) HiDrNick! 12:45, 19 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]
    • Oppose, because this will not get to the root of the problem, which is the number of relentless obvious WP:SPA e-cig manufacturer advocates (one of whom has already been banned from Wikipedia, period) who have infiltrated the articles and made them impossible to edit constructively without constant disruption. The most egregious of the lot is AlbinoFerret, whose entire edit history from September 30, 2014 to present speaks for itself. The problem is not the "toxicity of the atmosphere", or the fact that the SPAs have made it a "battleground", but rather the problem is the (paid) SPAs themselves, and the solution is weeding out and eliminating (via permanent topic-banning, indeffing, or community banning) the clearly paid advocates. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very weak oppose per Softlavender. I do think admin attention can be good at the article, but I don't think discretionary sanctions will address the core problem here. Sanctions are good for addressing acute misbehavior that's readily identifiable such as incivility, edit warring, etc. I would be concerned sanctions just end up banning whoever slips up slightly first without addressing the real problem. What's going on here is more systemic WP:TENDENTIOUS and advocacy-like behavior that isn't readily identifiable by outside editors without taking a close look at each user's overall behavior in discussions and cannot easily be summarized in a few diffs. That being said, I am overall neutral on community discretionary sanctions, but just with the caveat that the underlying issues will likely not be addressed by the sanctions, but hopefully stem the tide at best. If the sanctions are intended as an actual solution, I think that would become a distraction. Short of an WP:RfCU type look at certain users here (I don't think ANI is structured enough for that), ArbCom seems to be the only other option to really sort things out at that level at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The editors at this article are not the problem. It is the subject itself that is controversial. Having discretionary sanctions in this article would not be effective because a significant number of single purpose accounts edit at this article. Applying sanctions on an article where highly experienced Wikipedians edit as single purpose accounts is not effective in controlling controversy because the editors using them are not invested in protecting the reputations associated with those accounts or in using them long-term to build an online identity. It can be right to use WP:SPAs, and I am not critiquing the use of WP:SPAs or suggesting that anything inappropriate, like socking, is even happening here. I am only suggesting that the Wikipedia community gives a bit more weight and protection to established users with established accounts with varied history of participation, as opposed to limited use accounts managed by talented editors. Sanctions is a tool for controlling established accounts, and not for SPAs. Its use here would would empower SPAs and disempower established accounts, which is not a desirable outcome in this space. Taking no action to control the e-cigarettes space is an acceptable response to the controversy. The controversy can persist in this space as it has been for months. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm not sure I'm understanding the logic of those who write that the behavior in the topic area is bad, or that the subject area is controversial and generates SPAs, but then vote to oppose discretionary sanctions which would give admins the tools necessary to deal with bad behavior (from anyone) and to reign in the e-cig advocates. This is especially odd to me because if community-imposed discretionary sanctions are not implemented here, it's more then likely that someone will request an ArbCom case, which will be opened this time because the community has failed to act, and the result of that will almost certainly be, among other actions, ArbCom-imposed discretionary sanctions. So, in the end, the probability of there being discretionary sanctions for the e-cigarette topic area seems pretty high, in my opinion. BMK (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'll clarify, but based on where I've seen discretionary sanctions work, it seems to be when specific diffs can be pointed out as problematic. I don't think a single admin overseeing the articles would be suited for the specific behavior problems discussed here though that require a close look at long-term behavior. Looking over the definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS, how do you think an admin would identify tendentious or advocacy-like behavior compared to easier things to identify like incivility? To me, that doesn't really seem like a judgement call for an admin can easily make (I could be convinced otherwise), but rather for a comprehensive case about the editor to be examined either here or by ArbCom. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, an effective AN/I thread in a non-DS topic which will convince an admin to close it with sanctions to the subject party takes a lot of time and the input of a lot of people. An ArbCom case takes even more time, although the number of participants is typically smaller. Both of these methodologies are generally inefficient at taming a wild subject area -- in fact, ArbCom results can engender more hassles, although they tend to shift to the Arbitration Enforcement area. With discretionary sanctions in place, however, admins can more easily put a stop to misbehavior with non-draconian blocks and bans leading (if necessary) to harsher sanctions. It empowers every admin to use their best judgement under the circumstances, which means that more gets done, and gets done faster. If, as everyone seems to agree (but for different reasons) the e-cigarette subject area needs to be brought under control, discretionary sanctions are an extremely efficient tool to get that done. BMK (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Inasmuch as the Arbitration Committee has deferred to the community, at least for now, it seems this is the only reasonable way to deal with the probems. JodyB talk 02:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already voted to support in your previous post. Why are you voting again? -A1candidate 09:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct, my oversight. I've stricken it above. JodyB talk 10:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. -A1candidate 23:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not relevant to this discussion. Start a new thread if you'd like. BMK (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is relevant because it is evidence of the complete futility of these proposed sanctions. Feel free to disagree, but don't remove or modify my comments. -A1candidate 01:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not relevant because this thread is about providing admins the tools to deal with any editor who misbehaves in this topic area, and not about the current misbehavior (if it is that) of any specific editor. If you've still got a thing about getting QG blocked or sanctioned or whatever, even after the effort failed just above, and you think his current behavior warrants it, then start another thread, but don't try to hijack this one. BMK (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:A1candidate, your welcome to participate in the discussion. See Talk:Ayurveda#Lost_treasure_found_in_the_archives. QuackGuru (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question If this passes, do people have an opinion on how long the sanctions should last? Presumably the topic should become less controversial with time as new and reliable studies come out, but I have no idea what that timeframe is. I think "indefinite" is kind of a default for this kind of stuff, but I thought it would be good to at least ask what people think about an expiration date. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say six months would be the absolute minimum, but that a year would be more likely to be helpful in waiting for the research to catch up to the questions. BMK (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This may not be necessary to have proposed sanctions. This was an overreaction to the above threads IMO. We can try one month if there is consensus for the sanctions. I think three months would be the most. QuackGuru (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A year is the default in most cases, and given the duration of the dispute already I say we go with that. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[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]
    I think you are missing the point. This is not about one reversion of an IP edit. This is about a policy that Wtshymanski has toward all IP address editors and their edits. Wtshymanski has freely admitted in the course of this ANI that he does routinely revert all edits from IP editors with the exception of one per year. It would seem that the one per year is solely so that any claim that he revets all IP edits can be refuted - which in fact he has tried on. However, it seems to not be impressing many people except the gullible. The admin who posted the statement to Wtshymanski's talk page telling him that he will be blocked if he does it again has apparently researched the history and found that it is true. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not missing the point at all and I take exception to the implication that I am gullible. I realise this thread is not just about one IP edit, but you have utterly failed to provide the evidence by way of multiple credible diffs that there is a current and ongoing problem. The claim that Shymanski has admitted to reverting all IP edits is preposterous. You are referring to this which is proof by counterexample with a heavy dollop of typical WTS sarcasm. The one per year are counterexamples to the claim that all IP edits are reverted, not an admission of it. SpinningSpark 10:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This has already been researched. You certainly are gullible if you believe that Wtshymanski's 'one-per-year' list are 'counter-examples'. Not one (none, zip, zilch) of the examples given in that post are counter-examples of routine reversion of IP edits in any shape or form - it's a standard Wtshymanski smoke-screen. All of the edits provided are just routine addition of information; copy-editing the article to make it clearer or correction of grammar and usage - all of which are legitimate edits (even if originally introduced by an IP editor) and are not the subject of this ANI. As said: not one is an example of a failure to revert a good faith edit (or any immediately preceeding edit) by an IP editor.
    A counter-example (for the purposes of this ANI) has to be a good faith edit made by an IP editor to an article that Wtshymanski regularly watches (basically all the engineering articles), that was not reverted. You can go through Wtshymanski's edit history but you won't find one - it's already been done.
    However, this is all academic as sentence has been pronounced. This ANI is ready for archiving. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny that you can't actually provide diffs of this alleged routine reversion. And I don't see any "sentence" having been pronounced. SpinningSpark 18:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not following this are you? I provided all the diffs since 17th Feb - seven of them (this ignores one that occured before admin intervention because I discovered it afterwards). The examples go back years, but as I explained in the original complaint, I would still be typing them in if I documented all that occured here. A snapshot looking back one month was adequate to the task. All the diffs are fully documented here and you can search for them yourself. There is no example of any edit from an IP editor (good faith or otherwise) being allowed to remain in any article routinely watched by Wtshymanski. An admin took action here. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one who is not following, or else has a bad case of IDHT. I said above that I do not accept that your seven diffs adequately demonstrate the alleged behaviour and I fully support Jeh's analysis of them. Most of them are perfectly reasonable reverts that any of us could have done. As I also said, Shymanski is a problematic editor, but let's not take action in the spirit of a witch hunt on the basis of flimsy evidence. SpinningSpark 18:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to disagree with you. But never mind ... DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It still continues...

    Despite Ymblanter's warning on his talk page.

    19th Mar

    IP edit: [90]

    Wtshymanski revert: [91]

    This is an identical revert to the 8th Mar one above but against a different IP editor. This was a challenge of information by asking for a supporting reference. It is fairly clear that it was the magnitude of the unreferenced numbers that was being challenged. The IP editor did not use the correct [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 (or better still a reference - which I was easily able to do), but driving away IP address editors is more important than being helpful. New and inexperienced editors often need to be assisted to become good editors and this is a classic case where this needs to be done.

    19th Mar

    IP edit: [92]

    IP edit self revert: [93]

    Wtshymanski revert: [94]

    The first IP edit is where he made an uncited change to the century in which arc welding was developed and added some nonsense text. The second IP edit is where he self reverted his change back to what the article read before he edited (I have no problem where someone self reverts things that are not right - good faith demands that I have to assume it was a mistake). However Wtshymanski, as usual, sees the IP editor's second edit and mechanically reverts it - without even bothering to check that a reversion is even warranted. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch, yeah that revert they did clearly shows no thought or investigation into what the user is actually reverting. 129.9.75.248 (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting absolutely ridiculous. That last revert has to be considered as proof positive that the basis of this ANI complaint is completely sound. In view of the fact that Wtshymanski has made two more unwarranted reverts of IP edits despite being specifically warned not to do so must be regarded as blatant defiance. Because Wtshymanski is making it abundantly clear that he is not even prepared to heed a specific warning given to him by an administrator, I would call upon the warning administrator (or any administrator) to implement the block that was threatened. Because this is a specific vendetta directed at potential future editors of Wikipedia, that block cannot be anything other than an indefinite block as it is clear that Wtshymanski is WP:NOTHERE to collaborate with others on building an encyclopedia. –LiveRail < Talk > 16:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They managed to involve me to the discussion, so that I can not be considered uninvolved anymore, and will not block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we really to believe that an IP that writes "fack information about this" has made a good faith mistake. Shymanski's error was not that the IP did not deserve reverting, but rather, that he did not revert far enough. That is an argument for giving Shymanski rollback so he can more easily avoid that mistake in the future rather than blocking him for what was actually a good faith mistake on his part. SpinningSpark 18:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you could just AGF, and assume the IP meant to type "lack information about this" at the end of an unsourced paragraph, unaware of {{cn}}. That would make a certain amount of sense for an inexperienced "newbie" edit, unfamiliar with how to add or challenge material. Just saying. Worth at least trying to ascertain the intent, maybe, or ask for a source, rather than an incorrect partial revert with the summary "not really", showing no attempt to examine the overall change before undoing it. Especially in the current circumstances. Begoon talk 09:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, you have completely missed the point. I suggest you re-read the summary of what Wtshymanski did. It is not a question that he did not revert back far enough. The IP editor had already reverted his own incorrect edit and removed the nonsense phrase that he had added. The article was thus in exactly the same state as it was before he made any edits. There was nothing to roll back. Wtshymanski simply reverted the last edit (the revert) without actually checking to see what it did and as a result, effectively vandalised the article albeit probably unwittingly - but that is not the point. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[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 [106] . 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 [107][108][109][110]
    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.[111]

    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]
    -or-
    • Support -- Relief (2) "Temp block for incivility, aspersions, and edit warring"
    I do not support Relief (3) as previous unapologetic responses of user would be repeated by a forced apology that would be unlikely to be sincere. User clearly does not see the behavior as a problem.David Tornheim (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support 2 or 3 Has multiple warnings and is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Potentially a 3 month - 1 year ban? I do not know the length system all too well but that seems reasonable to me. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User refuses to engage in discussion

    USER BLOCKED
    OK, I was hoping someone else would close this, but I'll boldly close this in the absence of that: Original filer is blocked at WP:ANEW for 1 week by Swarm. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this 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. [112]. 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: [113]. 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: [114]. 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: [115]. I would also like to inform you that Zekenyan deliberately removed that Nur (Ahmad's nephew) was Somali. See here: [116]. 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: [117]. 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: [118]. 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) [-]. [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 [119] 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]

    It wasn't a "personal attack"" -> I frankly don't know you well enough to want to try to verbally abuse you especially here in this conversation or on your page. But when a poster tries to claim a historical document (a detailed one at that) left behind by a man who was alive and present at the time (the Abyssinian-Adal war) is not valid; he or she is clearly just spewing nonsense that supports their view whilst ignoring clear historical evidence, this is to me "moronic" indeed but I didn't call you a moron here or in some public conversation like on a topic's talk page or on your talk page which would be a direct "personal attack". I made the comment on my own talk page and Midday's during a conversation entirely between me and him (anyone can go read it-> and I'm simply being frank as you are being blatantly irrational and disregarding clear evidence for your own agenda), it was petty of you to follow me to my talk page and read what was on there only to use it to "help" your "argument" here. Can't merely address any of the points I've made validly? Anyway, I apologize if that was bad conduct on my part.

    Also, I'm sorry but it's a well-established fact that the majority (not the entirety) of the Adal's soldiers were Somalis and since you emphasize sources (a good habit ;) ), here are but some: [-] , [-] , [-] , [-] <- all based on research either mostly on the Futuh or even at times using other sources and knowledge from the time. Again, you want the two clearly known genealogies for the dynasty as shared by Ibn Khaldun, Harari historians, various Islamic world scholars and so on? Here: this is the one that ties them to Yusuf bin Ahmad Al-Kawneyen as noted by I.M Lewis and taken down by [Cerulli] from a Harar chroncile: [-]. You want a book mentioning how they're tied to Aqeel Ibn Abi Talib and Isma'il Al-Jaberti? Here: [-]. You want books claiming they're Argobbas? Oh, wait... There are none...

    There's no evidence of any sort that they were Argobbas or Afars. Just conjecture from some historian who got published once (and he said "Ethio-Semitic" never Argobba speicifcally) and he was attemtping to argue that the Sultanate of the Hadiya people and various Sidamic sultanates were Ethio-Semitic too (which is bonkers) based on Al-Umari saying certain peoples of "Ifat" were speaking "Abyssinian" (rightly imho assumed to be Ethio-Semitic) [-] which makes sense because at this time the Sultanate was stationed I believe around Dakkar/ around Eastern Ethiopia where a substantial Ethio-Semitic demographic was definite, Adal-Ifat and so on while they were ruled by a clearly Somali dynasty and mostly soldiered by Somalis were as Middayexpress often points out-> Multi-Ethnic. Afars, Arabs, Ethio-Semites (ancestral to Argobbas and Hararis) and Somalis were all to be found [-]. These weren't at all borderline homogeneous Somali societies like you'd find with the Warsangali or some early modern coastal Somali sultanates.

    Oh and just to say this again; Braukamper is indeed "fringe" in nature and often made conjectural statements like thinking the Harla people were Ethio-Semites/ Harari despite Hararis clearly speaking of them as a distinct group from their own ethnicity (there might be a connection; who knows) and of course; he had zero evidence. It's not like there are inscriptions in "the Harla language", all we know about the Harla is that they once occupied areas of Eastern Ethiopia, served as a sizable part of the Adal's armies (Ahmed Ibn Ibrahim's) and were seemingly swallowed up/ likely assimilated by Somalis, Afars & possibly Oromos too who have certain subgroups in Eastern Ethiopia who call themselves "Harla". There's a strange one among Somalis that isn't even known in the clan genealogies but claims to be of Darod origin while Cerulli found that they spoke an odd variant of Somali that reminded of the dialects spoken by the Midgaan and such; they lived pretty much very close to where the original Harla did. [Encyclopedia Aethiopica] <- We really know little of this group and the grandiose assumptions Braukamper made about them only to immediately admit he lacked evidence were embarassing to say the least.

    Anyway, this discussion is petty indeed and pointless since we've already shown Zekenyan adequate and ample sources. If you're unhappy with what they say; that's your business. Take care, man. Also, if you are truly hurt by that quick comment of mine on mine and midday's own pages then I apologize, otherwise, that should be it with this conversation. You want to alter the Walashma page? Come up with adequate sources that aren't nonsensical like that "Hadiyas were Ethio-Semitic" one and start a discussion on the walashma talk page-> otherwise we shouldn't drag this out. Awale-Abdi (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop spamming the noticeboard. Your completely off topic. Zekenyan (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not. In fact, he's a 100% on the dot. AcidSnow (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins need to block this user "acidsnow" as he continues to edit without providing a source. He keeps inserting words without citations here [120]. I added a citation and his friend removed it. Zekenyan (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Watch out for WP:BOOMERANG. AcidSnow (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • OP reported to WP:ANEW where they were blocked for 1 week by Swarm (with an indef block possible if there are further disruptions after that...). It would seem this matter can now be closed... --IJBall (talk) 05:11, 19 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]
    • It's a kind of ragequitting, I suppose, or a variety of closing one's eyes so the monsters will disappear. (Speaking of monsters: holy shit, we have 70 articles on Taylor Swift?) As Chase points out below MaranoFan is troublesome and misguided, but that that would be a reason not to block is news to me. The non-free bit is not the only area where their edits are problematic, though it might warrant a topic ban: it's the overall behavior that I've found problematic--the edit warring, the refusal to listen, the oscillation between fuck you and I love you. None of it is productive. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I've had people call variously for a long-block, topic and interaction bans where I am concerned, I know how it feels to have people discussing me in that fashion. As a result, I'm always hesitant to comment in favor of such bans/blocks. Then again, I know that in my case, every time that has happened, I have learned something from the experience and have made a real effort toward positive changes in my editing/attitude/behavior because of it. This kind of thing has been discussed before where MaranoFan is concerned (the same with his counterpart and wiki-buddy, User:Lips Are Movin, who has also mysteriously disappeared off the radar) and nothing changed positively. He just came off a month-long block, nothing changed positively. All of this plus the script induced break in addition to his talk page and edit summary taunts does seem like he's flipping us (the community) off. Is an indef/VERY long block or topic ban the answer? Even so, I'm still hesitant to say 'yes' (for the reasons stated above). I trust wise administrators (such as yourself, Drmies to make the right decision. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WV, I feel the same way (well, I haven't been suggested for a permaban as often as you have...), and my efforts here are kind of half-hearted and half-assed. I'm not going to make any decision here since a. I don't know what's best and b. MaranoFan and I have had an interaction or two, and while I think I can be pretty objective, appearances are important too. I'd like for a (closing) admin to see if, for instance, there is enough evidence and consensus here for a "smaller" solution--if those non-free things are problematic (they already were a few months ago), then a topic ban there might be appropriate for now. Thanks; I appreciate your reluctance. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    11 minutes after the report was filed, to be exact.
    A indefinite block could certainly be in the cards, but I don't know if that would be most helpful. MaranoFan is troublesome and misguided, but I'll give credit where credit is due: s/he at least tries to edit constructively. Edit warring and problematic uploads aside, s/he does have a strong focus on bringing articles to good article status (Lips Are Movin was briefly listed as a GA, and s/he attempted to bring Meghan Trainor to GA as well). That's why I propose the topic ban from non-free files – keep them away from their most problematic area of editing and let them carry on as usual otherwise. (And if edit warring continues to be an issue – not right now – impose 1RR sanctions.) I'm also concerned that blocking would just lead to sockpuppetry, seeing as MF is a domineering editor who has frequently threatened to leave the project only to keep coming back. –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 14:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - I don't know about MaranoFan, but I find Winkelvi (talk · contribs) to be a problematic editor, prone to edit warring, article ownership, disruptive editing, over reliance on "rules" (i.e. rules lawyering), and inflexible. Just sayin'. Skyerise (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You have diffs to support those accusations? NE Ent 23:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Refresh

    MaranoFan has frequent mood swings, as shown from his user page once at this diff. It is not a surprise if MaranoFan replies with anger peppered in his/her messages. I also agree with Chasewc91 that blocking might not work, as it might lead to sockpuppetry, and I also agree that MaranoFan tries to edit constructively, but still need to work a little bit more, specifically on knowing the policies and guidelines. Recently, MaranoFan (for some reason), reverted my edit at Immortals (song), with no explanation. As seen at Special:Diff/651170360, he changed the current format of PNG to JPEG again. If you carry on, you should realise that I uploaded a PNG version of the file, as 300px PNGs are preferred over JPEGs. MaranoFan just simply went to the JPEG file and uploaded a 300px one, and then did not nominate the one I uploaded for deletion, which troubled Chase to do it. Firstly, that user knows that PNG is preferred over JPEG, why did he do this? I am perplexed by this situation. As for Lips Are Movin, s/he is a great editor and a tireless contributor. I can understand why she felt demoralised when the GA nomination failed, as s/he really spent the effort to make the article better. And, let me reiterate, MaranoFan has mood swings frequently. Therefore, we might have to handle this situation in a firmer way. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In the example image presented above by Nahnah4, MaranoFan has failed to follow the important advice I gave them on February 15: They failed to tag the removed image File:Fall Out Boy - Immortals.png for F5 speedy deletion, and they failed to tag the new image file:Immortals-Fall Out Boy.jpg for orphaned revisions. Spot checks on their recent uploads show that they are making no effort to follow these steps so that other editors don't have to clean up after them, something that I spent several days doing after their last block. Not the best use of our super-limited admin resources. I think we need to enact a topic ban on image uploads for MaranoFan. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC) I just want to add that a lot of the image uploads they did on the 12th are for articles that did not have an album cover previously and are perfectly okay. Though a few are large in size, they don't have the incredibly slow load times in the previous uploads (which were png files created from jpgs; these were really bad). It's just the uploads on the 13th and 14th that are problematic. In my time working with the image collection, I have seen quite a few editors who think it's important to have "their" upload as the one used, and will edit war to make this happen. This wastes a lot of admin time, as all the orphaned revisions and files have to be deleted. It also generates a lot of edit wars, disruption, time-wasting and ill will among the small groups of people who are interested in uploading album covers and film posters. MaranoFan seems confused too about whether or not png is preferred over jpg. See for example here where MaranoFan says in the edit summary that there's "Nothing preferable about png" and here where they say "preferred 300px PNG cover". Finally, I am not impressed with the self-imposed wikibreak as an alternative to discussing their actions and receiving feedback in a mature way. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic ban for MaranoFan

    Only, Calidum, Viriditas, SNUGGUMS, Winkelvi, Nahnah4, Drmies, Skyerise, NE Ent, Diannaa, and anyone else who wishes to comment: please indicate below whether or not you would support a topic ban on file uploads for MaranoFan. Please also consider:

    • Whether the ban should be definite or indefinite
    • Under what conditions the ban may be lifted
    • To what extent the ban should apply: non-free file uploads, image uploads, any file uploads, altering the use of files in articles, discussions regarding files, tagging for maintenance, etc.

    I know that some users have mentioned support/opposition in the above discussion, but I think it's time for a clear-cut !vote on the matter. Please propose any other bans/sanctions (1RR, interaction bans, etc.) in a new sub-section. –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 19:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support an indefinite topic ban for files, broadly construed, that may be lifted only if MaranoFan demonstrates a thorough, clear understanding of the problems that have brought them to this ANI. This user has repeatedly displayed a clear disregard for the non-free content policy and the time/energy of the administrators who work with files, and a clear disinterest in discussing the matter with other editors or learning from previous sanctions. There should be no tolerance for an editor who chooses to vanish when under scrutiny, only to return some time later and repeat their problematic actions. –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 19:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a 6 month topic ban for files, that may be lifted only if MaranoFan demonstrates a thorough, clear understanding of the problems that have brought them to this ANI in addition to being mentored by an experienced editor (preferably a willing administrator) for the six month period. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Amount of image uploads were large, thus I am supporting an indefinite topic ban on uploading files. After Maranofan demonstrates that they can contribute to Wikipedia without making any copyvios, this community imposed restriction would be lifted. If there is a 6 month topic ban, then we may need to come back here for another topic ban. VandVictory (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • On what planet are they learning from their mistakes? They were blocked for such behavior for a month only to return to it immediately upon return. The only reason they're not acting up now is because they chose to vanish to avoid scrutiny. I don't see any reason why a 3-month ban won't only lead to MF returning to such behavior afterward (if they don't impose a wikibreak script throughout the whole thing) and we end up back here discussing this again. Blocks and bans aren't supposed to be punishment or to make someone learn a lesson – they're supposed to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 13:27, 21 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: [121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134].

    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 [135], [136]. 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) [137] 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 [138] 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: [139] 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.

    The specific sanction request I said was coming

    REFERRED TO ARBCOM
    Referred to ArbCom. MastCell Talk 17:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Well before the close I said 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 presume JzG simply did not notice it. I am posting this as I said I would.

    My initial conversations with Collect were, I believe, good enough. We had a long conversation on his talk page a week or so ago. While we got frustrated with each other it stayed restricted to the topic and we finished, I believe, on good terms. As late as two days ago we were working together on Letterhead organization even through the nastyness. Then I found he had been Campaigning Not for AfD for the thread he opened at BLPNon Jimbo's talk page. This thread was started, without notifying the editors he was discussing, at 7:43 am, 13 March 2015 while he misrepresented editors and cast aspersions on them. He opened the thread nine minutes before he opened this BLPN thread at 7:52 am, 13 March 2015. Again without notifying any of the involved editors. None of his statements were neutral as the diffs show. And I can think of no good faith reason to open two threads on the same subject minutes apart without providing notice to involved parties.

    Fyddlestix has presented diffs above to show some of his misrepresentations there. If this post is considered a different ANI then I include that material by reference.


    Please note - This is not just, or even particularly about WP:CANVASS it is about misrepresentation of others edits, repeated implications and some direct accusations by Collect that his 'opponents' support McCarthyism or even anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. WP:BATTLEGROUND is an issue as well. I also have no ax to about the AfD. I came into that situation at BLPN where I stated said the information in the table under discussion is OK from a policy point of view but the table itself was probably UNDUE [140]. My first edit on the PNAC article was March 04 2015. My first edit to the PNAC talk page was March 2 2015 when the same issue Collect failed to engage on in his own BLPN thread come up again.

    That his Campaigning has the desired effect is evident. When it was suggested he take the article to AfD Collect replies I dare not -- the group pushing this has brought me to a bunch of drama-boards for being "obstinate". I got a block for standing on this. I add my post below:... Note - As has been shown in earlier Fyddlestix's ANI post Collect opened all of the "drama board" discussions bar this ANI. This shows either a propensity for 'untruths' or an inability see his own actions. Neither is conducive to a collaborative editing environment such as Wikipedia. (GabrielF then replies "I have created an AFD nomination.". Collect's response to this is Thank you. Let's see how the editors apparently desirous of the old status of the PNAC article react. - Note - He directly states that the earlier named editors desire to return the article to the state he indicated earlier in the thread (diff in opening statement) which was, in my opinion, riddled with BLP and well prior to my [ first edit on March 2] and Fyddlestix massive clean up. I do not remember MrX being involved in editing the article at all. This, in my opinion, shows Collect is unable to differentiate those he sees as opponents, differentiate their views or recognize/acknowledge incremental change. Again these are very bad characteristics for an editor in a collaborative project like Wikipedia. I see no good faith here particularly since this was all happening in the very public space of Jimbo's talk page, without the knowledge or participation of the other involved editors, <while there was on ongoing BLPN discussion Collect had opened in parallel. Here I make a direct accusation that this was bad faith on the part of Collect.
    I want to draw particular attention to times where Collect's inability to address the issues at hand rather than his own personal construct of the issues led to over the top aspersions: (both from the AfD but similar aspersions were cast in the very public forum of Jimbo's talk page. Diffs are in the opening statement of this ANI as well as Mastcell's close of the thread quoted below.

    His continual claims of 'guilt by association' and comparisons to McCarthyism, even after being told repeatedly by other editors that that comparison is inappropriate, rather than using detailed policy based arguments shows me an editor who either (1) Can not separate the subject from the analogy. or (2) Uses hyperbolic analogy, repeatedly, to disparage those he sees as opponents and try to claim some unassailable moral high ground for the purpose of 'winning' rather than compromise. Neither of these options is good for a place where collaboration is key.

    Mastcell Closed the thread after it went "well of the rails" with this:

    * Does any (uninvolved) editor object to closing this thread, which has evidently gone well off the rails? The article in question is at AfD, where it seems very likely to be deleted. That seems entirely reasonable to me, not because it violates WP:BLP or WP:SYNTH (it doesn't), but because these sorts of lists are inherently non-neutral by virtue of their framing. (Compare, for instance, American fatalities and injuries of the 2012 Benghazi attack, or a hypothetical List of Republican politicians who have signed up to receive Obamacare subsidies. While such lists may be well-sourced and compliant with BLP and SYNTH, they nonetheless make poor encyclopedia articles because their framing is inherently designed to make an ideological point).

    The take-home point is that repeatedly comparing other editors to Joseph McCarthy is a poor rhetorical tactic, and one which results in a disproportionate volume of unconstructive dialog (cf. this entire thread) obscuring a valid underlying point about the utility of this list. At a minimum, Collect has invoked McCarthy here, here, here, here, here, and here (with a bonus implication of anti-Semitism), and that's just in the last couple of days. Collect then professed surprise that other editors should "take umbrage" at having their work compared to that of McCarthy. One is left with the conclusion that the discussion surrounding this article would have been far healthier without such participation. MastCell Talk 17:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

    I do not care about the content or the subject of the AfD. This is not about that. What I am concerned with is that an experienced editor's behavior has changed from 'confidently sure of his position' to doing things that, I perceive as contrary to what editing Wikipedia is like. In particular I consider repeatedly implying other editors support McCarthyism and arguably even antisemitism, misrepresenting others to imply they support reprehensible positions or out right accusing them of promoting conspiracy theories, most of this in the most public forum on Wikipedia, to be so far beyond acceptable behavior as to require sanction by the community. All of this, including the material in the opening statement lead me to request that Collect given a long time to reflect on why the actions detailed in this ANI are not acceptable behavior. Since he is an established editor and blocks are should be preventative only, I propose a six month ban on political BLPs broadly construed. Jbh (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • As I said in the comment quoted above, I think that Collect's participation in the debate in question was unhelpful and inflammatory. I also think that this episode is part of a long-term conduct issue on Collect's part, but I don't believe that pursuing the question here at AN/I is likely to be helpful. Having observed this episode play out, I think that Jbhunley's complaint, while wordy, has merit, but I think it's extremely unlikely that any meaningful sanction will be applied to a long-term established editor as a result of an AN/I post. I would therefore recommend closing this request, although without prejudice against the filer. As an aside, I should be clear that I have been involved in various content disputes with Collect, and on a personal level I find interacting with him in the context of a content dispute to be a reliably frustrating experience. Because of those interactions, I am not unbiased here and I would not take any significant administrative action with regard to Collect; I am commenting as an editor and not an admin here. MastCell Talk 16:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Will someone kindly close what appears at this point to be a somewhat bootless exercise per the prior close? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • The common request by anyone who finds their POV challenged is to inflate their supposed grievances to make them look disproportionately bigger than they are so they can work to eliminate their opposition instead of working on compromises.--MONGO 17:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • On general principles, I think that a thread that is not obviously without merit or WP:SNOWED should be open at least 24 hours, to give editors from all time zones a marginal chance for considered participation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Threats by MONGO and ODear. MONGO's is meh... But Dear ODear ODear's is too close to a physical threat. The video is funny and if I knew him better I would not be concerned. Since I do not I want to nip this in the bud. Jbh (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "You radicals keep POV pushing your baloney and decide to file an arbcom case I'm going to add all your names to the case and show up with a laundry list of diffs...all named parties will be scrutinized and I won't shut up until you're all sanctioned. It might be best if the lot of you cease posting here with your sanctimonious attitudes. You can take that as a formal warning and I don't make idle threats" diff above

    it feels an awful lot like I am the horse here" to which the reply might be "No. Sorry about that." then "OK, no problem" and it is done. Doubling down with 'the full MONGO experience' just was not the smart way to go here.
    Let us try it one more time. I feel like that video might imply a threat of violence would you please strike it here and on the talk page where this started? Jbh (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Matter closed with ODear per this diff Thank you Dear ODear ODear. Jbh (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is abundantly evident that there will be no resolution here with respect to Collect's conduct (good, bad or otherwise), partly because the underlying conduct issues are complex and subtle, and partly because it has become an opportunity for insults and threats from folks who should know better. Today, I tried to engage Collect on his talk page, but was rebuffed, as is his prerogative. The issues at hand seem to require a more formal approach, which I am in the process of crafting. I would urge the OP and others involved in these recent events to please be patient while this takes shape. Stepping away and letting tempers cool probably wouldn't hurt either.- MrX 18:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, we can examine everyone's conduct. To narrow down what this is all about, some liberal or progressive or maybe radical editors don't like having Collect disagreeing with them, so to silence their opposition all they can figure out is to take him to court. MrX, you underestimate the value of your contributions...and disagree with your edit summary about this being your .02 cents. I give it a value of .03 cents. I am also not classy at all, even though you have bequeathed upon me such a distinction for which I offer you many hugs and kisses in return.--MONGO 19:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see what the alleged political affiliations or positions of other editors has to do with the demonstrable pattern of problematic conduct by Collect. Wikipedia is an international project composed of editors from all over the planet, comprising many different backgrounds. Poor conduct is not attributable to any political belief or position in this case. If an editor consistently misrepresents and attacks others, they have to own that behavior. So, it seems to me that you are distracting us from the real problem. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah Viriditas...perhaps we should not be distracted and instead start examining you. We're you or were you not cautioned about harassing Collect just last week?--MONGO 23:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never harassed anyone on Wikipedia. Some editors are fond of yelling "harassment", which is why the guideline discusses such false claims. Again, you're distracting away from the central issue. Discussing conduct issues is not harassment of any kind. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose this sanction, support application of the WP:TROUT tot he filing party. You want measured in-depth conversation? ANI is the last place you should go. And actually I think you know that perfectly well and are banking on the WP:BOOMERANG not coming back your way. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're absolutely right about AN/I, but I think you're being a little bit unfair to Jbhunley. Unlike Collect, you, and I, he appears to have virtually no experience with on-wiki conflict or dispute resolution mechanisms before this episode. You and I know that AN/I is not a useful venue for this sort of thing, but I don't think we can project our experience onto Jbhunley (or onto Fyddlestix, the original poster for the first section above). There is a real problem here, in that Collect is very hard to deal with in the context of a content dispute—that's what led to his ArbCom-imposed topic ban, and his recurring blocks for edit-warring (the last one, a week long, was just earlier this month), and so on. With the closure of WP:RFC/U, there are basically no venues to address user-conduct issues besides AN/I and ArbCom, so I don't think it's fair to fault an editor—especially one who's new to our byzantine unwritten rules of conflict resolution—for raising a concern here, with supporting diffs. In my view there is a real user-conduct issue identified here, and while I don't expect it to be addressed at AN/I, it will blow up sooner or later as long as people continue to enable Collect's less constructive behavior, or fail to call him on it. MastCell Talk 23:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • JBH lost me at his assumption that a link to a comedy film where a man (or manbeast) punches a horse and that this was to be construed as a physical threat to him. Looks like he's throwing darts to see if any make a bullseye.--MONGO 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Editor MastCell, don't just be a cynic, put something on the table, then: Ban from Wales talk page? Prohibition on commenting on other editors on article talk? Prohibition from opening a discussion on a dispute resolution board with permission of an uninvolved admin? NE Ent 23:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @MastCell: I have read a lot of these over the years, even a couple Arbcom cases but I have not participated beyond commenting on one case. If there are other ways of conflict resolution I am all for them. I tried 'talking', providing sources to address the concerns I 'thought' were being raised only to have the concerns change, asking a for a restatement of the issue, asking for a statement of what he thought my position was, through all of the conflict resolution techniques I could think of and I see being unable to find a way that works as a wiki-personal failure. The article, the AfD none of that made me concerned enough to bring up this issue here, that is all just what I see as part of Wiki-work. The misrepresentation of my words and the and the constant tying of my and other's positions to reprehensible beliefs in a very public forum is something that I think no person should be allowed to do no amount of good outweighs that kind of bad. I guess that is idealistic and unreasonable. I am discouraged that others do not see these as issues but if the community says it is hopeless I guess it is. Oh well... So what should I do with all of these fish?? :) Jbh (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose of sanction, Twenty-mule team Support of WP:TROUTs. No comment on past actions by anyone. User:Collect's suggestion that the article in question should go to WP:AFD seemed reasonable to me. I may be wrong in my !vote at that AFD, but we'll see what WP:CONSENSUS brings. I suggest that everyone else involved with that article take the same approach, drop the WP:BLUDGEONs, and move on. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)I accept your WP:TROUT but with no RFC/U it was this or Arbcom. The problems with misrepresentation of other editors by Collect has become, in my opinion, persistent and pernicious, WP:TPG says this is a BANable problem so just letting it slide seems to be a long term bad idea. Being directly or indirectly called a supporter or McCarthyism, antisemitism or promoting conspiracy theories is unacceptable. That Collect denies doing this when multiple people tell him that is what they perceive him is doing tells me he will keep in doing the same thing in the future. This will hurt the encyclopedia in the long run and allows him to impose his POV, knowingly or not, on any article he decides to just by saying BLP over and over and not engaging in a meaningful way with editors that disagree with him simply by recasting their arguments in his reply/objection. Quoting people without using diffs and editing those quotes to remove context, particularly on Jimbo's talk page should earn him an admonishment at least and a ban on cut/paste quoting without diffs at best. All that I said here is supported by the diffs above so please forgive me for not digging them out again though I will if asked by you or another admin.

      I know there is no real way to sanction a long time prolific editor here but a month or more of Arbcom is even worse that ANI on the Barnum&Bailey scale. If a BOOMERANG is due me I will accept that to. I have done what I have done and said what I said and I am willing to be held accountable for those things. I have a hope, a very faint and weak hope, that something positive will come out of this and Arbcom can be avoided. Jbh (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • You don't want to do the arbcom dance. If you're not even getting resolution here, all should expect there is a train wreck. I recognize you spent much time on preparing your argument here, and I do not think that it should simply be ignored, but Collect is likely a person afterall, not some cyborg. If you gave it a few days and stepped back and considered that your position may not be the only right one, you may find him more reasonable than you suppose.--MONGO 00:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MONGO: I have no intention of starting an Arbcom case. No way! No how! I may be naive but not that naive. On the AfD subject I can see some of what may be his concerns but only because other people presented the actual issues as they relate to the topic at AfD. I'm having problems with the aspersions and misrepresentations though. If they were not intended the issue would be acknowledged and it would not be repeated, at least not in such short order.

      I admit the possibility that I may be in my own offended headspace but others seem to recognize similar issues. I am more than willing to meet him half way. For me that means an acknowledgement that at least other people perceive what he is doing as an issue and a willingness to address that issue when it is brought up to him. All I have heard from him boils down to 'I have done no such thing'.[141] Jbh (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Resolution will never come from that so sooner or later, someone with bigger brasser ones than I will open an Arbcom case. Drama will ensue and at the end of the very metaphorical day no one will be particularly happy.I have found that that is nearly always the outcome of enforced rather than negotiated settlements. Jbh (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Added diff above with underlined text. Jbh (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanctions. Support trouting for basically reopening the closed discussion. It's at AfD. It will be resolved or transformed regardless of action here so all this is moot court. --DHeyward (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanction that would prevent Collect from dealing with unambigous BLP violations. I don't have a dog in American political fights (and the reputation of the GWB administration in much of the world is such that any accusation of being involved with it would itself be a BLP violation without a bloody good source) but have found Collect to be helpful in cleaning up BLPs of comparatively little-known people where it's hard finding experienced editors who both know about the people concerned, and can still give a flying frog about the BLP policy. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Collect is currently continuing his campaign of disruption on yet another PNAC/neoconservatism related article, Stephen Cambone, filling another pointy RfC and misrepresenting sources. I will wait for MrX to take the action to which he referred above.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NPA If you don't specify anything objectionable in my comment, then you are simply casting aspersions.
    Go ahead, make another false accusation against me. I dare you.
    WP:DENY
    --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    and here it is!

    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect


    With MrX as the OP. Even while this AN/I is running, of course. Can trouts be issued on the ArbCom case proper? :) Collect (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    JesseRafe

    I regret bringing this here but see no alternative now. I have been encountering unacceptable behavior from JesseRafe, an editor I had never encountered before until a recent disagreement at Jewtopia (film). The user took exception to an edit I made there and (admittedly with some provocation from me) has started directing a stream of abuse and insults at me. I honestly don't care about that, but I do care about the fact that he now sees fit to vandalize the article's talk page by making edits such as this, repeating word for word a previous talk page comment by me. The user should be told firmly that that is not an acceptable use of a talk page and generally advised to cool off. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I regret replying even once to FKC's baseless claims and haughty attitude because I dared correct him or her once. I should never have engaged in this sloppy behavior, but since this is basically a playground fight, "Teacher, he started it!". I copied his/her edit summaries to make my point about how ridiculous someone who had violated WP:CIVIL would be so quick to brandish it as a threat to getting me blocked. I mean RonBurgundy.gif, that escalated quickly! FKC was wrong, the article was fixed, and yet FKC kept up the personal attack on me, as well as making threats to block me (at that time I had made ONE reversion). It was just too much. I couldn't take the absurdity of it, and over re-acted. JesseRafe (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You say that you copied an edit summary I made "to make my point." There's a whole policy, WP:POINT, about that behavior. Do you intend to make similar points that way in future? Hopefully, the fact that you didn't repeat that talk page edit shows you realize that it was vandalism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, you need to read more carefully. WP:POINT is irrelevant in your example, completely and utterly confusingly irrelevant. What are you even trying to say by pointing to it? What I did was almost unavoidable as you were suffering from a severe case of pot-calling-the-kettle-black denial. And you still don't get it, do you? That's why I used your own tirade of WP:s and you didn't pick up on it. Whatever, it's over. I fixed the article, and there's no more beef.
    There's no reason to bother anybody else about this. The article is fine now. Unless you want to argue that "Movie (1999) is a movie" is the common use of a film lede. Oh wait, you already argued that, but then got needlessly aggressive and pedantic when you were told that that is non-standard, and every other film article states the year in prose. But this is over, your edits were undone and I think that's the only sore point. Why else start an ANI for it? To vindicate your feelings? You admitted you started the hostility, so admit it's over. Bye! JesseRafe (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2015
    You are continuing to behave inappropriately by removing part of my post above, and that shows that there is an ongoing issue here, unfortunately. Removing part of someone else's comments is justified only in rare situations (BLP violations and similar things) that do not apply here. Unless it was simply an accident, it's further provocative behavior on your part and you need to be told to desist. The summary of WP:POINT is, "When you have a point to make, use direct discussion only", so it does seem to be relevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hilarious. You're just making things up now. You accuse me of editing your post, when YOU edited mine. What in the name of what is going on here? Please, give it up. It's over, there's no issue. Don't add random "+" to my posts, and then say that I was editing your posts. Amazing. JesseRafe (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite possible you removed part of my comments simply by accident; I don't know. Under the circumstances, it's not unreasonable to suspect it might have been deliberate. The only reason I edited your posts was to undo your removal of part of my comment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You need a break from wiki, seriously. You make up a thing that I removed your comment when you make an edit that just puts a giant boxed "+" in the middle of my post, and then make an apology saying I did something by accident completely ignoring how you did something else. The EXACT THING you accused me of? You are off your rocker, or I'm being pranked. What did I do deliberately? I responded. With paragraphs. To you. I didn't use any +s in the middle of a paragraph break and I didn't start any lines with a space to give them that weird box. These are things that YOU did. Unbelievable I'm even replying to you again. Seriously, take a rest because you make no sense.
    Also, for the record, FreeKnowledgeCreator is now following me on other pages and blatantly undoing my edits just to undo them. Continuing the pattern of making no sense, responds with things like "no reason given" when my edit had an unambiguous edit summary. This user is, as I noted from the beginning, the type to take supreme umbrage at being told they are wrong and not act mature about, but to get high-and-mighty and respond to everything the person they disagree with with "no, you're wrong". Just putting this out here for corroborative evidence. JesseRafe (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I edited a single article that you previously edited, not "other pages." I am now happy to leave your edit in place, as you have finally given a plausible justification for it. So long as we are discussing you and your edits, it seems appropriate to note that you recently violated WP:3RR at Kaadu (1973 Malayalam film). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If either of you want an admin to look this over, you'd do best to stop bickering. Blackmane (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I know; I'm sorry. The evidence of 3RR violation is perfectly clear, though. See here, here, here, and here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you need to stop now, disengage and move on to something else productive. Calling this spat childish is unfair to sweet children worldwide. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Damn, and I was silently placing bets with myself as to when someone OTHER than the two disputants would finally comment on this. Too bad we didn't let it keep going. In a perverse way it was entertaining watching these two bicker back and forth with no one else giving a shit. I'm not sure anyone still doesn't give a shit, but it was more fun, in a kind of schadenfreude way, when we were all ignoring them. --Jayron32 05:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any comment on the 3RR violation, Cullen328? When did it become inappropriate to point that out? It's a blockable offense, as you know. I would direct the same comment to Jayron32: do you consider it OK for JesseRafe to violate 3RR or not? He is not new and should know better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk)

    I first encountered JesseRafe last February while looking into a request for editor assistance involving him. He was blocked for edit warring on Götaland by Spinningspark; I had also reported JesseRafe to ANEW (Spinningspark had independently blocked JesseRafe before he saw it). Normally, this would be a done deal, but for the discussion that had ensued at JesseRafe's user talk page, where attempts at explaining the block were met with incivility ("knee-jerk reactionaries", "Cowardly and dishonest behavior", "laz[y] . . . . Vindictive and power-happy). While some frustration might be expected following a block, it was not the first incident where JesseRafe responded to an adverse situation with incivility. See generally the ANI thread from an earlier incident and the related user talk thread.

    I would argue, however, that we are looking at something larger than a civility issue. JesseRafe's response to being blocked for 3RR following the Götaland incident indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:EW and WP:3RR (and not a new misunderstanding), as well as how we arrive at consensus on Wikipedia, and how consensus may be implemented (specifically, an apparent presumption that BRD is policy and that enforcement thereof falls under the aegis of vandal-fighting).

    My point in bringing back up this admittedly old material is that this is not an isolated incident for JesseRafe. He also has a long track record of mislabeling good faith edits as vandalism. Compare this 2011/2012 ANI thread and follow-up thread (where it was noted that JesseRafe had violated 3RR and was still calling the IP's edits vandalism) with his very recent reverts such as this one from yesterday (describing a good faith edit as vandalism, though it was promotional).

    All that said, I'm not sure what the answer should be. In light of his woeful participation on talk pages (5% of 8700 live edits in nearly 10 years), I had previously considered proposing a long-term 1RR limitation. In light of JesseRafe's proclivity for incivility, however, that probably would not substantially prevent him from driving away other editors. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is ridiculous and thoroughly beside the point, as well as moot and old. Double jeopardy?
    1. Look at the background and resolution of the Gotaland article, and all the other editors who came to my defense, both on the article and my Talk Page. I was standing up for propriety of the page, and was vindicated by others despite my block because admins couldn't look to the substantive issue, but focused on myopic rule-reading. Others fixed it, no harm done, what's the relevance here/now?
    2. Jesus Gonzalez??? Are you kidding me??? That guy was OBJECTIVELY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY using racist language and reasoning and I called him out on that and AGAIN look at how quickly I was vindicated. My block was lifted almost instantly. Again what is the relevance to here and now? That was, what, 4 - 5 years ago?
    3. There was consensus. This is attempted character assassination. Only a single editor had unsourced false information, and three total editors (of which I was the most frequent) were undoing his/her work (together, whoever happened to catch it again as it were) that was undermining the credibility of the article, namely putting CN tags on the article itself and arguing (without any data) that the subject of the article didn't exist. It was absurd and was dismissed rightfully. Again, how is this relevant?
    4. I have a long track record because I have a long track record? You've cherry-picked what 5-6 instances out of nine years of edits? I don't care for Talk pages for the sake of talk pages, you using that data like it makes some sort of point in and of itself is completely off-base. Better data would be to see how many edits I make to talk pages on talk pages I've edited at least once. I'm active when I choose to be, but I mostly make substantive edits because wikipedia is for the reader, not the editor.
    I'm thoroughly disappointed in you, Mendaliv. You're lying and misrepresenting cases throughout this screed. JesseRafe (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have violated 3RR in the past, that's quite relevant. You should stop immediately "accidentally" removing my comments here, as you did with this edit. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment from someone with subject matter experience on my block
    This right here is a picture showcase of one of the biggest black marks on wikipedia's reputation. The admins here don't know anything about the subject matter Geats and don't want to know. They don't care who is correct and who is incorrect, or what justice is. They only apparently care about treating those who know about the topic Geats like children, wielding authority and handing out blocks while coddling the editor who says the Geats never existed and all scholarship is wrong and he is right (or WHATEVER lame WP:POINT he is trying to make) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
    As I said, I took the punishment, I was the whipping boy, but the better version of the article came about. Everybody wins! Except the person who reported me and got me blocked because the rules favor the squeaky wheel, not the person who has reason. This is Mendaliv's shining example. JesseRafe (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to restore your comment, but I won't tolerate you "accidentally" removing my comments here. Stop. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    !!!!! This is my point!!!! This user keeps deleting my comments while simultaneously accusing me of that! What is going on? Please someone tell me. This is such a level of bullshit, how is this person not letting me to respond to Mendaliv's baseless claims? How can a defense in an ANI be reverted? How/Why? Unbelievable.JesseRafe (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from someone with subject matter experience on my block
    This right here is a picture showcase of one of the biggest black marks on wikipedia's reputation. The admins here don't know anything about the subject matter Geats and don't want to know. They don't care who is correct and who is incorrect, or what justice is. They only apparently care about treating those who know about the topic Geats like children, wielding authority and handing out blocks while coddling the editor who says the Geats never existed and all scholarship is wrong and he is right (or WHATEVER lame WP:POINT he is trying to make) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
    As I said, I took the punishment, I was the whipping boy, but the better version of the article came about. Everybody wins! Except the person who reported me and got me blocked because the rules favor the squeaky wheel, not the person who has reason. This is Mendaliv's shining example. JesseRafe (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment from the admin who unblocked me for that unrighteous block when I was dismissing an obvious racist
    Accept reason:
    This is a conditional unblock. I understand why you feel Valencian's comments to be ill-considered – and frankly I agree with you – but at this point there is no benefit to further critiquing them. I am therefore unblocking on the condition that you not comment further on them, or on Valencian or his motivations and/or alleged prejudice, and focus only on the notability of the article. If this condition is acceptable to you, then you can go ahead and resume editing. I will also be leaving a note to Valencian urging him to be more judicious with his comments in the future. 28bytes (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    Again, vindication from when I am blocked, and I took the penalty, but I don't see how it is relevant here. JesseRafe (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You made an edit that removed my comment from this page. It seems deliberate, as it is not the first time you have done that. The history of this page shows as much. I reverted you because your edit was vandalism. Note that I restored your comment, after restoring mine. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @28bytes:, it would seem that JesseRafe's comment above, where he states that his block was for "dismissing an obvious racist" (namely, Valencian), violates the terms of your 2011 unblock of him (which he helpfully quotes in the same statement), specifically that he "not comment further on [Valencian's earlier comment], or on Valencian or his motivations and/or alleged prejudice". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) @JesseRafe:, you clobbered FreeKnowledgeCreator's comment when you made your own. The reverts and counter-reverts that both of you did were wrongful. Both of you should stop reverting and stop commenting so others can somehow get involved in resolving this case. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't reverted a thing. Are you serious? I "undid" a revision because I got a ping that FKC "reverted" my edit when I was reacting to your spurious claims. Is that wrong. My summary shows a big negative -870 characters, that was FKC deleting my entire response so I undid that. What else, just let him delete my defense? What is going on? This is not a rhetorical question. Please. JesseRafe (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't reverted a thing. Are you serious? This is a revert. You made it about twenty minutes ago. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That says "undid". I just explained that. Literally. I took time to find that entry and type it up here and FKC reverted it. How is that not clear. That user deleted my entry in this charade and I reinserted it. I NEVER reverted or undid anyone's comments here.

    A plea to common sense and the substantive issue Namely that the article Jewtopia (film) has been fixed and resolved. End of story, let's all go our ways, no reason anyone needed to involved. Yes, FreeKnowledgeCreator was uncivil first (as he/she admits here) and yes I responded in kind. But end of story. And again, Mendaliv, how can blocks already enforced be enforced again for the same infraction. You know perfectly well that this is not what 28bytes meant by that. Please, as with Gotaland and the Geats and Jesus Gonzalez and Jewtopia, let's keep this to substantive issues, not backdoor politics where defendants get railroaded and can't even re-instate their unjustly deleted defense without being accused of acting maliciously. JesseRafe (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The link I provided above shows what happened. JesseRafe removed a comment I made by pasting his own comment over it, evidently deliberately. The issue is not a single article, but a pattern of vandalism and edit warring (including 3RR violation) by JesseRafe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a lie!!! Oh em gee, what is happening? I removed no comments. Never. Look at my Talk Page. It has everything on it. Even the vandals who call me "a little bitch" because I remove their vandalism (am I using it right now, Mendaliv?) In fact, that's what made it so easy for Mendaliv to see those blocks. I NEVER REMOVE COMMENTS. Try to find something better to lie about next time. Absurd. Please, what is going on here? Pasting over? What in the world does that even mean? Explain to me then, how I am the one getting pings that you have been reverting me if that's what you're accusing me of??? JesseRafe (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed no comments. Never. Look at my Talk Page. It has everything on it. [...] I NEVER REMOVE COMMENTS. You removed a comment from your user talk page less than two hours ago, using an inaccurate edit summary. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) That says "undid". I just explained that. You have been here for ten years, but do not know that an "undo" is the same as a revert?
    And again, Mendaliv, how can blocks already enforced be enforced again for the same infraction. You know perfectly well that this is not what 28bytes meant by that. You misapprehend. You made a new comment above that Valencian was a racist. 28bytes said that you were being unblocked on the condition that you no longer comment on Valencian, or any prejudice that his comments may have shown. We're getting well into IDHT territory here... which is nothing new for you, as these diffs show: A ("John, this is completely Kafkaesque.") as B ("Why was I punished for enforcing the rules, and SW exalted for violating the rules?") C ("Previously anyone who blanked an entire section was marked a vandal, and this must have changed.") D ("I really want to know the new rules."). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, it's no lie. See this edit, an obviously deliberate removal of a comment by me. It's clearly not accidental, since it isn't isolated. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it probably wasn't deliberate. Clobbering happens to the best of us with high-traffic boards like ANI. But what's more telling is that JesseRafe apparently hasn't looked at the diff we've repeatedly linked where his comment clobbers your comment, and is just insisting that he was right. This refusal to listen to criticism is at the core of his problem, and is something that needs to be corrected if he is to continue to be a part of this project. It does real, concrete harm in the form of driving away contributors and perpetuating the ridiculously steep learning curve of Wikipedia. It's everything this project has fought, tooth and nail, to distance itself from in recent years. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Undo and Revert are different buttons, so therefore different things to me. I know that I pressed undo (BECAUSE FKC reverted me) and I know that I did not press revert. Do not tell me I pressed revert when I did not, and do not tell me that is OK for FKC to delete my comments but not OK for me to restore them.
    2. Those are serious questions. And again you are dismissing them. I asked re: Gotalund is 3-1 not a consensus, and you didn't respond. I said, and you quoted me, "I really want to know the new rules", and you didn't respond. I get the point, but please, can we look at the substantive issue? For once? Not the backroom drama, but the facts as they pertain to the articles? JesseRafe (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Undo and Revert are different buttons, so therefore different things to me. There isn't even a revert button! There's undo, rollback (which you don't have), and Twinkle's rollback features (which you have a history of using to get around the fact that you don't have rollback). Stop making frivolous arguments. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How am I supposed to know what buttons I don't have are or are not called? I don't have them. So when I get a ping it says so-and-so reverted my edits, that means (to me, an English speaker) that they reverted them. If they had undid them, I would expect the ping to say that. Sorry for the confusion, and yes, if did "clobber" or "paste" (???) it was not deliberate. But it was not a fun experience, doing a bit research to defend oneself and then get told it was undid by the accuser. Doesn't seem very sporting, does it? JesseRafe (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the fact that you have to go back to 13 months to prove an incident I couldn't've told you had happened for a billion dollars isn't exactly the strongest argument. Yes, I've erred, and I've been punished. But what's your point? JesseRafe (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, there is a known bug on ANI where reverts and deletions seem to happen during a rapid series of edits. It will look like the later editor has removed part of another's comment. It's happened to me a number of times. Blackmane (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Block JesseRafe indefinitely

    Frankly, this is a long time coming. JesseRafe has engaged in a pattern of disruptive conduct over the course of years that I have documented above (here, here and here). His responses to that documentation, which response included violating a conditional unblock, provide undeniable evidence that JesseRafe lacks the competence to participate on Wikipedia, and that he is committed to making frivolous, vexatious and circuitous arguments in order to prevent a consensus from being reached in a discussion involving him.

    Let me just leave this to one point: JesseRafe, nearly a ten-year veteran of Wikipedia with close to 9000 edits, argued above that he did not understand that "revert" and "undo" are synonymous in Wikipedia parlance. I'm sorry, but that goes beyond all possible assumptions of good faith.

    We must act to prevent further disruption. Therefore, I propose that JesseRafe be blocked indefinitely.

    • Support as proposer. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I might possibly support this, but I am not convinced yet. Are you really sure an indefinite block is the only option? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, bear in mind that an indef block is not an infinite block, and that what's being proposed is not a community ban. I'm usually in favor of automatically expiring sanctions, but if you look at how long this has been going on, I'd be more comfortable seeing some vetting take place before JesseRafe returns to editing... but I don't think that vetting need rise to the level of an unban discussion. And as I said above, I'd previously considered proposing a 1RR limitation, but that would do little to address the disruption of discussion that JesseRafe causes. What does that leave us? A topic ban wouldn't do anything because there's no singular topic. An interaction ban wouldn't do anything because there's no individuals with whom his behavior conflicts. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Really? Because I don't know "revert" and "undo" are the same thing I deserve to be blocked? (Despite it not being apparent at all, seriously how could anyone be expected to know that? They don't even share anything as much as an etymology or even a letter, one's positive one's negative, they're completely different meanings.) Also, did 28bytes respond to you? Because that is certainly not what he meant re: the block; you're taking his condition completely out of context. You accuse me of making circuitous arguments when on one hand you disparage me for making a paucity of my thousands of edits on Talk Pages and then admonish me for being unfamiliar with Talk Page protocols and nomenclature? I told you before, I make substantive edits. Thousands of them. And good ones. Look through them. I don't skulk around on Talk Pages for a reason. And my two blocks I cited support from the community and proof that the side I was on was correct. Substantively and MOS/guideline-ly And had consensus, but whatever, I was blocked, OK. Punishment served. Lastly, all those diffs are moot as you yourself said I had no idea what was going on above. How many times did I explicitly ask someone to explain it to me? And no one did. I was just further railroaded. It was very confusing -- All I knew was I was adding content to a Talk Page about me and someone was reverting it, so I deleted it. Not with malice, nor deliberately removing content, but merely reinstating my comment that I was pinged had been reverted. The secret cabal of the back room of wikipedia is very offputting, and ignorance of it is charge against one? Really? To use that as evidence is again, circuitous. Further, the wording on what pings say and how edit conflicts are treated should be a lot more clear, maybe because that ANI page was so long, but I was very confused what went where for most of it. But by all means, honest mistakes deserve being banned. Sure. Also, does it matter to no one that the initial issue has been resolved? Yes, I responded to WP:UNCIVIL with further uncivil, but I did so in the guise of preserving wikipedia for the better, namely the insignificant film in question has a lede that conforms to the MOS and with every other film article. I didn't pick a fight, I saw a mistake and I fixed it. JesseRafe (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just some of the recent substantive content-based edits I've been thanked for recently. [143], [144], [145], [146], and [147]. There are hundreds of others of pages that are constant vandalism targets that I monitor, as well as as chart-fixes, links, peacockery and weasel words removing, etc etc, but your solution is I disagreed with folks 5 or 6 discrete times over nine years and 9000 edits and I should be banned. Brilliant. JesseRafe (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your behavior at the article at which I first encountered you makes it pretty clear to me that you wanted a fight with another editor, and that is why I'm currently seriously considering supporting having you indefinitely blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's BS and that's a fight that you picked. Absurd. JesseRafe (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    An unbecoming response, and not one conducive to persuading me you shouldn't be indefinitely blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not just yet I did a random sample of JesseRafe's edits and see edit warring here, here and here within the last 6 hours. I'd like an explanation of why that's not edit warring before I recommend a disruption / competence block. I'd also recommend that FreeKnowledgeCreator stops responding to this thread right now as his rhetoric is also disruptive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment For shame. That is not a random sample, but exactly the reason why we are here. After FreeKnowledgeCreator and I had a spat on Jewtopia FreeKnowledgeCreator decided to follow me to undo my other edits just to irk me. There is no other possible reason for that user to have been on that page, and that wasn't edit-warring that was edit-restoring as per WP:CASTLIST. Absolutely abominable that such shoddy "research" can be passed off in this instance. The laziness in making a case with a supposed "additional example" when it's the "example we are currently discussing" is appalling. Please look at an actual sample of my edits. 8600 good ones, and 5 or 6 disagreements in 9 years is a problem? JesseRafe (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was brought to this thread because I was pinged earlier in it. I have to agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator that the case for an indefinite block has not been made. That is not to say that there is not a problem here, but I am not seeing it at the level of needing complete exclusion. Mendaliv says he ruled out 1RR but that seems like an option to me, or even 0RR. The WP:Wikilawyering over whether an undo is a revert is astonishing for such an experienced editor. Especially so considering the repeated complaints that administrators have been more concerned with the minutae of policy rules than the substantive issue. JesseRafe, the substative issue here is that you have been repeatedly removing the contributions of other editors instead of discussing in a civil environment. It is of no consequence whatsoever how that reversion was actually achieved. That has to stop, and banning you from making any revert at all may be the solution here. SpinningSpark 10:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Question How am I supposed to know what wikilawyering is and that undo/revert are the same thing? Those didn't exist in 2005. Where are they posted on the main page? Seriously, y'all. I look at articles. It's an unfair double standard to assume that I know what goes on on Talk Pages (which most editors regard as secret bureaucrative cabals) because I've been an editor for so long, yet also disparage me as an editor because I've made so few edits in Talk Page namespace. And the fact that you think the outcome of the articles if of no consequence at all is terribly sad. JesseRafe (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just don't see 1RR fixing the problem because what we're seeing from Jesse isn't just reverting, but it's badgering and wikilawyering when he does deign to discuss (whether on talk pages or here). My fear deals with the "invisible losses" of incivility: Those inexperienced and anonymous editors who would be receptive to in-depth work with our system if they weren't being driven away by incivility. However, I hadn't really thought about 0RR... that might be worth thinking about. My only remaining concern would be that we'd find ourselves back here in short order with yet another argument about what qualifies as an exception to a revert restriction (whether 3RR or otherwise). On the other hand, the principle embodied in WP:ROPE suggests that we shouldn't worry about the overhead of going through escalating sanctions. It's something to think about, I guess. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The user is clearly incapable of distinguishing vandalism from good faith mistakes. If we do go down the 0RR route I would suggest that it is an absolute—no reverts at all, no room for arguing the toss over it. SpinningSpark 11:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I'm all for people spending more time on article space (who fancies improving Ioana Ciolacu?) than on the dramaboards ... but if disruption turns up, we need to address it. Jesse, just calm down and take a deep breath. I get the impression you have said edit warring is okay, because you were right. Everyone who edit wars thinks they were right! You were told here that you were edit warring, and because the admin didn't think you understood, you didn't get unblocked. A shame - being blocked is no fun, and having unblock requests declined is even less fun. Anyway, I'll assume you now understand what edit warring is and what the 3RR is. For the record, you can see that the 3 revert rule was created on 13 June 2005, nearly 6 months before you created an account. My advice is - you are okay for one free pass at a revert, and then if it gets reverted back, step back and think "is my change really important to the sum of human knowledge?" Chances are it's not. Then find another article to edit. I see you're in Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer - now I like a nice pint myself and I could really do with Shepherd Neame Brewery having some spit and polish, and some of the breweries mentioned in Beer in San Diego County, California could be polished up to GA status along with the parent article. Something to think about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Slight clarification. I never said edit-warring was right, and I never said it would be because I thought I was right. The events proved I was right, the other editors proved I was right, the MOS proved I was right, etc. The chips fell independent of me and the side I was reverting to was the correct one. That's slight vindication, no? On a lot of articles someone will spurious and (they think) clandestinely make a fundamental change, and then they get reverted, they revert their change back, I try to return to status quo, they make a complaint, boom, 3RR - it's bad policy to leave the false or misleading version of the article up for any amount of time as far as I'm concerned. Why? Because I care about wikipedia too much. And to me, wikipedia has nothing to do with any of this brouhaha backroom shenanigans that literally only 10 or 20,000 human beings even know exist. Wikipedia articles are for the reader, who at any given instant is potentially viewing that page. So, yes, everytime I have done so I have taken blame for 3RR. Why? Because the facts matter more than the politics. If the squeaky wheel gets their grease and I get banned, but while the article is being discussed (for a week! Two whole lifespans of a fruitfly!) the frozen version is the correct one, not the spuriously edited one, then, yes, that extra reversion and its consequences were worth it. So, yes, please don't misconstrue my words, but from an external viewpoint I am labeling situations like this (like Gotaland, Jesus Gonzalez, etc) instances in which I "was right", but am not claiming my reversions were right. It was a sacrifice, really. A sacrifice due to poor policies and practices that don't look at substantive issues but rely on a "who got here first" victors write history approach. I gave Ioana Ciolacu a good look. I don't see how anyone could make it better. I think it's a plain turkey sandwich with nothing else in the fridge but grape jelly. It's not gonna be good, no forseeable way to improve it, but it could certainly be worse. JesseRafe (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If the behavior is that big of a problem, it should go before the Arbitration Committee. I have grown a severe dislike for the mob mentality that frequent these boards over complicated cases by editors who only have a passing or one sided knowledge of the situation which often results in more severe actions that are warranted. —Farix (t | c) 21:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another comment I would like to note that even if JesseRafe does not yet deserve an indefinite block, he definitely deserves a temporary block for having violated 3RR. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This is ridiculous, this case should have been closed after the first few paragraphs when the two parties appeared to resolve their conflict. If 3RR has been violated, take it to WP:ANEW but this proposal has escalated beyond the original complaint and even the remedy FKC was suggesting. An indefinite block is an extreme overreaction to these circumstances. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already presented all the evidence that 3RR was violated on ANI, but the admins have notably failed to take action. Were I to take up the matter at WP:ANEW, as you suggest, that would leave me open to accusations of forum shopping. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks are only issued to prevent further damage to the Wikipedia. They are never punitive or otherwise "punish" the editor. If the edit war has been resolved, there is no reason to bock. —Farix (t | c) 11:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    SantiLak's behavior

    The user SantiLak has been harassing me since his inappropriate actions removing tags on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truth_About_Guns on a page he wrote himself. When I warned him about reverting the tag he started reverting the warnings and harassing me on my own talk page. I have asked him to stop repeatedly and finally asked for help on the prior edit war AN/I, which he deleted.

    I've noticed from the AN/I he has a pattern of 3RR, edit warring, and COI complaints against him. I've also noticed he now has been reverting other user changes on The_Truth_About_Guns entry. From the history a anonyous IPv6 IP went and made a number of changes and removed misleading uncited information from the page. SantiLak reverted all the changes indiscriminately. And has now done 2RR on them.

    With this ongoing pattern of abuse, I think this calls for admin intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.30.8 (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What this user refers to as harassment is just me defending my reputation when this user calls me a harasser after I respond to insults they make telling me to do things such as "Go murder children or whatever you violence lovers like to do when you aren't spamming wikipedia.". This ANI also reflects the fact that this user has refused to discuss issues I have with their edits and issues they have with mine and has ignored WP:BRD. To their point of what I "deleted" on the previous ANI was that I deleted a comment they made on an archived copy of the ANI, not the actual ANI. The ANI had been closed so I removed edits to an archive which as it says on the top shouldn't be edited. There is no pattern of 3RR issues, there has been one real case in the past involving the State Bar of California but that was in August and was resolved. I don't know of any COI complaints, I made the TTAG article after reading about them online and noticing that they were pretty notable and I submitted it as my second article through Articles for Creation and unlike that user wants to think, I am not an employee of the blog. I recommend a speedy close of this ANI, this issue has to do with a content dispute in the article, not actual behavior requiring admin intervention. - SantiLak (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not abuse just statistical facts about gun fetishists. It seems odd that accusations keep coming against you and your impropriety from a variety of sources. Actually this is at least your second 3RR violation (you violated it during the edit war you started by reverting my changes in the first place) and you were on track for a third when I warned you about 3RR (again mind you). And this has nothing to do with whether your low-quality article should be there. This is about reverting legitimate edits (which is vandalism, despite what you may think), and the pattern of 3RR. As well as your continued harassment on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.30.8 (talk) 01:45, March 19, 2015‎ (UTC)
    The only accusations that are coming against me are coming from you right now. Also in relation to the CSD tag I didn't violate 3RR, only reverted 3 times, not 4 or more. I wasn't on track for a third, you reverted my reversion of some edits which weren't legitimate (But again that's a content dispute issue), and it isn't vandalism, read WP:NOT VANDALISM if you want, my edits don't fall anywhere near vandalism. - SantiLak (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles (such as minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes), hiding vandalism (such as by making two bad edits and only reverting one), simultaneously using multiple accounts or IP addresses to vandalize, abuse of maintenance and deletion templates, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. " Explain again how restoring incorrect and misleading information by reverting a change is not "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.30.8 (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's your opinion that what I did was restoring incorrect and misleading information, if you felt that way, again that is a content dispute meant for discussion. - SantiLak (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    24.16.30.8, you didn't notify SantiLak, I've done it for you. I would recommend a boomerang on this one. 24.16.30.8 placed a speedy delete template on The_Truth_About_Guns as seen [| here]. 2 minutes later it was remove by sysop Michael_Greiner. He reposted the same Speedy Deletion a few days later [| here ], it was at that point that SantiLak removed it. The same user replaced it again and called SantiLak's removal vandalism [| here ] The IP went to 2 RR as did SantiLak, replacing and removing the speedy delete tag. As the speedy delete tag can be placed once only, and anyone can remove it, and because it was removed first by a sysop, I'd say the I.P has no case and should watch out for boomerangs here. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 16:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I agree about a boomerang...but for the record, KoshVorlon, WP:CSD doesn't state that a speedy template can only be placed once. The only restriction like that that I am aware of is for {{prod}} tags. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm OOPS! You're correct Erpert. I was thinking of Prods! KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 15:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually not about the speedy deletion. Which was not a few days later it was a few months later. This is about SantiLak continuing to spam my talk page after I accepted that the page was going to be kept and told him that I conceded. Yesterday I noticed that another ip users had made a good number of changes fixing errors in links, and removing content that was either misleading or not in the provided references. SantiLak with no discussion reverted all of those changes. When I undo his reversion and warned him about it he reverted them again. And actually, SantiLak didn't stop at 2, he did go to 3. He also was warned about his actions of clearing out warnings and the fact that as the article creator he has a COI in removing the CSD request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.30.8 (talk) 01:45, March 19, 2015‎ (UTC)
    The changes that they made were unnecessary but again that is a content dispute. I would also like to again remind you that the CSD was denied by the users in the previous ANI.- SantiLak (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.30.8 (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The changed that they made were damaging the quality of the article, this isn't about me writing the article in the first place and it certainly is not WP:OWNERSHIP, its about bad edits made to the article. - SantiLak (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I suggest the following: 24.16.30.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has apparently agreed to stop editing the article in question on their Talk page – that's probably a good start; SantiLak, I think you can stop commenting on the IP's Talk page – they've asked you to stop, and continuing at their Talk page is not going to further "clear your name". If both parties agree to this, we should be all done here. --IJBall (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    They said they would stop but in fact they have continued by reverting my edits yesterday and with more edits, I am fine with stopping commenting on their talk page, this is a content dispute and I really see no need to continue this ANI. - SantiLak (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What about SantiLak's unilateral deletion of other editor changes with no discussion in the Talk page and then edit warring over objections to that? All I want to see is SantiLak warned about Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. If he and the other user want to hash out differences in opinion in the article talk, I have no issue with that. But the rules do state: "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version." is not stewardship it is claiming ownership. That and his Talk page harassment is what the ANI is about. Not the resolved CSD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.30.8 (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This has absolutely nothing to do with ownership, changes that are unnecessary and damage different articles are reverted all of the time by users including myself. The only difference is that I started this article, I have reverted similarly unnecessary changes to other articles that I didn't start. I deleted that other editor's changes because they did damage the article, removed important information, and slanted the article strongly. What about your unilateral reversion of my reinstatement of information (ehem WP:BRD), if you have an issue with my edits, which you obviously do, then start a thread on the article talk page, don't unilaterally revert. - SantiLak (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference. The edits included things like the older version of the page referenced a page that was just a redirect to a page already referenced (SantiLak reverted this fix). The page made claims about the blog which were not in the articles cited. The page made the claim that a reference talked about donations when no text about donations was in it. It misapplied a quote by the blog's founder to be for another thing. SantiLak reverted all of those changes. The page had the blog categorized not as a blog but as some kind of political activist organization. SantiLak again did not put anything into talk and just bulk reverted a dozen small changes without attempting any kind of correction. Ahem, you violated BRD by doing the reversion without a specific reason and not discussing. All I did was undo your vandalism. And yes WP:OWNERSHIP does apply here. You even used the kind of language in this ANI that the WP:OWNERSHIP article references. "The changes that they made were unnecessary" "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version." That is exactly what you did. And looking at the changes made. I think anyone who isn't trying to claim ownership would agree that removing misleading information and distortions of citations is improving an article. If you think that uncited information is in fact correct then you should add a cite instead or admit that you are using original research to write this article. 24.16.30.8 (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh and by the way "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." and "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones." 24.16.30.8 (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Again I am not claiming ownership, you seem to want to put that forward as my opinion but as I've already explained I am not claiming ownership, I was reverting changes that slanted the article and removed cited information. I'm not invoking BRD to support my reversions of the other user's edits, I am pointing out that you need to follow it. I reverted the edits, you had an issue with it, so discuss it on the article talk page, don't just copy and paste policy that doesn't apply to me in this case. Some of the citations were in the wrong place but removing all of that information was ridiculous. Also removing a massive section on their political activism is detrimental to the article because that is a large part of their business is political activism. The article has now been turned into a slanted article with information that isn't in the sources provided as well. - SantiLak (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about your opinions on the content, its about your rule violations. If you want to argue content go to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.30.8 (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, IP, no one here agrees about the rule violations, so maybe you should go back to the talk page. Here, the two of you are just going back and forth and it's really getting nowhere. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If the administrator decision is that an editor reverting a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental is a perfectly acceptable behavior, then I will just have to accept that judgement. 24.16.30.8 (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SantiLak is now stalking me on to another talk page, is this also allowed? 24.16.30.8 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how defending my reputation against someone who is claiming things about me that aren't true with one comment on the talk page of a user who is also involved in the article discussion is stalking in any way. - SantiLak (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Could both of y'all just cool it, please? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 09:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Linkspamming etc. by Pi-gimjiRu

    User:Pi-gimjiRu has been creating dozens of nearly empty articles on fish, consisting of a taxobox and a link to an online database at thaibiodiversity.org. Example: [148]. Pi-gimjiRu's edits so far have consisted mainly of that, along with linkspamming entries from that database to existing fish articles, e.g. [149]. Repeated explanations at Pi-gimjiRu's talk page from User:Obsidian_Soul, User:Animalparty, User:220_of_Borg and then me, don't seem to have dented Pi-gimjiRu's resolve to keep churning out nearly empty articles. User:Animalparty has also asked the editor at Pi-gimjiRu's talk page about what appears to be use of multiple accounts, with no reply, but many more articles created. Advice on how best to handle this would be welcome. Thanks, Dai Pritchard (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I just came here via WT:CSD and the user's talk page, with the same concern. Others have tried to talk to the user but they seem either uninterested in discussion, or more likely they are not English. Good faith notwithstanding, we now have a large number of articles on fish in Thailand which are nothing more than a taxobox and a link, as Dai Pritchard explained above, and they are also spamming this link into other fish articles (e.g. [150] [151] [152]) with little or no context. I was going to try to help the user myself, but based on the existing unanswered discussions on their talk page and the existence of this thread, I think that a competence is required block is an appropriate course of action here. At least until the user responds. Ivanvector (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing what you meant to say was that the editor might not be fluent in English? This edit shows him responding in English to talk page comments but I don't believe he's returned to editing Wikipedia since the notices were placed there. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks, I meant not fluent in the English language. Not being of English heritage is of course irrelevant. I didn't see that they had replied to earlier notices, however they were editing today, so they either don't know how the notification interface works or they're ignoring all of those messages. Ivanvector (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor in question has created another dozen or so 'fishy' fish pages in the last ≈40 minutes. ' 220 of Borg 08:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not even bothering to look after saving, on all-this robo editing. Macrognathus semiocellatus, for example: He just pastes and moves on to the next entry in the database. I'll start speedying these A1. Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another 80 useless edits since the 8:04 notification, including now the addition of images with copyright issues. Really getting into stride now. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked Pi-gimjiRu for 3 hours. The mechanical pattern of their edits, and their failure to acknowledge any of the communications put to them, does suggest they're using some kind of automated database-dump tool. Their very few talk page edits in January show that they do speak English fine, and that they do understand how talk pages work. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 10:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You may already know about it, but this is also related to the editor. 62.107.192.174 (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    RichaChaudhary

    USER BLOCKED
    Sock indef blocked by DoRD (after master was earlier blocked by Floquenbeam for non-responsiveness). (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC) close reverted then restored - Ivanvector (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    This user, both as the above name and as User:Rameshpoonia1 has constantly and consistently been posting non-English translations of Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, and has refused to discuss with other editors who're warning her, both with templated and handwritten messages, on their talk page. User either does not have a working command of English or is more concerned about exploiting en.wp's visibility; either way they are blocked now and they need to be told, in their native tongue (Marathi) and in no uncertain terms, that we do not accept articles that are not English, since I have no doubt that most of the issue here is a language barrier and I would rather have it explained to them before they sock again. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So, you are asking for an admin or editor who speaks Marathi to issue her a warning? Is there a WikiProject talk page related to this language area or ethnic group where you might make this request? Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know where you could publish such a request, but perhaps asking a user in the Category:User mr-N would be a start? Ivanvector (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem there is I don't know who all is active on en.wp in that language category. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 05:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a sockpuppetry request should be filed at WP:SPI. Objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No need, the accounts are already flagged as confirmed socks, and indef blocked. Besides, that process is severely backlogged. Ivanvector (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close reverted (edit conflict) - respectfully, IJBall, thank you for closing, but there is the open issue of how to post a notice to this user in their native language. Perhaps we could ask at WP:WikiProject India? I was thinking of just randomly going through the user category until I found someone reasonably experienced and reasonably active, but that would be tedious. Ivanvector (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted a request. Ivanvector (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, this exists already. @Jéské Couriano: you can use Template:contrib-mr1 for this. Ivanvector (talk) 15:38, 20 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 and persistent incivility at Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

    A slow revert war is being waged by an editor blocking content not to his liking: More than 50+ very high end RS’s have been presented (lists here, here, and [153]) evaluating the effects of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act‎, but User:MONGO reverts any and all mention of any of them (e.g., [154], [155], [156]).

    Despite the several months and multiple requests, Mongo has presented no policy, no RS, nor any text in support of his opposition to including RSs about the Adam Walsh Act. Instead of proposing any potential resolutions, Mongo simply has resorted to name calling, from SPA and POV-pusher to pedophile apologist (e.g., [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162]).

    Other attempts to resolve dispute:

    Because the Adam Walsh Act is primarily about sexual abuse and RS’s come largely from sex researchers, this page might fall under the discretionary sanctions for Sexology. — James Cantor (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please correct me if I've got this wrong. A brief review indicates:
    1. There is a desire on the part of some editors, including the OP, that the article in question include a Criticism section because there's a lot of reliable sources that offer criticism of the law, particularly (mostly?) in the area of mandatory sentencing.
    2. Other editors agree with WP:CRITS (yes, I know it is an essay) that one should "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies"
    3. Additionally, editors feel that the criticism section is in fact a WP:POV advocacy section.
    4. Finally, there have been some harsh words exchanged.
    My thoughts are:
    • I disagree with point 1.
    • I agree with points 2 & 3.
    • No comment on 4.
    Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If in fact criticism of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act can be found in reliable sources, then it does not seem unreasonable to mention that criticism somewhere in the article, whether in a "criticism" section or not. Objections to "criticism" sections are a strange rationale for excluding the information. I am a little confused why anyone would want to keep that information out of the article, though a look at its revision history shows that Mongo is not the only editor opposed to inclusion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No idea why Cantor brings this now....my last comment was on March 6th here. Previously I agreed to a short critcism section but they crafted a massive POV pushing to use the article as a venue to advocate for change. Perhaps since Cantor and ViperFace feel that this issue is this big maybe they can craft a side article where they can expand all they wish in POV FORK land. My take as a trained anthropologist is that Cantor and Viperface are apologists for deviant behavior and want to misuse the article as a platform for their agenda. Viperface is a SPA....a quick glance at that accounts contributions makes it clear they are here for one purpose only. This isn't about anything other than my efforts to deal with aggressive POV pushing by those that advocate that sex offender laws need to be changed to protect sex offenders! All I can say to that is go vote, or protest somewhere in which your protest might make the difference, but don't try to misuse the website as a platform for your agenda. How Cantor, with his strong POV on the subject, survived the Sexology case without sanction is bewildering.--MONGO 00:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is where the discussion started. ViperFace, later supported by Cantor were making a massive article change wording the article in as POV a fashion as possible. Only because myself and others fought against this POV pushing has the article been neutral. As I mentioned before, I made many overtures which can be seen in the takklage discussions to include critique, but they didn't want that unless they could craft a massive POV push. For he record, ViperFace mentioned he lives outside the U.S. and this is a U.S. law, but his country was considering strengthening their sex offender laws and he thought citizens of his country might read about this U.S. law on Wikipedia and that they would get a favorable opinion about it and enact similar legislation....if that isn't a clear cut case of misusing this website for advocacy then nothing is.--MONGO 00:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My (uninvolved) general impression here is that this boils down to a content dispute, where people are unable to agree on an interpretation of WP:DUE. Unfortunately, dispute resolution doesn't seem to have worked. On the face of it, I'm inclined to agree that while there is plenty of criticism of the Act, it doesn't all appear to be as notable as the neutral descriptions thereof.
    OTOH, simply being an SPA isn't evidence of POV pushing and I'm otherwise not very impressed by User:MONGO's case here, which seems heavy on opinion of others and light on diffs. I don't think accusing other editors of advocat[ing]... apologetics for deviant behaviors should be considered acceptable on talk pages even with good evidence, since it's ad-hominem and grossly incivil; additionally, it seems to me that the consistent reference to deviant - rather than "criminal" - behaviour is telling. 70.24.6.180 (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Given James Cantor's past on Wikipedia, I think it would be best for him to back off when challenged and go straight to talk pages and/or RfCs rather than fighting in article space. He's pretty unpopular with a non-trivial segment of the community and this ain't improving it. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If Guy has any evidence of incivility or any inappropriate editing at all on my part, I invite him to present it. That prior conflicts were apparently not resolved to his satisfaction does not justify his poison. — James Cantor (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay James let me reiterate again and I'll even add to it. Please come up with a few brief paragraphs that use the best references provided that show the Act has been detrimental and incorporate them into the article. I have mentioned this several times but you apparently did not read it. Others that have opposed this would offer less. I concur the law is likely needing to be amended but care must be made to not use the article as a place to advocate for such change.--MONGO 23:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Sexology arbitration established this beyond doubt. You got away with it only because your POV-pushing and baiting are civil. You are a clever man and you are playing the long game, in your determination to use Wikipedia to legitimise your opinions. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I became involved after passing through Third Opinion, and tried to encourage the addition of a small section on controversy. The only text offered by the advocates for adding a Controversy section was practically single-sourced from an advocacy website. There are repeated efforts to use this article as a platform for change, to turn it into a "Look what Wikipedia has to say about how bad these laws are!" The RS's offered not as they are presented; rather, they are a collection of passing mentions or reports of the activities of advocacy groups. The few that actually deal with the law are either fringe groups or one-off papers. Is there some controversy over the law? Sure, as much as there is with all "minimum sentencing" laws. I have again offered - as MONGO has - to let these editors present what they want to place in the article so that it can be evaluated collaboratively. This has not been done; rather the talk page gets spammed with "Look at these RS'S!" and "Why aren't you letting us?" comments. What NEEDS to happen is that these editors submit a properly sourced, non-POV draft. Until they have done so, there is no place for this here on AN/I. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ScrapIronIV is entitled to whatever political view ScrapIronIV wants, but what he says simply doesn’t match up with the diff’s:
    ScrapIron says “practically single-sourced from an advocacy website”, but actually looking at the (many proposals for) text instead shows dozens of RS’s, spanning law journals, social science research journals, and high end secondary sources: [163][164][165][166][167][168]
    ScrapIronIV says the RS’s provide only “passing mentions,” but the list of 50+ references instead shows that many even go so far as to include the name of the law in their titles.
    ScrapIronIV says “advocacy website,” but the lists instead include cites to NYTimes, the American Bar Association, and the George Washington Law Review, and many others (lists here, here, and here)
    ScrapIron (and Mongo) have been asked multiple times over the several months to provide their own example of how the material might be covered, and neither has presented even one. (The six proposals for including the RS content are above.) Mongo's response was to, for example, just strike-through the proposal, calling it "my contribution."[169] Their behavior/commentary, as is obvious already, does not invite much room for someone to work to provide a seventh proposal. As is clear from reading, the proposal content isn't really the issue.
    Finally, ScrapIron says providing RS’s on a talkpage is spamming. Really? To me, that’s a clue to where any POV-pushing is.
    — James Cantor (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScrapIronIV "The only text offered by the advocates for adding a Controversy section was practically single-sourced from an advocacy website." WHAT??!!? You are either hallucinating or deliberately lying as an attempt to give this expression to casual reader who is lazy enough to not go through the mountain of RS that I and James have presented, which is only tiny fraction of all RS there is and which happens to be unanimously negative towards AWA. I don't like to call people as lairs but when facts show intentional lying to advance ones position then the issue must be addressed. You tried this earlier on AWA talk page by stating that most of the 19 refs of proposed edit are from blogs or editorials and are not RS, when in fact there was only 1 editorial and at least half of the refs were from peer reviewed studies. When called out for it you never replied. Stop lying!!
    @MONGO you have been requested to change proposed edits to more neutral form many times. Regardless of that, your contribution this far has been personal attacks and striking over proposals with no offers of alternative formation. I have asked you to help but you never even tried to offer any alternative. Instead you keep on being stuck on SPA-POVPush-fringe viewpoint- roundabout. You said:"I concur the law is likely needing to be amended". 99% of RS evaluating the law shares this opinion with you, as do some high level child safety advocates and many civil and human right organizations, which is very encyclopedic fact and should be put forward to readers. Still for some reason you are unwilling to offer helping hand here. I have been pretty open about my position on this matter on my user page, which of course should bare no value on determining what goes on the article main page. You trying to make me and James (who happens to be one of the most notable scholars on field of sexology) appear as NAMBLA advocates to casual reader is derogatory, malicious and uncalled for. Your latest post on this matter was in fact [170] where you once again fail to address the point of this dispute and lapse back to my editing history, which once again bare no value in determining what the article should say.ViperFace (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling a BLP 'a pedophilia apologist', even on talkpages, violates WP:BLPTALK and WP:LIBEL. I would be surprised if it were let go by admins, but I have been wrong before.— James Cantor (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting, the vitriol being poured on me; I have never edited the page, I have only offered an opinion on the talk page. I encouraged the inclusion of an NPOV insertion of a controversy section[171], and I had actually supported the specific piece offered [172]. I even tried to offer more than token support [173] and suggest improvements. I have since removed that support. Why? Because the entries for the controversy section proposed was either from advocacy sites, or interviews with advocacy organizations from otherwise reputable RS's. So, I have not edit warred; rather, I have done exactly what a talk page is for - I have talked about the contributions. I am under no obligation to write that section, nor will I. Offering dozens of supposed RS's on the talk page is the equivalent of drowning an editor in paperwork - a great tool for lawyers, but not for me. Anyone is willing to look through them, but there wasn't any meat on the bone for the ones I examined. After a couple of hours of reading them, I gave up looking for substance. Call me a liar if you will - but I stand by my original statement. The original text as proposed for a controversy section was from advocacy sources, and I withdrew offer my support on the talk page for its inclusion. Did I remove it? No. Did I ever ONCE edit that article? No. Save your vile comments for others. As for @MONGO, I apologize for challenging your assertions early in the conversation. You were right. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What you are saying is simply not true. Please present the evidence of using advocacy sites as refs, please. I do not recall using any of such pages as refs. I called you a liar because of the gaping difference between what you assert and what I observe when I look at the refs.ViperFace (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Save it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt once, twice, three times. I ended up wasting a lot of my time trying to support you - but the moment I disagree, out come the fangs and venom. So, I will keep that page on my watchlist, but will stop contributing here on the drama boards or on the talk page. Any advocacy crap that gets put on that page will be appropriately edited with an equally appropriate edit summary. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Put forward the evidence of using advocacy pages as refs!! Also, you positioning yourself above the researchers who do their life work on this field by claiming theirs research has no "meat on the bone" is rather arrogant. Are you a uni professor or how do you rationalize this obvious bias to yourself?ViperFace (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And there is the standstill. ScrapIron makes a bunch claims (sans diffs or evidence), simple fact-checking shows that they're simply untrue, but when ask to present diffs and evidence to support his claims, ScrapIron takes his marbles and goes home. There simply is no evidence to support his view...just the promise to revert whatever is not to his liking, still with never a suggestion for text of his own, RS's be damned.— James Cantor (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redux: James Canotr engages in WP:CPUSH. He baits everyone else until they either leave to avoid being blocked, or lose their temper (see below re Sceptre). Having seen off the opposition, Canotr continues his crusade to add views the trans community appear to find grossly offensive. The idea of stepping back due to his self-admitted WP:COI never crosses his mind. Are we done here until next time it happens? Guy (Help!) 23:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone that disagrees with them gets the full Monty. Even the olive branches I have thrown is not enough and I have done that just above and on the article talk page. The version they really want is what they started with, which is ridiculous.--MONGO 01:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      ViperFace states openly on his own user page that be is currently a SPA. The rest of he page is dedicated to this article effort. My pointing out the obvious which he self admits is not a personal attack. They both ask to prove a negative, which they know cannot be done, so let me put it this way, come up with a section that shows that there has been an effort to amend or repeal this federal law at the federal level as that would be noteworthy. Perhaps there has been, and if so did amendments get made and if they did not, explain why they failed.--MONGO 01:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Sceptre was a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology of which James Cantor's COI was a main issue. ArbCom did not accept the arguments that he engaged in inappropriate editing. Since then, he only edits the talk pages of articles he is personally involved in, i.e. in fields where he is an expert and has published research in peer-reviewed journals. Another editor who repeatedly accused James Cantor of crusading to "add views the trans community appear to find grossly offensive", but without supporting diffs, was banned from Wikipedia because of her behavior. This seems like a carryover from this case. If editors find certain view distasteful, but reliable sources support it, then it can be included. EChastain (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that me and James have been well within the WP policy guidelines, such a nuclear option is hardly warranted. If anyone deserves an article ban it's definitely not me or James.ViperFace (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    personal attacks by Longtone

    Longtone has been engaging in personal attacks against me on the trajan vuia page for some time now. most recently calling me an obsessive monomaniac [174] and accusing me of sockpuppetry [175], and going all the way back to his insulting me in edit sumaries [176]. This seems to be his way of trying to rectify a content dispute, but my concern here today is his personal attacks.Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I think you mean TheLongTone, but at any rate...calling you a POV pusher isn't really a personal attack. And s/he even stated that s/he didn't call you a sock (although this is close). Both of y'all maybe need to cool off for a bit, but I don't really see anything warranting admin intervention here. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 09:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Erpert blah, blah, blah... that no administrative action is necessary at this point. I think you would need to show a more severe pattern of name-calling, and un-civil behavior, etc. Before going to this forum, I think you should post an uncivil tag on the user's talk page, list the incident diffs and say you plan to take them to ANI if they continue along this line. As to the content dispute, you might try asking for a Third Opinion WP:THIRD. (revised) David Tornheim (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is nonsense. Nemes is an SPA solely concerned with pushing his POV re Train Vuia: this is in the face of a num,ber of editors opposing his edits. He does not engage with arguments on the talk page, merely acts hysterically. As he is doing here.TheLongTone (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And I admit my deralings with Nemes have got snippy, but this is in the face of persistent failure to engage with issues on his part: he has also made accusations of improper behaviour agains me and other users, notably User:Binksternet.TheLongTone (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is you and your fellow vandals(that's what stonewalling and tendentious editing are defined as) Binsternet and donfb who refuse to engage with arguments. And whining about content disputes is not the purpose of this page. you're a veteram editor, you should know that.Ion G Nemes (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. It's for the talk page, wher you have made an obnoxious fool of yourself. Incidentally the IP who you claim is my sock is in Montreal. I think it's fairly obvious that I am not.TheLongTone (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To both of you: Please stop with the Ad_hominems. Calling each other names in this back and forth is not going to solve anything. Each of you should please review Wiki-Incivility and WP:ETIQ. You both need to provide diffs of the behavior you are accusing the other of.
    • To TheLongTone (talk): You accused Ion G Nemes (talk) of being a SPA. However, I looked at Nemes's user contributions [here], and that is not correct. Please do not WP:BITE new users (to the page). This lends credibility to Nemes's accusations against you. Please review this policy guideline from WP:BITE:
    Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet." You can point them to those policies if there is valid cause to do so. For example, if a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute (see Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade).
    (revised) David Tornheim (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Read and understood. I admit that I have at times been uncivil in my reactions to the situation I find myself in. And although I do believe that gaming the system has occurred at times, I will not bring it up as an epithet, and restrict all mention of it to situations where it is actually necessary, and in such hopefully rare situations try to do so with tact. It is not my intention to bring allegations of tendentiousness against TheLongTone for any acts he has performed up to this time, I got mad and mentioned something which I honestly believe, but did and do not intend to pursue in his case. I have no idea how to 'strike out' a line of text, but anyone reading this should feel free to strike the word Vandals, and the parenthetical phrase after it(perhaps to be replaced by 'editors'), and to strike the word whining. And I am sorry for that post's tenor.Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: However I do not believe I have ever called Thelongtone a sockpuppet at any time. And Since I have no Idea who he is, or where he's from, the whole Montreal thing is, frankly, confusing to me. Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To Ion G Nemes (talk): Thank you for taking responsibility for your behavior. To strike out a section, add <s> immediately before the text and </s> at the end of the text as I did with this text which you can look at if you edit this page. See also Strikethrough.
    -David Tornheim (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by everything I have said. Nemes is to all effects a SPA, very few of his edits are anywhere else. And my other comments are fully justified by his conduct on Talk:Train Vuia. Why provide diffs: almost everythin posted is evidence of his foolish behaviour. Notably the familiar POV that an editor is upholding truth in the face of a cabal of POV pushers.TheLongTone (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I also do not understand why I am accused of biting a newcomer: Nemes has been editing since December 2010. Concetrating on Vuia and Henri Coanda, a very similar topic. This is slightly longer than I have been active on Wikipedia. TheLongTone (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't bother commenting on this matter, except that it involves an editor I've begun to notice and respect and I hate to see such editors getting themselves into trouble. Longtone, it's not a matter of what you think about the other editor, it's a matter of how you express it. You might think s/he is an SPA, a sock or any number of other things, but it's unproductive to start (or continue) an argument based on those views. That approach never works (I know, I've tried it). Deb (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of being accused of wikilawyering, I have never said anything about Nemes as a person: away from the topic he may very well be delightful. I have, I think, restricted my comments to his editing behaviour, which is I believe another matter. Iand I may have expressed myself robustly: I have not ever been abusive. Anyway, the whole thing is all too silly for words. Incidentally the person who said something about ad hominum comments clearly does not know what the term means.TheLongTone (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For examples of Nemes' intemperate behaviour, see [177]. For evidence that his attitude towards Vuia is highly biased and refusal to back this opinion with sources, see [178].TheLongTone (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor making bulk changes against consensus

    Serpren (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has for some time been making bulk changes to UK placenames. I informed him [179] on his talk page that per this consensus, it's very clear that bulk changes of this type should cease. This was in many cases mopped up by an admin (User:Redrose64), but Serpren has continued. I reverted him in a number of cases, but he has just reverted back.

    This consensus was designed to stop this kind of thing, i.e. editors changing UK placenames to suit their own preference, for example removing "UK" or adding it, or swapping "UK" for "England" and vice versa. There's no consensus on which format to use and it is unconstructive to keep switching between them. I have encountered several editors engaging in this practice (usually adding or removing "UK") and showing them the consensus has always stopped them, until now.

    Please advise on how to resolve this, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I now see he actually reported me for vandalism [180] although it's not showing on that page. He did not notify me of this report and even accused me of editing "for political motivations", a clear violation of WP:AGF, let alone being utterly wrong. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus Bretonbanquet refers to is "no consensus" as to style (therefore no mandate for bulk changes). However it does refer back to an earlier discussion and straw poll which showed a split consensus (once socks and meatpuppets were removed) between "England, UK/United Kingdom" and "England" (and similarly for Scotland, Wales, N Ireland) in geography leads. (In both discussions it was widely stated by those who usually know about these things that using both the home country and UK was redundant.) Consequently Serpren has some grounds for making their changes, though they would be well advised to stop and seek fresh consensus, since the strawpoll was a long time ago, and not well attended. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC).
    Yes, as you say, the straw poll is from 2006 and consensus was split. The 2014 discussion to which I linked above also found no consensus as to style and that bulk changes shouldn't be made. This is my complaint; that Serpren is not abiding by that. Nearly all of his edits are changes of this type. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If I may add, Serpren's haste to make these changes has introduced geographic or grammatical errors into at least a couple of articles ([181] [182]). Being so eager to add their bulk changes that they fail to spot any collateral damage is a fairly good indicator that their intentions are not necessarily honourable. QueenCake (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I was under the impression that the consensus was "Cornwall, England, UK/United Kingdom" and have been assiduously working to ensure conformity across Cornish pages. However, should the consensus be "England, UK/United Kingdom" or "England", I will happily stick with that. My profound apologies for any grammatical errors I have caused, that was certainly not my intent. Maybe an adjudication, or new consensus, could be reached? Serpren (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You say that, but at no stage have you been applying this convention of "Cornwall, England, UK" to pages that say "Cornwall, England". You've only been changing pages which say "Cornwall, UK". Perhaps you could explain why that's the case. The consensus you're talking about is here, but as it says, "Although no-one actively changes articles that don't comply with this format unless making other substantive edits to the article, members of the Cornwall Wikiproject do ensure that where it has been used, it remains in place." In other words, and combined with the other consensus about not making bulk changes to UK placenames, don't change the placenames unless you're making other substantive edits to the article. There is no consensus to enforce this placename format across all Cornish articles, particularly as you're being somewhat selective in your choice of articles to change.
    There's also the point about inappropriate use of "Cornwall, England, UK" when the sentence already mentions England or the UK, or "English" or "British". That just amounts to repetition and makes the sentence read very poorly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Barack Obama, article probation, past its sell-by date

    1. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation was introduced in mid-2008 (the exact history is obscured by a cut-and-paste move).
    2. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Log of sanctions shows that the vast majority of action occurred by the end of 2009, an apart from a 1 week block which would have been uncontroversial, no enforcement has occurred for about 3 1/2 years.
    3. The list articles tagged is woefully incomplete, including only Sonal Shah. Talk:You didn't build that isn't included for example.

    I believe these sanctions have served their purpose and should now be ended.

    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC).

    FWIW, I've fixed the cut-and-paste move. Graham87 15:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    TYVM. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC).
    Seven years...ResMar 23:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    report on user "AdamDeanHall"

    I would like to report user "AdamDeanHall" for violating Wikipedia's Terms of Service.

    This user is nothing more than a bully and constantly deletes/removes Wikipedia entries made by other users. He has for the past few days removed every article I have added to Wikipedia pages.

    He has threatened me and accused me of "vandalism" when I correctly added information to Wikipedia page for the Decades Television Network. The user also tried blocking me from correcting the misinformation he had entered on the page.

    The fact is, I have been watching the Decades TV Network for some time and I had added information regarding the network airings of television series to the Wikipedia page. The user keeps editing off/removing my correct listings and chastising me.

    I speak for a lot of other users regarding this "AdamDeanHall" character for his actions are demeaning and very much uncalled for. His actions also make Wikipedia editing a very unenjoyable experience. He plays "god" by editing pages to the way he sees fit to his standards.

    I have contacted this user regarding the threats and informed him/her I was to take action if the user continued bullying me.

    I wish to be contacted regarding this matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkseid 77 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Read WP:Assume good faith and WP:OWN. You do not own your additions to the site, and anyone else is entitled to modify or remove any changes you make to articles. If you do not want that to happen, do not add anything to this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't have said it better myself. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) What are we supposed to be looking for here? All I see is an editor who specializes in editing articles on current TV series. What is the specific offense? Where are the diffs to show us these offenses? --IJBall (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Link to article in question: Decades (TV network) --IJBall (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC) OK, this must be the article: List of programs broadcast by Decades --IJBall (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darkseid 77: What articles did AdamDeanHall delete, and what was the mechanism of deletion (i.e. speedy deletion, prod, AfD, merge and redirect)? BMK (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Darkseid 77, I don't see any evidence of bullying on Adam's part. He has only left a warning template on your talk page one time. He also hasn't left uncivil messages in edit summaries or anything; in fact, you are the one who has been doing that ([183] [184]). The reason Adam reverted the additional programs was simply that they weren't sourced. (And whom are these "a lot of other users" that you are referring to?) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If everyone would set down their boomerangs for a minute and really look at Adam's pattern of editing, you'll find that this editor isn't the only one who's had issues with Adam's editorial style. He tends to be very high-handed and bossy on television articles, removes content which is often perfectly appropriate with no edit summaries, then tells editors, often in very bossy language, to stop making whatever edits they have made, frequently by citing some rule he's decided applies to the article. If anyone exhibits WP:OWN behavior, it's Adam. He also will remove perfectly good sources he doesn't like and replace them, unexplained, with one media website he seems to favor. He never responds to warnings or discussion attempts on his talk page, and has been asked repeatedly to use edit summaries, which he continues to fail to do the vast majority of the time; the few he does use are often substandard. Whatever the OP may or may not have done, it doesn't alter the fact that Adam has been a low-level problem editor for some time, and the OP's concerns should at least be treated with some respect before you all pile on him. --Drmargi (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's all possible, but where is the evidence, where are the diffs? BMK (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Although I agree ADH really needs to learn how to deal with other editors better (and needs to stop messing with sourcing, especially redirecting things to press releases from TV by the Numbers rather than neutral industry sources), they're right on this one. I'm sorry Darkseid, but we need absolute sourcing to confirm what airs on a network or not, we can't take 'because I saw it in the EPG' or 'they aired a promo saying this was coming' as a source. We need something written down and released by the network or neutral industry media to add it. Just look at the minefields that are the list of's for any children's network; we have to deal with this all the time (ahem, the Dan Vs. vandal, who would love if they got a false source to stick for weeks saying it launched again on the Tennis Channel or 3ABN if they could), and we cannot be lax in adding shows without sourcing; we need good and solid sourcing to add a show to a list of article. ADH has other editing issues; keeping the list of tidy and well-sourced isn't one of them. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Like Drmargi stated, ADH has been a low-level problem editor for years. All you have to do is skim through his talk page archives to see this has been a problem for years, and rarely does it seem that he communicates back. He is, sometimes, completely over-the-top in his edit summaries displaying ownership of articles. —"I said leave those two programs alone!", "I told you to leave those two shows where they are!", "Get those pilots off this page!"; removes cited material [185] [186]; he'll make an edit like this stating "None of those shows are allowed" (without explanation) then subsequently edit the same article adding shows without a source; replace perfectly acceptable references with another website just because he prefers it [187] [188]; he reverts other editors for uncited material, but he'll do the same thing [189] [190] [191]. He also makes completely silly over-the-top requests at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP: [192] [193] [194] [195]. He of course, does make good edits, but he seriously needs to tone it down and start becoming more collaborative with other editors. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gp980 / User:Gpires980

    Taken care of by Diannaa. (I closed this before but then I reopened it per WP:NACD, but now it seems like the close wasn't bad after all. If anyone objects, feel free to re-reopen it.) (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Gp980 (contributions) has made some problematic edits:

    • Creation of biographies of Miriam Klein Stahl and Elaine kahn which were both copyright violations of the website of a bookseller/publisher called City Lights (originals here and here).
    • Repeated placement of spam links to the book purchase sections of the same website into existing articles (see just about all of the remaining contributions).

    The article on Miriam Klein Stahl was speedily deleted. The speedy deletion nomination of Elaine kahn currently still exists and is contested on the grounds that use of the text is authorised. It appears that the user is connected to the City Lights bookseller and may be using Wikipedia to drive traffic to the site and promote sales. Per WP:LINKSPAM I removed the spam links.

    User:Gpires980 (contributions) has subsequently recreated the article on Miriam Klein Stahl and replaced all of the spam links.

    I would appreciate some admin intervention here:

    • Is there a problem with the multiple accounts? The edits have not overlapped and the usernames make it obvious they are related, but they are they falling foul of WP:ILLEGIT such as Creating an illusion of support, avoiding WP:3RR or Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts?
    • I have not re-reverted the spam links so as not to engage in an edit war. Could someone else do it instead?

    Many thanks. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • (Non-administrator comment) The article for Miss Stahl no longer has a copyvio, so I removed the speedy tag from that one; however, her notability is still questionable, so maybe WP:AFD is a better venue for it. But the article for Miss Kahn is a blatant copyvio, and I'm also starting to question whether Gp980 is a floating SPA. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi all. I have gone through the edits of both users and cleaned up copy vio and spam links. I posted identical messages on the user talk of both accts, and will watch and indef-block if any further copy vio occurs. Thank you for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Adeptzare3 (talk · contribs) edits

    See User talk:Adeptzare3/Hectane/Talk/Discussion 1

    Hello, could somebody please review the editing behaviour of Adeptzare3 (talk · contribs).. very odd editing and clearly WP:NOTTHERE. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    How do you mean? --Adeptzare3, the Great 00:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What is this Template:DoppelgangerAdeptzare2 and why did you make these edits to this template and add db-g7 to HostBot, I could go on... JMHamo (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:DoppelgangerAdeptzare2 is an alternative doppelganger template for doppelgangers administrators reply to on their own talk pages. --Adeptzare3, the Great, 01:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no sense... JMHamo (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? --Adeptzare3, the Great 01:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:OWN, failure to work constructively with other users, WP:CANVASing and general disruption

    user:Zigzig20s is taking a minor and constructive edit[196] on 2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident as an opportunity to throw what I would describe as a tantrum on the talk, declaring himself the victim of "censorship" by "activist editors" and canvasing on multiple pages. [197][198] The user already has a history of disruptive behavior on that page and a taking-on-all-comers approach. If he cannot be reigned in I would request he be blocked or banned. Artw (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said, please leave me alone. I censored all my comments for your own pleasure and I don't want to waste my time arguing with complete strangers online. I have indeed been "reigned in" insofar as I have been bullied and intimidated, and I don't want to talk to you ever again. I am taking a break from editing the SAE attack page, so you have won. Bullies want to win; you have won and can't bully me any more; I will edit other pages. But please leave me alone. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Haven't even looked into this too much but I find this edit very concerning. A controversial incident of racism is biased because it focuses on the racism (i.e. the actual controversy), as opposed to the constitution? Good lord. Okay, there's plenty of room in an article to mention the debate of freedom of speech, but WP:UNDUE exists for a reason. The story here is clearly the issue of racism as opposed to a constitutional question. That's not a left wing perspective, that's the reality of the coverage. But because the article doesn't focus on the constitutional aspect of the subject, it's being controlled by "left wing activists" who need to be countered by WP Conservatism? Seriously? What the hell? And this is an editor who has been previously blocked for falsely accusing others of racism. Wow. Do we need a topic ban here or what? Editor has agreed to stay away from the page, which I agree with. Swarm... —X— 01:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A month ago Zigzig20s escaped based on understanding not to edit war Old revision of WP:ANE#User:Zigzig20s reported by User:Sladen .28Result: Declined .29 however it would appear that such activity has continued this week Old revision of User talk:Zigzig20s#2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident. If the editor has agreed to stay away from articles/topics that really could do with formally recording so that it's clear what action will be taken following any lapses. There certainly seem to be parallels with the WP:POV-pushing dragged out at Amy Pascal#Sony Pictures Entertainment Hack. Attempts to engage via User talk:Zigzig20s frequently get reverted as harassment:
    WP:DE sums up the behaviour pretty well. I truely hope that Zigzig20s will take any opportunity extended to genuinely change their ways. If not, I can see where this is going. —Sladen (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Block or Ban because:
    1. user:Zigzig20s agrees to stop editing on the page.
    2. Different POV's appear the primary causes of conflict with user:Zigzig20s. A user with a different POV should not be banned from a page simply because of a different POV. Instead, one should work to try to find consensus with that user. (See WP:POV RAILROAD.)
    3. user:Zigzig20s apparently doesn't fully understand WP:RS. [This edit.]
    4. user:Zigzig20s does feel intimidated or threatened by the various disciplinary tags, even if those tags are entirely legitimate, and my understanding is users are free to delete material off of their talk page as they wish.
    5. It wasn't clear to me that user:Zigzig20s really was edit warring in the two instances and clearly did not think so. In the second case the user deleted new material added by Artw (talk). I believe it is the responsibility of the person adding material to justify it on the talk page and gain consensus rather than the one opposing/reverting it per WP:BRD. A brief look at the talk page and I could not find where it was addressed and consensus for the new material was agreed upon. Please provide a diff. for that if it is there. If I misunderstand policy, please point to it.
    6. There was no evidence in the initial complaint for "The user already has a history of disruptive behavior on that page and a taking-on-all-comers approach." The additional evidence provided was fairly minor.
    Alternatively, I support advice to the user to read more of Wiki-policy and guidelines, especially sections relating to WP:DR, WP:RS and WP:EDITWAR.
    David Tornheim (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sr.Dickens

    This account was confirmed as a sock of ELreydeEspana on eswiki. Please block him. --Matiia (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Links: Sr.Dickens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    excuse me but this is a stupid accusation, im a guatemalan (whit european ancestry) no an spaniard, i dont know about this account, this is unacceptable--Sr.Dickens (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why you think your ancestry is relevant. What is however relevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned is why these edits of yours [205] appear not to conform with the source cited. [206] Where are the numbers for % Catholic, % Protestant etc from? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    my ancestry?, what you're talking about?, and please read carefully the reference, which are clearly percentages, Greetings--Sr.Dickens (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yo referred , for no obvious reason, to your 'whit european ancestry' in your first post. I was responding to that, obviously. As for the percentages, as I wrote above, they do not appear to match those in the source cited. Perhaps you could clarify exactly where in the reference they can be found - the only % data I can see is in a table in the appendix, which shows responses to the question "Do you consider yourself to be…?" and has the following data for the EU: Catholic 46%, Orthodox 8%, Protestant 11%... Your edit has Catholic 35%, Protestant 9%, Ortodox [sic] 8%... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    46% of catholics in Europe?, we are still in the last century?. In the eurobarometer poll 2010, say that 55% of europeans are christians (35% are catholics). 29% are agnostics and 13% atheist. with the reference cited is right, I was put the wrong, but The Eurobarometer 2010 says that. Mi whit european ancestry? what is the problem? if I have it--Sr.Dickens (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide the specific information required for those numbers to be verified. They are not in the document cited, as far as I can ascertain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr.Dickens was globally blocked as sockpuppet of ELreydeEspana. --Taichi (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User with edits to only a single page blanking sections after 4 editors warned them not to.

    PROCEDURAL CLOSE
    Discussion has been moved to WP:BLPN. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Pmesiti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only made edits to the BLP page of politician Bernie Finn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), only ever blanking sections, after being cautioned not to do so by four different editors, and has breached 3RR twice on 1 September 2014 and on 16 June 2014. The user is not here to build an encyclopaedia and has made no productive contributions. Vandalism tools help to rollback section blanking - but I would recommend at least banning that user from editing that page. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • (Non-administrator comment) Normally, I would be on the fence since yesterday's edit was the user's first edit since August, but all of his/her edits have literally been nothing but section blanking. A block might be in order. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds like somebody with a personal connection to the subject. I don't think any admin action is required, and I see no obvious vandalism. The content being blanked is contentious information about a BLP and I'm not sure that every source used is impeccable. If they blank again, don't revert until you've made every effort to get them to discuss - it's not helpful they're not saying anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion at WP:BLPN would be good, preferably with somebody with a knowledge of Australian politics. Perhaps somebody working in his office "responsible" for his WP article has decided his right wing views are just a bit too right wing for the Liberal Party's image? In any case, a discussion is definitely needed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought this was appropriate here as blanking with no explanation is just vandalism. The user has not attempted to add any content, or discuss content on the talk page, only blanked content nine times, receiving four warnings. To me, it's not a BLP issue, just vandalism that certainly covers WP:NOTHERE. Posted on BLPN -- Aronzak (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As WP:DOLT explains, blanking with no explanation is not necessarily vandalism - it's unhelpful, annoying and disruptive, yeah, but I find labelling it as "vandalism" upsets who ever is doing the blanking and doesn't lead to a smooth conclusion. Indeed, the {{blp}} template on many talk pages saying contentious information that is "poorly sourced" (and a newbie's interpretation of "poorly" may not match an experienced Wikipedian's) must be "removed immediately". PS: Just saw some of his Hansard transcripts - wow, you just don't see British politicians letting rip like that.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Invalid token?

    Not suitable for ANI, ask at WT:TW or WP:VPT. Sam Walton (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am trying to submit an SPI using Twinkle. But each time, I receive a pop-up error message "Failed to save edit: Invalid token". It's not something that has ever happened before. I haven't changed any settings since this last worked. Is there a general fault/bug, or is there something wrong with my setup? RolandR (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably best off at WT:TW or something more specific/equivalent. NativeForeigner Talk 10:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    In no circumstances is calling me (or my colleagues) child molesters acceptable

    In no circumstances is calling me (or my colleagues) child molesters acceptable: [207]

    The autogynephilia page is, of course, within the discretionary sanctions of the sexology case, and I believe that User:‎Sceptre's behavior suggests an inability to contribute productively to that topic.

    — James Cantor (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't say that your colleague was a child molester, I said he was a child abuser. And if he wasn't, why was his clinic shuttered from accepting new patients with his superiors saying that his practices both a) were against the clinic's guidelines and b) should be illegal? The real problem is [rm per WP:BLPREMOVE Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)] Sceptre (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes: that you and your child abusing friends can fuck the hell away from it.
    Is apparently intemperate at best, and the use of "child abusing" in current English usage does carry very unfortunate connotations, indeed, as it is used for physical injury to children. I would expect a redaction of offensive material about any editor or BLP subject, as such is contrary to my strict reading of WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    [rm per WP:BLPREMOVE Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)] Sceptre (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I linked to a story that Zucker has been suspended from accepting new patients for subjecting transgender children to treatments that the vast majority of the medical community finds to be highly unethical [rm per WP:BLPREMOVE Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)]. The real problem is that [rm per WP:BLPREMOVE Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)] Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That summary is both incorrect and irrelevant.— James Cantor (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which part of it is incorrect? The fact that Zucker has been suspended from accepting patients for practicing conversion therapy (correct), that it's unethical (correct), or [rm per WP:BLPREMOVE Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)]? [rm per WP:BLPREMOVE Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)]. Conversion therapy of children is child abuse; I mean, just ask Leelah Alcorn. Oh, wait, you can't; she's dead, because of [rm per WP:BLPREMOVE Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)]. Sceptre (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)While I know little about the subject, Yes: that you and your child abusing friends can fuck the hell away from it. is not likely to encourage Cantor or anyone else to contribute productively. KonveyorBelt 18:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want him to contribute at all in the subject area. He should've been topic banned in Sexology and it's one of ArbCom's greatest mistakes that he wasn't. Sceptre (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless, telling someone to "fuck the hell away from" an article and accusing them of POV pushing and editing on behalf of a "child abuser" are all personal attacks and are especially inappropriate on a page under discretionary sanctions, where an even higher standard of conduct is expected. Sceptre, I don't really doubt you're sincere in your concerns about his POV, but where are your good faith efforts to address the issue? AN discussions? AE requests? Due to the sanctions, it's easier than ever to impose bans on editors. Why on earth are you risking blocks making personal attacks? If your case is so strong where's your evidence? Where's your efforts to address your concerns? We still operate based on consensus here. You can't just go around saying you don't think certain editors shouldn't be allowed to edit articles. You can however civilly make your case to the community, or in this case, WP:AE, which is even easier. Swarm... —X— 18:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      We tried ArbCom, and they handed down one of the worst decisions in living history. The point is: Cantor has a self-declared COI. If he serious about it, he wouldn't be editing the article area. Sceptre (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sceptre, you mean you tried ArbCom and it didn't go your way. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology where you were a party, especially Discretionary sanctions where it says: " Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles pages dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia). Besides, the article you link to doesn't say Zucker was a "child molester" or "child abuser". Engaging in a controversial treatment Making a controversial remark isn't the same thing. Sceptre is engaging in personal attacks on the talk page of an article under discretionary santions. It was these types of personal attacks that got another editor banned in that ArbCom. EChastain (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Engaging in a controversial treatment"; you mean "engaging in a treatment that is widely considered unethical [rm per WP:BLPREMOVE Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)]". Here are the facts: Kenneth Zucker practices conversion therapy on children. Conversion therapy on children is widely considered child abuse. [rm per WP:BLPREMOVE Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)]. And regardless of the ArbCom case, it does not absolve the fact that Cantor has a COI a mile wide that he discloses on his user page. Sceptre (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) No offense, Sceptre, but it doesn't matter if you don't want someone else contributing in the subject area just because you wanted him topic-banned and he wasn't. And if you are being this non-neutral about the subject (granted, it's a touchy subject), maybe you shouldn't be editing within the topic either. Not to mention that you are dishing out some very serious personal attacks, so unless you're itching for a block, I suggest you chill out. (BTW, I tweaked the subject heading because a diff doesn't need to be there.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)I have blocked Sceptre for 72 hours. If discussion leans towards a longer block, please feel free to lengthen it without needing to consult me first - I was awfully tempted to place a longer block myself. This diff is ridiculously inappropriate on any page, let alone a page under arbcom sanctions. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just stopping by here to point out that this thread is itself full of WP:BLP-violating content that should probably be revdel'd. Can't do it myself, of course. Ivanvector (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope I'm not stirring the pot here. I just happened to come across this because against my better judgement I have left AN/I on my watchlist for over 24 hours, and the behaviour I see just in this thread is appalling. Just based on this I would support a long block. But this user actually insists that they're in the right to cast baseless accusations of serious misconduct about living persons, and attack people who (rightly) point out just how bad it is to do so. And they've been blocked (even indef'd) for similar behaviour before, on multiple occasions going back over several years. This user doesn't seem to get that incivility is inappropriate no matter who your opponent is, that you can't make baseless allegations about living persons, and that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. These are serious conduct issues. Support indefinite block. Ivanvector (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fully agreee with Ivan Vector about the need for revdel/oversight of some of Sceptre's comments. In particular one starting "Which part of it is incorrect?" and another starting "Engaging in a controversial treatment". This is serious libel. In addition, Sceptre needs to be permanently removed from this topic area, but I guess AE is the right place for that, given DS in the area. Iselilja (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean that Kevin Gorman's 3-day block was weak, or that the user should be blocked for a week? Sorry, I don't normally nitpick spelling on here but your comment appears to be causing confusion. Ivanvector (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm Mdann52 (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef with the standard offer - this user has a history of personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disregard for ArbCom, and disregard for bans. This episode continues to demonstrate a problem with incivility, personal attacks, disregard for ArbCom and disregard for BLP policy. Not only was she absolutely unrepentant when brought into question here, but she doubled down and actually defended her behavior as if it could be considered acceptable. Also, she claims to have good faith concerns behind her behavior, but they don't appear to hold up to scrutiny and she has never made an effort to substantiate them. We wouldn't tolerate this sort of blatant disregard for our policies from any other editor and Wikipedia has no room for this kind of disrespect towards the project, its rules, and its editors. Swarm... —X— 21:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block(non admin uninvolved editor) A block is defiantly needed for the comment. Its indefensible, and has no place on WP. AlbinoFerret 21:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not positive about an indef, but I fully support an extension to the block I originally put in place, and given Sceptre's post-block comments I'm going to escalate it to a month myself. Assuming consensus doesn't establish on a particular block length here, I will shorten it to one week if and only if Sceptre agrees via email (since TPA is rightfully revoked) to never comment similarly on another editor, and if the committment is made and then renegged on will put an indef in place. At a bare minimum I think a topic ban from sexuality related topics is necessary - Sceptre has indicated that they are unwilling to follow even the most basic standards of behavior in dealing with editors whose psychiatric practices they disagree with. If the same issue crops up in a second area, I think it should pretty much result in an automatic ban. I initially blocked for an extremely lenient period because I thought that for an established, generally productive editor a 72 hour block might be enough to have them go "Oh shit, I fucked up, I better not do that again," but instead of seeing the issue Sceptre doubled down and got TPA revoked even after HJ warned them TPA revocation would be coming if they didn't stop. This is still not intended as opposing a more severe block if it's found warranted. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (non admin uninvolved editor) I have no idea what the standard practice is in cases like this; but just going on a gut feeling/general sense of fairness, a month or so seems appropriate - enough time to calm down and lose interest in the subject matter, or at least find something else interesting. (I can understand the argument for an indef based on past history, though.) From reading the diffs as well as the discussion here, I really get the sense that Sceptre legitimately believes these accusations are not actually baseless, whether or not WP policy agrees. If there had been a clear recent pattern of abusive comments then I'd strongly support an indef; as is, this seems like an attack motivated by strong emotion more than any desire to defame others. However, as User:Ivanvector noted (thanks for the BLP redactions, BTW), it still comes across as WP:RGW. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • James, you are right. It's even more appropriate than you using Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote your theories of sexuality. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block with standard offer. Kevin Gorman's extension possibly did not take fully into account Sceptre's persistently troubled history. Not only as a former admin, but also an unwillingness to address the comments made on her re-adminship RfAs. Many of her uncollgial actions and conflicts do not get escalated but her continued presence is a net negative. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not intimately familiar with Sceptre's history, and given the number of people whose judgement I respect certainly won't argue against an indef if that's what's judged to be necessary. My initial block was more or less (excessively lenient...) hoping to thwack some commonsense in to someone who had previously produced quite a bit of solid content with the thought that the block and ensuing discussion would get the vast majority of long term quality content editors back on track for at least a decent amount of time; the followup month (actually, currently five weeks - I mucked up the date and can't bring myself to change it) was pretty much the inappropriateness of the initial comment fully settling in coupled with, bluntly, some degree of shock at Sceptre's reaction to the block. I'd hesitate to indef someone who had produced 28 GAs/FAs without consensus being established first, but saw the initial edit as egregious enough to warrant a block as fast as I could implement one while further conversation occurred. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (non admin maybe-involved editor) Oppose indef block, weak support temp block. I'm not sure about an indefinite block, I think User:Sceptre may just have been overcome with anger at that moment. As an ordinary user it is impossible to judge this given everything she said's been revdel'd, but I understand the jist of what she said. While the way she wrote it may have been misinterpreted/perhaps sounds too much like a personal attack, she does raise an important point: he has a COI here. —ajf (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't know how you could take it in any other way than a personal attack. If he has a COI and you dispute something okay, take it here to ANI or a place for discussion. People in real life overcome with anger do some very stupid things but in the end you have to pay a price for it by learning from your mistakes. This isn't new, this isn't her first block, she has shown this same type of behavior in the past so what makes you think she wont continue in the future with these same type of things? If she is blocked for a month or even a week and comes back I want and hope to see that she doesn't do stuff like this again and knows that it is the wrong thing to do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh? Dolescum (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like Sceptre has now been blocked until April 27th. Her talk page access has also been revoked, which is interesting because I don't think I have ever seen that done on someone with a non-indefinite block. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've seen it done; it's for when the editor is being disruptive on their talk page. I'm not sure we shouldn't have let her blow off steam a bit longer, and it seems harsh to extend the block and revoke talk access, but I'm no expert. ekips39 (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty common for talkpage access to be revoked in situations where the user continues the same behavior on their talkpage that led to their original block, which is what happened in this instance. After I blocked Sceptre, she continued to make the same sort of BLP attack on her talk page that got her blocked in the first place, against the same person, even after HJ had warned her that talkpage access would be revoked if she continued. In the process of TPA revocation, I made the initial block for specific and articulated reasons, HJ warned her after she continued the same behavior that going on doing so would result in TPA removal, and Mike V went ahead with the actual removal. That's an awful lot of forewarning, and Sceptre has been around for more than long enough to know better anyway. Even so, Sceptre has access to UTRS to appeal, and can also email me as I mentioned above. I'd probably restore TPA instantly with a simple pledge to discontinue her behavior (though it'd be unwise of her to break it if she makes it.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And what action against Cantor for civil POV-pushing and baiting of LGBT editors? This is far from the first instance. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Victoriadseaman

    Re: informing WMF: probably not. We get politicians trying to campaign here all the time. This case doesn't seem all that remarkable. Ivanvector (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the person notable or can this goto WP:AfD? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I read correctly that she is a member of the Nevada legislature? Then she is automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The only sources I see are in the form of self promoting external links. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    #1 says "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". I do not see how this could be intertpreted in a way that she is not notable. #3 is about local officials, and state level is apparently not described as local.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I certainly do not subscribe to the notion of "inherent notability". The guidelines for inclusion are only guides to the kind of person who is likely to be covered in reliable independent sources. With a WP:BLP in particular, the only thing that matters is, has this person been the primary or significant focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. If none are provided, then the article should be nuked. But Orangemike (who created the stub) is good people so if someone pings him I am sure he will do that. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm having difficulty finding secondary sources for this one. I found one from before the election that confirmed she was the candidate for NV AD-34. I assume she did get elected. But there's nothing that I've found, post-election, showing she sponsored or co-sponsored a bill, or something. I'm not sure this one passes #3 of WP:POLITICIAN. I think an WP:AfD might be in order here... --IJBall (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what I have been thinking, some politicians are unknown and just do everyday activities this may be a reason behind the self-promotion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. What this shows me is that what #1 of WP:POLITICIAN (as presently worded) implies is problematic – the Pennsylvania House of Representatives has 203 members; the New Hampshire House of Representatives has 400! Regardless of what WP:POLITICIAN implies, just getting elected to a state legislature shouldn't qualify you for automatic WP:NOTABILITY. This current case appears to be an example of a state legislator who doesn't (at least, as of yet...) merit inclusion in this encyclopedia. --IJBall (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be a good idea to start discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and see whether there is consensus for removing members of state legislatures from #1 of WP:POLITICIAN. (Note that I am not in the US and have no opinion). --Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kraainem and Bitcoin

    User:Kraainem has been blocked previously for edits around Bitcoin. He is now involved in an edit war and making inappropriate comments about other editors: see Talk:Bitcoin#.22Various_items_have_been_embedded_exclusively_in_the_Bitcoin_block_chain.22 and the situation is pretty clear. Bondegezou (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup. Please see this post, [208] at Talk:Bitcon, where User:Kraainem responded to a simple question regarding the wording of an article (specifically, the use of the word 'exclusively' in the sentence "Various items have been embedded exclusively in the Bitcoin block chain") by accusing contributors of being 'pedophiles'. I see no reason whatsoever why we should have to tolerate such obnoxious and clueless behaviour, and suggest that he be blocked indefinitely as clearly incapable of making a useful contribution to the encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I also ask that, after the appropriate investigation, that his abusive edits be reverted and, indeed, wiped from the log? Bondegezou (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is absolutely one of the worst diff's I have ever read. AlbinoFerret 23:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, and here I was taken aback by the diff in the above case with Spectre... 70.24.4.51 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    No, what is incomprehensible is how you could turn a simple request for clarification regarding a word in a sentence that says nothing about child pornography into an excuse to make utterly unfounded personal attacks on the integrity of fellow contributors. If you wish to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest that you unequivocally and unreservedly withdraw your obnoxious comments, and instead actually address the question I asked. What is the word 'exclusively' in that sentence supposed to mean? It is a simple question, and one that has no bearing on whether we include information regarding links to child pornography in the bitcoin block chain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion the content of the Bitcoin article, but it is absolutely unacceptable to refer to other editors as pedophiles [209]. Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks, please comment on the content and not on the contributors. I would strongly encourage you to strike the accusations you made about other editors on the talk page and apologize to them. Dragons flight (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Kraainem, I added the material about child pornography URLs in the Bitcoin block chain to the article: [210] You then removed that text: [211] I restored that text in a modified form. You then edited this addition to emphasise this matter is specific to Bitcoin: [212] However, I feel that such emphasis was unnecessary as this was apparent from the context, this being an article about Bitcoin and not about other systems using block chains. I thus removed one word, "exclusively": [213] Your subsequent behaviour edit-warring over that word and accusing other editors of heinous behaviours is completely unacceptable under Wikipedia policy WP:AGF and common decency. Your description of events above is inaccurate. Bondegezou (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that User:Kraainem has now removed comments made on the Talk page and made an apology there: [214] May I ask an administrator to remove the intermediate versions permanently from the page history? While I am thankful for Kraainem's relatively prompt apology, given the egregious nature of his behaviour, I hope administrators will consider whether a temporary topic ban or something is still appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kraainem now appears to be removing all his/her posts from Talk:Bitcoin - contrary to talkpage guidelines, and for no obvious reason that I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed: see [215] He/she has also blanked his/her User talk page. Bondegezou (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blanking your own talk page is allowed. But it appears, that as a rather new editor (174 total edits), he is having trouble because of lack of knowledge of guidelines and policies. That is not a good thing on a very active article like Bitcoin. But nothing can excuse the comment he made, I know of no place that is acceptable. AlbinoFerret 00:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking into this further, it appears that Kraainem previously made a similar personal attack on an IP at Talk:Bitcoin, apparently under the impression that the IP was Erik Voorhees. [216] I think this may be a first for Wikipedia - an attempted outing, a WP:BLP violation and an egregious personal attack all in one sentence. [217] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And now Kraainem has removed their post from this noticeboard [218] I think we have a basic competence problem here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So the question now is... What are we going to do about this? Weegeerunner (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I would interpret Kraainem's thread deletions as a well-intentioned, but poorly executed, attempt to completely disengage. Assuming that is accurate, I wouldn't worry more about this user unless he or she starts participating again. As for the comments that were removed. I would suggest someone restore any comments about content that are necessary for understanding the talk page discussions, but skip restoring the personal attacks. A note about redacted personal attacks might be added if necessary to explain gaps in the threading. Dragons flight (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think some block time is warranted. Not to long, but long enough to prevent something like this from happening again. Id say at least a month, perhaps as longer. AlbinoFerret 03:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored the comments to Talk:Bitcoin and redacted the serious attacks. I will send a note to Oversight but I think they usually don't revdelete personal attacks, only serious BLP issues and such. I did not restore the user's comment to this thread, it doesn't seem to be necessary. Ivanvector (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure whether this is a competence issue, or trolling, but after Ivanvector removed Kraainem's apology because it revealed the nature of the comments previously made, Kraainem added it again. [219] I see no reason whatsoever why he/she should be permitted to repeat such obnoxious and utterly unfounded allegations even in an apology - and if Kraainem isn't capable of understanding that an apology does not need to repeat the initial assertion, he/she clearly lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia - I therefore formally request an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize for calling you pedophiles. Kraainem (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps you'd care to elaborate a little. Are you apologizing because you now consider your phrasing ill-mannered, because you now realize that your allegations were based on mere fantasy, because of something else, or because of some combination of factors? And if it sprang from mere fantasy, are these fantasies likely to occur again? -- Hoary (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My phrasing was ill-mannered. Kraainem (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. -- Hoary (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the editor was attempting to game the system]. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And on it goes - Kraainem is spamming his/her 'apology' over multiple user talk pages - and after I deleted it from mine he/she promptly restored it. Will someone please block this incompetent troll before I lose my temper, and tell him/her exactly where to stick the 'apology', what to insert afterwards, and how to ignite it. AndyTheGrump (talk)
    Ok, enough - Kraainem's latest post ":My phrasing was ill-mannered" - is clear and unequivocal evidence of ether blatant trolling, or a serious mental defect. Either way, we don't need 'contributors' like this on Wikipedia. Block the fucking troll and get it over with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Hoary has now blocked Kraainem for a month - about 50 years too short, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked him. Yes, an indefinite block seems reasonable to me. If there's agreement here to change the length of the block, somebody go ahead and change it. (As for me, it's past my bedtime; I'm off to bed.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A look at User talk:Kraainem might be relevant when considering extending the block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Miguel de Cervantes public domain copying

    No admin action required, public domain text has been attributed. Sam Walton (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Medeis (talk · contribs) correctly noticed that Miguel de Cervantes uses material from the Catholic Encyclopedia without attribution. He responded by blanking the page with the {{copyvio}} template. I pointed out that the Catholic Encyclopedia is in the public domain due to age (most recent version was 1917), and removed the template. Despite the only reported copying coming from the public domain, Medeis restored the copyvio template (hence blanking the whole page). It is correct that this is a WP:Plagiarism issue since the public domain text was not attributed to its source, and the sourcing needs to be fixed. However, I don't believe it is appropriate to blank the entire page with the copyvio template when the only disputed source is in the public domain, and hence can no longer be a copyright violation. I'm not interested in starting a fight with Medeis over this issue, so I would appreciate someone else taking a look. Dragons flight (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a bit unfair to say I "blanked the page", as I used the template not knowing from experience how it works. (This is the first time I have come acrost such a horrific article.) But the entire article is problematic, with partial sentences, unrefernced claims, essay-like writing, FULLCAPS and so forth. Every time I have looked at it I have cringed, and the first time I googled some suspicious text verbatim, referenced to a 2008 "work", it turns out to be almost word-for-word from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which while the 1917 edition is on line, is not necessarily out of copyright. The entire work needs a thorough combing over, and should be kept blanked until some experts at this go over it. PS, I have checked it at churnalism, but even small parts of it give me network error. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If the text used is from the 1917 edition, it's automatically PD in the US (where Wikipedia's servers are hosted), as are all other works first published prior to 1 January 1923. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 05:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Use Template:Cite wikisource for what you can. It's at [220]. You can find more free (libre) resources listed at Catholic Encyclopedia below the sentence that explains it's out of copyright. Jerodlycett (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Abhiguru Pandey

    Abhiguru Pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The editor has recreated pages that were speedy deleted many times. See: Shri Abhya Vidhya Mandir, Hindaun City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hindaun Subdristict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The editor has been a subject of a sockpuppet investigation: User talk:Abhiguru Pandey#Sockpuppet_investigation and has received warning about their actions on speedy delete: User talk:Abhiguru Pandey#February_2015

    The editor also has a rather unusual issue with links: Old revision of Karauli district Old revision of Suroth Old revision of Shri Mahavirji Old revision of Shri Mahavirji

    And has basically done vandalism: Old revision of Hindaun through Old revision of Hindaun

    The editor does not seem to have a firm grasp of how Wikipedia works, and either needs someone to watch them, or possibly banned. I'm just turning this to the attention of the Admins. Jerodlycett (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the speedy note from the school article as Google hits suggest that the school exists. I'll try to clean up the obvious issues and hopefully leave it as a partly referenced stub for others to work on. Samsara 12:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewing web sources, it became apparent that nothing could be reliably sourced other than the existence of the school. It also seems that the name used for the article may not be the official name of the institution. Having removed duplicated and promo-language parts of the article, not much was left. The sum of these problems led me to believe it would be best to start from scratch when sources become available, and I therefore complied with the original request for speedy deletion, A7. Samsara 13:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the editor is concerned, it seems likely to me that they are editing with good intentions. Plausibly, the other account could belong to a family member editing from the same connection. This may or may not also cause a false positive via CU. The user's talk page suggests that relatively little effort has been made to educate them about where they've gone wrong. It's important to avoid a situation where users are simply frustrated because all they're seeing is notifications about how we've thwarted their every effort, because it will put them in a "me against the system" frame of mind. This is especially important for users who don't have English as their first language, and who come from regions of the world about which Wikipedia knows comparatively little. Samsara 13:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I put it here. To notify the admins. I of course don't know the proper action to take, but I still stick with my suggestion of having them be watched until they get going as needed. Jerodlycett (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Attempted outing

    (non-admin closure) Both users blocked. Nothing else to see. TheMagikCow (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Jezreelpride

    I believe I don't need to put up with edit summaries like on this edit by single-purpose account Jezreelpride. Not to mention the 1RR violation in an WP:ARBPIA covered article (previous revert here). I request an appropriate block. Zerotalk 12:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The wording of the edit summary in fact invites comparison with an offensive vandal who comes in regularly from fake IPs, e.g.. [221] [222] [223] etc etc. Zerotalk 12:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=652886926"