Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Electronic cigarette

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

---

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

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

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

Reverting is part of the bold editing cycle. If someone doesn't agree with your edits they can revert them, then you can discuss it on the talk pages. I dont get hung up in wording. I try and improve the article. I for one was glad the page was protected, and I hope it stays that way for some time. As for FV, I couldnt find it, so I placed a tag and started a talk page section on it. Nothing wrong with that. I think there are more problems on the page than you think, as evident by the section about you below QG. AlbinoFerret 00:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will address all these false accusations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My recent contribution history might lead you to think so, especially if you are desperately looking for ways to shoot the messenger, but i'm not. I've been editing WP for the last 8+ years with close to 18,000 edits[50]. Please assume good faith instead of bad. --Kim D. Petersen 08:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Update. The text is sourced but User:AlbinoFerret added a verification tag to the first sentence of the article.[51] Please read "The electronic cigarette is a battery-powered electronic nicotine delivery system that looks very similar to a conventional cigarette and is capable of emulating smoking,..."[52] This is a MEDRS review that verified the claim. This is not the first time he added a failed verification tag when the text is sourced. He deleted sourced text because he thinks the section is too long. He added the failed verification tag again but the text is clearly sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Another interesting edit is this which removed a paragraph stating that e-cig companies recruit consumers to push their policy agenda via websites etc. For some reason the text did not mention using Wikipedia. However, nothing is going to happen because the frenetic pace of editing and commenting drives away editors without an agenda. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

All you have to do is give the location in the source QG, but its easier to come here? More content disagreements. The Legal status has its own page, it should be on it. The Legal status summery is growing, it doesnt need all the bloat. Besides there are problems with that section. link with no discussion to its adding, no consensus for its inclusion on the main page. AlbinoFerret 02:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User:CheesyAppleFlake

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

---

• CheesyAppleFlake (talk · contribs · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This edit referring to Sieg Heilman (see James Heilman and User:Doc James) shows that a topic ban from Electronic cigarette is required for CheesyAppleFlake. There is no need to block if the user manages to edit constructively elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There is really no response when someone starts making racial slurs. This is Godwin's law in action. Further less than helpful comments keep coming in [53] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:QuackGuru

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

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

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

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

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

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

:I think a large boomerang should hit you. You are quick to post content issues here in an attempt to get me topic banned. This is not the place for content problems, but you insist on bringing them here. But talk little on the articles talk page except to defend the problems you insert in the page (see long line diff's below). You revert things to how you added them no matter how the wording was changed or who changes it. This wikilink was placed by you in order to get around the agreement you are trying to enforce. You originally added it here. You want things to be consistent. Based on limited agreements. But only so far as it doesnt touch edits you have made or wording you have placed in[54], because the limited agreement was to chose "mist" over "vapor" or "aerosol" you did not change one instance of aerosol without wikilinking to it to cheat the agreement, and then only for a few, but there is no consensus for any widespread change as shown by the limited agreement. Regardless what guidelines like WP:MEDMOS say you wirt like a medical journal and not for the general reader always adding jargon. You have been banned for disruptive editing more times than anyone I have edited a page with. Yet you still continue to disrupt the editing of e-cigarette. [55][56], [57], [58] [59], and here where you accused me of filing a fake 3rr report You insist on inserting WP:OR [60][61][62]. You argue over small words that have the same meaning and dont pahaphrase[63][64][65]. You insert non MEDRS to make medical claims [66]. You insist on placing one review out of order to serve your pov [67] and refuse any order but the one you want. After dating the citation names in the source to keep them in order[68][69] you changed them back to disguise your actions and edited the section to place your subjective order in place[70]. A forever boomerang should hit you because you have had banns (look at his talk page for a long list) but still continue disruptive editing. AlbinoFerret 12:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Continued edit warring while listed here

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of sourced material

In this edit QuackGuru removed sourced material from the article. [71] citing WP:TRIVIA. The Legal status section isnt a section of trivia. AlbinoFerret 03:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update

Electronic cigarette was protected, during that time QG disnt join in any discussions. QuackGuru spent his time stockpiling edits to add without discussion, without consensus. link He removed a POV tag without discussing it. link. AlbinoFerret 02:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

But its not just limited to one page. On Legal status of electronic cigarettes QG policy shopped to try and remove content. link He tried to apply MEDRS to a non medical page on a non medical topic. Removing it at times and an editor from the Medical wikiproject that had never edited the page reverted it when he was at two reverts. AlbinoFerret 02:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Block or Ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

I have proposed a topic ban for Abino above [72]

Since that has occurred they have supported a now banned user who more or less made racist comments [73] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to you it is original research to change aerosol to vapor. You claimed aerosol is not a synonym of vapor but according to this change[74] you did replace aerosol with vapor. Do you think it is original research to change aerosol to vapor (or mist) and do you think vapor should be used throughout the body of the article no matter what the source says? QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This is bait and switch. You are saying again that I am claiming it is original research. I never have and I already explained this to you.diff[75] But you dont here it WP:IDHT The diffs you use dont prove the accusations you are levelling. This diff has clear comments on it "change sentence to avoid copyright problems" that mention "copyright issues". This diff has clear comments on it that the change was "change to be consistent" or consistency with the rest of the article according to the agreement that you broke.AlbinoFerret 19:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You claimed we are using another source to correct another source. You previously wrote "We are not permitted to use one source to correct others. That would be WP:OR."[76] However, This diff shows your replaced aerosol with vapor. Your edit summary claims it was a copyright issue but you changed it because it appears you wanted to use the word vapor. You edit showed at the time you did think aerosol and vapor are synonyms. Editors want to use commonsense and use more neutral wording or more accurate synonyms in accordance with NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I too have been involved in editing and discussion of this article and have been frustrated by QG's attitude. The unrelenting disruptive editing makes any substantive progress in the article impossible. QuackGuru's history of POV-pushing [77] and WP:OWNership issues [78] and his rather lengthy block log for similar behavior seem to suggest that it is unlikely he will change his ways or learn how to edit collaboratively. Mihaister (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for final action

Since this section is not closed, I will assume that this has not been resolved. If it has, anyone may delete this section. Also, anyone may delete this section if I am writing in the wrong place. I call for a neutral admin to resolve this matter. This has gone on long enough, and it is, in my opinion, all three editors acting in bad faith. Sorry if this is out of place. JamesJNHu (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Action or closure? (e-cig threads)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, should have put the diffs here, it's higher up in this thread. Diff of QuackGuru implicating user:Levelledout[contributions], Mihaister[contributions] and KimDabelsteinPetersen[contributions] as SPA's. KDP is the one closest to an SPA, Since 2 October 2014 they've posted almost exclusively about e-cigs. Mihaister edits Romanian topics and remote controlled helicopters and is in no way an SPA. Levelledout has been mostly focussed on e-cigs for the last month, although has edited elsewhere. SPACKlick (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not the first time QuackGuru has thrown unsubstantiated accusations and inflammatory language around. I've gotten fed up with the personal attacks and insults, that's why I pulled back from editing on the e-cigarette topic. As I wrote above, I do not think QG's behavior is likely to improve. I'm hoping this discussion can put an end to the incivility so we can all go back to improving Wikipedia. Mihaister (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a serious assumption of bad faith from User:QuackGuru which i find disturbing. For those who think that i'm an SPA please examine this. --Kim D. Petersen 08:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I echo both Kim D. Petersen and Mihaister's thoughts. Please also take a look at my ['Top Edited Pages'] and you will see that a topic completely unrelated to e-cigarettes is 1st. I have been pretty active at the e-cigarette talk page but that is mainly due to often futile and protracted attempts to try and obtain consensus on the multiple ongoing disputes.Levelledout (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah? You have made 180 edits of which more than 100 pertain to e-cigs. Kim has edited both about global warming and e-cigs and mostly about the latter lately. Mihaister has begun editing other stuff but initially did just edit cig related topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but what is your point? 56% Approximately 55% of my edits relating to e-cigs hardly amounts to a WP:SPA.Levelledout (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Having thought about it overnight, I think QuackGuru should be formally sanctioned for these personal attacks without warrant or foundation. That said I don't find it surprising, givne the general attitude of QG that when scrutinised about behaviour on wikipedia he's tried to discredit rather than discuss. I think the e-cig page would be better off when the protection is lifted if QG was not actively editing there. SPACKlick (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SPACKlick's proposal. User QuackGuru has previously got warned also by an administrator due to his personal attacks already in September[79]. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Were you able to decode what the admin said in that link? It was a very polite way of saying that you are WP:NOTHERE and that QG should not let that fact get under his skin. Regarding the lasts few posts above: QG has correctly identified the fact that some enthusiasts are acting in a manner similar to SPAs by focusing on using the article to tell the world about e-cigs and their benefits. That might irritate the enthusiasts but it is not actionable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

If you think "SPA" means "only ever having edited one article" then you're not getting the point of the essay WP:SPA. An editor can correctly be characterized as an SPA even if they've made some edits here and there outside the topic. It's not unusual for an SPA who is becoming aware that scrutiny is coming down on their edits to make a few token edits to try to defuse that accusation. Not saying that accounts 100% for what is happening in this case but I think QG is at least largely correct here, certainly with the editing histories since late October. I invite any uninvolved editor to review the editing histories, making sure to follow up on not just the kind of edits made to e-cig pages (look at the content), but also edits made to project pages and User Talk pages to see what those edits were regarding too. It's unreasonable to think QG's assessments here in this ANI thread were so disruptively off-base to justify a topic ban (did he make them at the article Talk page?). Zad68 01:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, QG's SPA diagnosis is reasonably grounded. I fear there's some puppetry/socking of some kind going on too, in view of new accounts that seem so highly magnetized to the e-cig topic. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note that "the edit histories since late October" are irrelevant in determining WP:SPA, it is the entire edit history that counts. I also invite the closing editor to fully investigate this, as well as sockpuppet or other allegations, I have nothing to hide.Levelledout (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I have concerns that there may be meatpuppet activity, but sockpuppet, nope. I think the closer should check all the parties involved in this whole e-cigarette section for such. AlbinoFerret 16:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There are 6 million users of e-cigs in the US alone and another 10 million in the EU, of which at least 2.1 million in the UK. The worldwide number is probably above 100 million. Why is it so surprising that a few people took an interest in the Wikipedia article on this topic?

More suspicious really is the hostile reception these Wikipedians have encountered from the MED editors who have claimed the topic as their own. Instead of collaboration and AGF, we get filibusters, insults, and unsubstantiated accusations of SPA and SOCK. A thorough investigation is warranted to uncover the degree to which commercial and financial interests from the Pharma industry are influencing the edits to this article; especially in light of the recent revelations that Big Pharma has infiltrated the "top administrators" circles of Wikipedia and is using MED articles as a propaganda and promotion platform under the guise of "correcting information". Mihaister (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Bloom6132

Bloom6132 (talk · contribs) (I am not notifying him on his talk page, for reasons you will see shortly) was last blocked for aggression/personal attacks (in discussions relating to DYK and the WikiCup) in October 2014 by Fram (talk · contribs). Since then, his fratching/aggression on topics relating to the WikiCup and DYK have continued. For some examples from the last few days, see his general battleground mentality at RfA (the insistence that he's the real victim when he is told that his conduct is out of order is a common trait), refusal to assume good faith, endless wikilawyering (see this, for instance, where he defends his ludicrous claim that ThaddeusB had acted in violation of NLT). Eventually, I closed the discussion where most of this was going on on "more heat than light" grounds. He responded by turning up at my talk page, and, among other things, apparently accusing Adam Cuerden of fascism. I gave a final warning (several people have told him his conduct is inappropriate in the last week alone), in response to which he posted a message at the top of his talk page saying that I was "banned" from leaving messages there, due to my supposed lies and harassment. I am of the view that Bloom's conduct, if anything, has gotten worse since he previous block, and that he should be blocked again. However, I am not going to do it myself, as he has made clear that even my posting on his talk page "will be imputed as harassment and dealt with accordingly" (whatever that means) and because he will insist that I am "involved"- if he means that I've been putting up with this and/or have been the target of his ire for months, he is correct. J Milburn (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with J. Milburn's assessment of the situation. The situation at the WikiCup talk page has been quite heated, but Bloom's gone a bit too far. Will block if consensus is for it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• This editor looks like the whole package of problems. Support long block. SPACKlick (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• User:Bloom6132 notified here The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support block This will be imputed as harassment and dealt with accordingly feels like its designed to have a chilling effect either at an individual or a wider range of editors. Personal attacks and accusations of breeching NLT seem to be at best unconstructive and at worst intentionally disruptive. Amortias (T)(C) 13:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• You've been here for six months, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what an WP:IBAN is. It's a two-way street BTW, so I'm not giving a "chilling effect either at an individual or a wider range of editors" as you had implicitly accused me of doing. For example, the first person banned on my TP hasn't talked to me since October 22, and neither have I. Unfortunately, this IBAN had to be violated just 1h38m after I issued it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Except, Bloom, that you can't unilaterally "issue" interaction bans. Take another look at the banning policy. "Bans are a possible outcome of dispute resolution. They may be imposed by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee or, in certain topic areas, by administrators." There is no interaction ban, here- there is you telling me that I'm not welcome on your talk page. J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of what an WP:IBAN is and aware of how it works. I am also aware that you can request users not to post on your talk page. Nowhere have I implicitley accused you of anthing (and if I gave that impression it was in error) I gave my opinion on the matter as how the statements read to me. Could you provide an answer or explanation of the other points metioned above such as the accusation of fascism. Amortias (T)(C) 14:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I can. First off, calling for more transparency and openness in the WikiCup is not a refusal to assume good faith. If anything, I think we (except for Milburn) can all agree that having a more transparent and fair competition is something we should all strive for. Unfortunately, not only does Milburn not agree with me on that, it can be said that he's failed to assume the assumption of good faith. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the comment pipelinked to fascism, what do you call someone who, as I put it, wants to "eliminate anyone who holds a different view to yours". Adam Cuerden implicitly called for Milburn to ban me from the Cup. This comes from the same person who went on a neurotic tirade against a fellow Cup competitor who dared to suggest that the points awarded for featured pictures be reduced. Coupled with personal attacks both behind my back and one insulting both me and Milburn, I can't think of another term to describe such behaviour. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you and Adam Cuerden should be blocked for personal attacks, calling people an "a**" is unacceptable. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how I personally attacked Adam Cuerden. I never called him a fascist, and describing his actions as a desire to "eliminate anyone who holds a different view to yours" is not a personal attack – it's the truth. I definitely don't see eye to eye with either Milburn or Nergaal, and yet he's managed to attack all three of us with vile vitriol. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You should be blocked not because of your behavior with AC, but for other reasons stated above. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't responded to the evidence I gave about the obvious baiting from you and others supporting Czar. Care to explain? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't bait, and I did not intend to. AGF. I don't know what you expect me to "explain". --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with this 100%. He has a battleground mentality as you can see in the discussions here. We (Me, Ritchie333, FreeRangeFrog, Secret, and others) were trying to have a civilized discussion, while Bloom was throwing accusations of "bagdering" and "abuse" at us. We were calm while he was getting worked up. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 13:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Of course you were all "calm" when implicitly impugning my integrity, accusing me of "twist[ing] things around", and calling me the reason "why RfA is failing" (same diff). And it's not just me, it's the same treatment you guys gave to anyone who opposed. Chris troutman was also blamed for being "reason why RFA is broken", as well as for stack voting. Even supporters of Czar were reminded you guys not to corner those who voted to oppose. And yet you call this a "civilized discussion". More like baiting. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Those diffs don't make you look better Bloom, they show you over-reacting to civil discourse. SPACKlick (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, "civil discourse" made hand-in-hand with passive-aggressive behavior. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support block It's a shame, as I have evidence (from his GA and DYK contributions) that he's a good editor, but he hasn't assumed as much good faith as I would have liked in discussions, his beef with Czar over the WikiCup sounds like a grudge (and when I said I agreed I thought the WikiCup had problems it was ignored), and his talk page brings to mind WP:OWB #48 : "People who put lists of users they don't like on their user pages won't be around for long" I've got a nasty feeling as soon as he joins this thread he's going to run out of WP:ROPE, which is a shame. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You called it. It is a shame. SPACKlick (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support block Whilst I agree with Richie333 that his content work is generally a positive, Bloom6132 really doesn't seem capable of conforming to community standards of behaviour - his inability to drop the stick in disputes and his apparent blindness to his own personal attacks on other editors (cf. this unblock appeal and my response) seems to generate conflict whenever he's required to interact with others. I don't see that positive content contributions balance out this kind of confrontational editing. (Caveat: it should be noted that I too am "banned" from Bloom6123's talkpage, for making attempts ([80],[81]) to curb his behaviour.) Yunshui ^雲_水 14:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"For making attempts to curb his behaviour" – first off, enough with the patronizing paternalistic tone. Secondly, you were banned for gravedancing during and after my block and rubbing it into my face. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• "you were banned for gravedancing during and after my block and rubbing it into my face" Banned? Gravedancing? Rubbing it into my face? What? Not what I'm seeing. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• "What? Not what I'm seeing" – says the person who has been baiting me non-stop over the past 2 days. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologise if you dislike my tone; that's simply how I talk (or write, at least). Like Amaryllis, I too failed to see any gravedancing or face-rubbing in those two messages, and I gave them extensive consideration after you posted your "ban" notice. However, I concluded that they read as I had intended them: one, an attempt to explain why your unblock appeal did not meet the requirements at WP:GAB and one to alert you to the fact that you were repeating the same behaviour that led to your block. At no point did I intend to demonstrate any levity over the fact that you had been blocked, but despite the fact that I do not consider the motives behind it valid, you'll note that I have complied with your talkpage notice ever since. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Apology not accepted. I know you're probably peeved at how I responded to your so-called "explanations". You may disguise it well, but the way you write to me (i.e. treating me like your subordinate as opposed to your equal) reveals how your support for blocking me is purely vindicatory. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspected that you (and possibly others) might see it that way, which is why I added the caveat to my original statement so that others could assess my actions as well as yours. However, although I am basing my support for blocking on my experiences with you in the past, I genuiniely believe, after reflecting on those experiences and looking at your interactions with others, that blocking you would in fact be in the best interests of the project. So far, you've said nothing that would convince me otherwise. I am sorry that you feel unable to accept my apology. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"I am basing my support for blocking on my experiences with you in the past" – that's all we needed to hear. Your use of "However" and "although" together reveal it all. Move to strike out Yunshui's "support block" vote from the discussion – it's made in violation of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE in order to retaliate against my previous interactions with him and to punish me for it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Strongly oppose striking Yunshui's support. I still see nothing wrong with what he said, and you keep overreacting. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this isn't up for voting, especially not from you. Until you address the damning evidence against you and Czar's support brigade of baiting voters who oppose, you should be viewed as a biased baiter. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Here's the situation, Bloom. Two admins are considering blocking you (though I suspect Yunshui won't because he has declined a previous unblock request and could be considered involved). You have not edited any articles for a week, preferring to focus on disputes, which makes me question if you've actually been here to write an encyclopedia for that time. You can accept that things have got out of hand and a little heated, agree to disagree, and go back to article work with the dramah level reduced. That's my preferred option. Or, you can wind a few more admins up, get blocked, and watch your talk page fill up with declined unblock requests. I've seen how these things go - if a general consensus amongst admins is that you should be blocked, it is very difficult to extract yourself from the situation. I'm not saying that's good or bad, more that it's a fact of wikilife. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"You can accept that things have got out of hand and a little heated, agree to disagree, and go back to article work with the dramah level reduced" – OK, I accept that completely. I'll disenfranchise myself and completely stay off RFA, for a time mutually agreed upon with the community. I will also not comment about "delayed updates" on the Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring page, except for a simple vote in favour of the proposal I made (or a modified form of it). Finally, I will have removed the talkpage ban I issued on J Milburn as a gesture of good faith. But if an admin still proceeds with a block, then I will rescind all these concessions. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Any other concessions you'd like me to make (within reason, and from anyone not involved)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that sounds good. If you want an article to look at, personally I'd quite like Canterbury Cathedral to have some spit and polish. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal As their post above a three month self imposed ban on the above sections. Three months appears reasonable (to me) due to the low throughput of RFA's. As an adendum to the above I would be willing to (with the communities backing) to have Bloom6132 pass any issues they see with an RFA directly to my talkpage. I will then evaluate and discuss these with Bloom6132 and if in agreement raise them at he RFA myself (I dont believe this will be in breech of the self imposed ban as I am aware of other situations where users have been told to raise queries through another user). Amortias (T)(C) 16:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I said I would not comment on the Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring page with regards to "delayed updates". Any other matters such as voting on next year's rules are outside the scope of that promise. And since you actively voted in favour of my block, I will not deem you a neutral third-party with regards to RFA discussions. I'd prefer someone who I've had more experience working with and gotten along well with over the years, and a fellow content creator like Go Phightins! or Crisco 1492 (provided that either of them don't mind). —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. I put myself forward as an offer as part of the original proposal as it seemed an appropriate way of allowing you to express your concerns but can understand if their is another alternative that you would prefer.Amortias (T)(C) 16:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Weak support Amortia's proposal, it'd be a shame to lose a good contributor like Bloom, despite his behaviour. So, I think this would be good, this would prevent most trouble, and blocks aren't intended as punishment. Sadly, I must support a block. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• I like Amortias' proposal, as for Bloom's request for another point of contact. Your initial offer was for complete abstinence, Amortias is offering to be there for important things which need to be dealt with in that three months. Notice that you can still just entirely abstain for three months, there's no obligation to engage in that part of the deal. SPACKlick (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I take exception to your ES accusing me of "biting the hand that's kind". I'm offering a viable alternative, so please assume some good faith if that's what you expect of me. And while you're at it, why don't you do something productive and produce content like I do rather than sit at ANI demanding "long blocks" for those who actually work towards making WP what it is today. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right to take exception and I unreservedly apologise (explanation but not an excuse. I opened the page, got heated, wrote a long snarky rant and put that as the edit summary. I stepped away, thought better of it, re-wrote the post and forgot to change the edit summary) That said, you then attacking me for my contribution pattern while spectacularly failing to realise that part of what you're "Making WP" is an uncomfortable place for other editors to work is exactly the sort of behaviour I saw that made me suggest a long block. I stand by the suggestion that you be blocked. I would be open to it being limited to RFA's and one narrowly construed topic ban (WikiCup delays) as you do good editing, however I wouldn't be hard to convince that it should be broader because of the way you interact with other editors. And just before you bring up Punative the reasons I suggest a block fall uner reasons 2 and 3 or preventative blocks to stop disruptive behaviour and encourage a more congenial style. SPACKlick (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'm, however, confused by your saying that you "like Amortias' proposal", but that you "stand by the suggestion that [I] be blocked". You can't have it both ways. Either you support blocking me and the proposal is irrevocably off the table, or I remain unblocked but adhere to the two topic bans and keep Milburn off my TP ban list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I thought the ban from posting at RFA except through one nominated editor would be a block. I would note, you're still acting like you're dictating terms here, I see it more as you trying to convince consensus for your proposal over other proposals. Also on the TP Ban thing, while you're free to request editors not post on your page, that's not a ban, it's a request. Unnecessary violation of that request could be harassing behaviour but posting some warnings and notices wouldn't be the sort of thing the community would take action against in the same way they would with say an IBan. SPACKlick (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to dictate terms, and I'm sorry if I give you (or anyone else) the impression that I am. I only think that it's fair that if I were to adhere to the three conditions in Amortias' proposal (which would address all the root causes of this discussion), then I should not be blocked. If I am blocked, then I should be able to come back with a clean slate. In response to your TP ban concern, I've changed the wording to "blacklisted", not banned. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose block – Blocks are not punitive, and should be utilized only after every other avenue is pursued. There is another proposal on the proverbial table above that should be tried before a block. I have found Bloom to be someone who not only can, but does make strong content contributions to the encyclopedia on a regular basis. While this does not excuse potentially detrimental behavior, it does mean we as a community should make an effort to try alternate avenues before a "block because it's easier" course. Go Phightins! 16:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Block and work to find a way forward for Bloom6132. I'd like to see a couple of things though - firstly, obviously, that he drop the battlefield mentality and move on from this year's WikiCup, it's in the past and it's not worth getting blocked over and wrecking other bits of the project over. I would, however, strongly implore the organisers of next year's WikiCup to take onboard the complaint Bloom has raised and ensure similar issues are mitigated against in future, so something productive comes from this complete disaster area. Nick (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral - but agree with Nick, with however, strongly implore the organisers of next year's WikiCup to take on-board the complaint that has been raised all over the page here and insure similar issues are mitigated against in future, so something productive comes from this complete disaster area.- as he said above. Looks like strong words were flying around all over the place, maybe some neutral supervisors should participate next time? Looks like many harsh words were said on both parts, if blocks start to fall, they might be several that will be blocked. Hafspajen (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly agree with Hafspajen. Like I said previously, it takes two to start a fight. So if blocks are to be imposed, the other side must bear their share of responsibility for baiting, provocation and grossly assuming bad faith on me. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Amortias's proposal, including the part where Bloom6132 brings RFA issues to Amortias's talk page. Looks a reasonable compromise to me, it's worth a shot. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd be more in favour of Amortias's proposal if this thread wasn't full of more of the same nonsense from Bloom (some of the comments display a mind-boggling lack of understanding- I'm not going to quote, just look up). If we are going to go ahead with a "three-month-behave-or-else" proposal, then we would need a ban from RfAs, a ban from anything WikiCup-related and a ban from listing users who are "banned" from his talk page, with the explicit understanding that anymore of this kind of behaviour result in a block. That seems quite reasonable to me, especially given the large number of people who are all for a block outright. (As I side note, can I express my unhappiness with Bloom's claim that if he is blocked, he will "reinstate" my "ban" on posting on his talk page. He is simply ignoring anything resembling the banning policy, and his comments about me and Yunshui need to be removed from his talk page immediately, whether or not he likes it.) J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed, it requires co-operation from Bloom, the "If I'm blocked, then everything I have promised is void" behavior's not helping, and telling me that I can't comment on things because I'm supposedly under scrutiny by him isn't either. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• @J Milburn – You have no right to dictate what I can do with my talkpage. It is, after all, my own talkpage, not yours. I retain the right to control every part of my own account and my own userpages, so unless you plan to take the unprecedented step of taking that right away altogether as part of the "compromise", I suggest you drop that unreasonable demand altogether. It doesn't bode well with the sprit of reconciliation started with Amortias' proposal. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Bloom, wrong again. Pages in a particular userspace "are not owned by the user". There is nothing in any policy or guideline that allows you "to dictate what [you] can do with [your] talkpage", nor anything that allows you to "ban" users from your talk page. I am not taking any "unprecedented step" in saying that you're wrong, I am just telling you what the Wikipedia policy on the matter is. J Milburn (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• You clearly haven't read WP:NOBAN – "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request". It is well within my jurisdiction to request certain individuals not to edit my talkpage. You have no right to ban me from requesting people not to edit my talkpage. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• It's a shame that you cherrypick policies just to fit your argument. The comments you made above (i.e. "I've been putting up with this", "more of the same nonsense from Bloom", and "whether or not he likes it") clearly demonstrate that you are pursuing my blocking purely out of vengeance, made in violation of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE in order to retaliate against my previous interactions with you and to punish me for it. If you were genuinely for a preventative block, you'd accept my major concessions, as voluntarily disenfranchising myself is not something I take lightly at all. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• You can request whatever you like to whoever you like. Depending on the request, they may or may not go ahead and do what you've asked. This is as true on Wikipedia as anywhere else. What I object to (among other things...) is you claiming that you have the right to "ban" people from your talk page, and especially listing people who are "banned" from your talk page for all to see. Concerning your second comment- the thought of you accusing someone of cherrypicking policies is hilarious. I see no reason to believe that you have any intention of behaving reasonably; as I've said (indeed, as you quoted), this thread is full of more of the same from you. If you want me to believe that you intend to change your ways, start right now. Drop the accusations. Stop playing the victim. Work on the assumption that other people are here/commenting for legitimate reasons. Stop being so confrontational. If you can't manage that, you seriously have to consider whether this is the project for you. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• No matter how you try to spin it, banning people from my talkpage has the same effect as requesting people not to post. Therefore, they are essentially the same. I see no problem in doing that, as it ensures no one will claim that they "didn't know" they weren't welcome on my TP. I'm sorry if my blunt and direct nature annoys you, but that's the culture I was raised in, and I'm afraid you'll just have to accept that. Addressing your second reply – since you're so keen on punishing me (in direct contravention of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE), I'll offer to indefinitely disenfranchise myself by never commenting on RFA again. Ever, even through raising concerns by a third party. I, however, will not accept your plan to ban me from the WikiCup – I haven't violated a single rule in my two years of participation, so your proposal is heavy handed and arbitrary to say the least. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Banning" means something very particular on Wikipedia; see WP:BAN. Someone you have asked not to post on your talk page is not "banned" from posting on your talk page. If you think they are, you are mistaken. There really isn't anything to debate in that regard- if you still do not understand this, just take my word for it. Whether you "see" a problem with listing users on your talk page, there is a problem- your refusal to understand that your behaviour is inappropriate and your refusal to change it (and I really don't care what kind of culture you were raised in- inappropriate behaviour is inappropriate behaviour, and I am not going to "just accept" inappropriate behaviour) is precisely why I feel you should be blocked, and precisely why a block of you would not be "punitive" (no matter how many times claim otherwise). I have not suggested that you have violated any WikiCup rules- I am talking about Wikipedia's rules. Your conduct has resulted in an awful lot of unhappiness at the WikiCup, you have wasted a lot of people's time, and eaten up a lot of people's goodwill. This is why I don't want you anywhere near it, even if you're still going to be on Wikipedia, and this is why my desire to be rid of you is neither heavy-handed nor "arbitrary". J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Being blunt and direct with regards to listing users on my talk page is hardly "inappropriate behaviour" – it's quite simple, if you don't want to be on that list, don't give me a reason to put you on there in the first place. And "inappropriate behaviour" has nothing to do with the culture I was raised in – stop lumping them together as they are two distinct and separate issues. Being blunt and direct is part of my culture. Inappropriate behaviour isn't. So if you're not going to accept my blunt and direct nature, you're essentially condemning me not for what I do, you're condemning me for what I am. All this coming from the same person who started this thread because he thought I was not "assuming good faith", who then proceeds to say, "I see no reason to believe that you have any intention of behaving reasonably". Which makes me wonder – where's your good faith? —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I do not object to your being direct (in fact, I generally prefer people to be direct), but some of what you call direct, I call inappropriate. (You're the one who raised your upbringing, which is and was irrelevant, so please do try to throw it back in my face. On a similar note, I've no interest in getting into arguments about what you do vs who you are.) I trusted that you were acting in good faith for months, but there's only so far I can go. And, to repeat myself once again, I would be more willing to assume that you have an intention of behaving in a reasonable way if you started now. You are still arguing the toss, still trying to turn conversations around to make yourself look like a victim and still treating Wikipedia like a battleground. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@J Milburn: could you post diffs or point us to diffs of anything in particular Bloom has done at WikiCup. Just for clarity. SPACKlick (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

All of the diffs in my original post were at least somewhat WikiCup related. The opposition to Czar at Rfa was due to Bloom's belief that Czar acted inappropriately in the WikiCup, many of my quotes were from this thread on a WikiCup talk page and comments from after this thread was closed (my talk page and Bloom's) concerned the WikiCup. J Milburn (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support outright block - user's combative posts here and at WikiCup, and placing a banner on their talk page instructing other editors that they are "banned" from posting there, are clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Wikipedia is not about winning; if the user is here to build an encyclopedia, their apparent history of quality editing will serve them well in a block appeal. Ivanvector (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Block - I was pretty disappointed at his childish tantrum at Czar's RFA. He needs to take it easy with his side Wiki-Cup stuff... Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Block Weakly, and sadly. His behavior has stayed the same, and after more thought, a block may be in everyone's best interests. :( Regards, --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we all wind this down please?

First of all, WP:WIKICUP says "The purpose of the Cup is to encourage content improvement and make editing on Wikipedia more fun." This does not seem like "fun" to me. Perhaps J. Milburn could disengage, "unclose" the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Scoring#adding_rule and let the other two judges address the scoring issue? I see that judge Miyagawa asked a reasonable question here [82] but the discussion was overwhelmed with all the back and forth.

Secondly, Czar's going to be an admin in a couple days (current tally 78/3/3) and a couple months from now no one is going to care about a few opposes on their Rfa.

Bloom has a common but significant misunderstanding about WP:OWNTALK -- while "NE Ent's talk page" seems to imply it's mine, it's not, of course, the page is WMF's and the content is CC-SA licensed. User talk pages are community pages for leaving messages to users. While normally requests not to post on a user's page are honored under courtesy, they should just be made in normal dialog. The "declaration" about Yunshui atop the page falls within the spirit, if not the letter of, prohibited conduct under WP:ATTACK and I hope Bloom will remove it soon. NE Ent 23:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"This does not seem like "fun" to me." Agreed, and this is why I don't think Bloom should be involved in the Cup. As I said in my closure of the discussion in question, if someone else wants to pursue a rule change in the spirit of Bloom's proposal, I have no objection to that, but there's very little chance that that discussion will lead to anything productive. J Milburn (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, I think you've missed the point. This isn't so much about some comments on an RfA, or a particular WikiCup thread, it's about a continuing pattern of toxic conduct and a continued denial of wrongdoing. J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support block I never heard of Bloom6132 before yesterday, but have now had the opportunity/obligation to read dozens of their comments, first at the Czar RFA, and now here. This editor is astonishingly combative about the most trivial of matters. There is no culture on Earth where this kind of behavior is considered appropriate or justified. This is a collaborative project to build a free encyclopedia. It is not a brutal, take-no-prisoners competition to win digital virtual "Wikicups" consisting of just a handful of electrons. Bloom seems to be out of control, and needs a "time out" to work on regaining appropriate human self-control. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Cullen328 on each of his points, but what exactly are we talking about here? Short term, long term, indefinite? Because if we're talking about indefinite, I'm not sure that's warranted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I am not arguing for an indefinite block at this time, NinjaRobotPirate, and would leave the duration in the hands of an experienced, uninvolved administrator. The last block was 24 hours so at least 48 hours, but am not sure that is enough time for the editor to disengage and calm down. Perhaps 24 hours for every tendentious, repetitive, aggressive post in this thread. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
      • A short block like that would seem alright, but I'm not sure that it's even necessary any more – unless he's actively continuing to disrupt conversations through confrontational/insulting language. Standard, progressive blocks seem reasonable. I hope we don't end up indefinitely blocking him. I never heard of him before his posts to ANI (and their tone greatly annoyed me), but I don't think we're anywhere near Niemti-levels of disruption/personal attacks... yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Perhaps 24 hours for every tendentious, repetitive, aggressive post in this thread. – clearly shows your support for a block is made solely for punitive and vindicatory reasons. Move to strike out Cullen328's "support block" vote from the discussion – it's made in violation of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE in order to retaliate and punish. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion was made in the hope that such a remedy might serve to "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior" which you seem to be continuing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Engaging in genuine discussion is most definitely not "disruptive behavior" as you grossly misrepresent it to be. Dishing out 24 hour blocks for every post I make here demonstrates you are trying to shut down dialogue, and your "suggestion" is clearly punitive in nature (whether you want to admit it or not). If you were genuinely interested in a "remedy", you'd have suggested something constructive (like Amortias' proposal above) or a block that is completely unrelated to the number of edits I make. Mind you, I've already stopped editing on RFA, the WikiCup scoring talkpage and have taken down my blacklist. So your assertion that "disruptive behavior" is continuing from me is more like a fantasy to say the least. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose block : I think he should not be blocked, diffs only suggest that he is on the border, not that he violated the rules. He needs to be reformed and humbled. Per Go! Phigtins, we must remember that he is useful. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • {{This is a collaborative project...}} True, but the WikiCup is a competition, and it is the human condition that tempers flare during competitive events. In the real world cup, Andrés Escobar was reportedly murdered as a result of competition; so a little perspective is in order. Although Bloom's conduct hasn't been stellar the reaction to the criticism hasn't helped; disengagement, especially between Bloom and J. Milburn should be the goal, not what appears to bordering on a punitive block. Bloom is an editor with 14,000 64% mainspace edits; while that in no way exempts him from expected standards of conduct, it should inform our thought process on the best possible way to deescalate the conflict. NE Ent 04:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I have very little interest in having further interaction with Bloom if I can easily avoid it, but there is no way that this is some personal dislike between the two of us. The RfA, the previous block and the other people he's lashed out at over the WikiCup (in this thread, I've mentioned Adam Cuerden and ThaddeusB, but there are others) show that this is his go-to mode of interaction. J Milburn (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• The root cause of this entire fiasco boils down to the fact that I am calling for a more fair and more transparent WikiCup competition (namely, the institution of a rule against "delayed updates"). Milburn, Adam Cuerden and ThaddeusB (among others) are totally against this much-needed reform. However, if I'm so "wrong" (or if consensus is completely against me), then why have Snowmanradio and Nick (in his above post) express support for my proposal, which actually stems from Sasata's call for the rule back in October 2012. Two years, more than two years have past, and yet our pleas for this rule have gone unheeded and have been ignored outright. It's peculiar how those who support my proposal are all neutral third parties who don't participate in the Cup, while those who are so adamantly opposed to reform are stakeholders who participate in this comp on a yearly basis. Now, according to Milburn, demanding a more fair and more transparent competition (which is entirely reasonable) is now falsely portrayed as a failure to assume good faith. Milburn – you can continue your "Blame Bloom" campaign and claim I'm at fault for everything all you want, but it takes two to start a fight. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• If you actually look at the facts (as oppose to emotionally-charged calls by Milburn calling for my block), it's fairly apparent and obvious that I have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. My sole intention is to improve Wikipedia; in this case, by making the WikiCup more fair and transparent. Think about it – if I was genuinely acting in bad faith, why on earth would I call for a rule that puts me at a disadvantage as well. I don't benefit one bit from having this rule in place; in fact, introducing it would be detrimental to me as it's one less "tactic" I can use. But I believe in honesty and integrity; unfortunately, the way my actions and intentions have been misconstrued and distorted in every possible manner are the exact opposite of that. If Milburn didn't hold such a big WP:GRUDGE against me (no matter how many times he claims otherwise), he would have accept Amortias' proposal of in which I make three generous concessions that cover all the root causes of this discussion. I'm giving up integral rights here, and if that's not good enough for Milburn, I honestly don't know what will satisfy him. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No Bloom, it's not obvious at all. You respond to the slightest question or criticism with aggression, it smacks of battle ground to me. The problem has been explained several times and you still don't seem to have cottoned on. Try re-reading this discussion as if it's about an editor you don't know it might help overcome the understanding issue. SPACKlick (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the talkpage blacklist naming Yunshui – there is no more blacklist on my talkpage. But if I'm ultimately blocked, I will most definitely reinstate it (with more names of course). I've accepted the three conditions and went above and beyond what I had initially promised. The ball's in your court now – I either remain unblocked while adhering to those three sanctions, or block me and the deal is irrevocably off the table. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to a suggestion I made [83], Bloom has also indicated [84] they'll be finishing up a DYK and then taking three weeks off. NE Ent 13:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

[JM here, I can confirm later if necessary.] Bloom, at no point have I suggested that you should be blocked because you support changing a rule in the WikiCup. In fact, as you know, I have repeatedly said that such a rule could potentially be useful, I just struggle to see quite what it would look like (and I have also said that I have no objection to another user opening up a new discussion/making a proposal concerning said rule). To suggest that I am after you because you're some kind of WikiCup critic is disingenuous. Just as this discussion is not about your upbringing, it's not actually about a WikiCup rule- it's about your combative and aggressive attitude. I have repeatedly explained that you are wrong to say that I am calling for a punitive block, and now that accusation seems to have turned into a claim that I have some kind of grudge, or that my request is "emotionally charged" (presumably meaning "irrational"). I agree that you have no good reason to be combative; my claim (which I have defended by pointing to diffs) is that you are overly combative (this whole "accept my terms or the deals off, and a load of new people are blacklisted from my talk page" stuff is yet another example). 143.117.85.213 (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure whether I should even be interacting with an IP claiming to be Milburn. But judging from the same consistently patronizing tone telling me that "you are wrong", this seems to pass the WP:DUCKTEST. Once again, you misconstrue my words and intentions (not surprising though). I never said "accept my terms or the deals off" – don't put words into my mouth, that's simply unfair. Fact of the matter is you guys have a choice. Two options. I never said "you must pick option A, or else …" But each choice has its own consequences, and its up to the closing admin what that will be. I will accept either punishment, but I will certainly not accept both. Either a block or the 3 topic bans/conditions achieve the WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. But calling for both is punitive and vindicatory, and only serves the purpose of fulfilling – as you had unintentionally revealed above – "[your] desire to be rid of [me]". —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I endorse what User:NE Ent has said above, let us make sure that Bloom6132 has really got some reasons and the statements of the IP above proves him/herself to be a Wikipedia:DUCK. We can move further, Czar is probably going to become an admin and as for wikicup, it can be sorted without remembering about any of these conflicts. I would have originally supported the block for Bloom6132 if he was causing any kind of error on main pages or talk pages, but he is not doing so. I will refrain from talking about any other sides as our topic is Bloom6132 only. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:DUCK is irrelevant; the IP said he's JM. Bloom continues to be combative in their posts here, saying they'll remove the battleground-y notice from their talkpage only if there is no block, but promises to put it back otherwise. That's not how it works here - they're defending their treating of the talk pages as battlegrounds and declaring that they intend to continue - that is not acceptable. There is no deal to be made here; the deal is: abide by community standards or be blocked. Reaffirming support for an outright block per WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE #2 and #3. No conduct issues have been resolved here. Ivanvector (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

JM needs to confirm that he is that IP, before anyone makes any assumptions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"the IP said he's JM" – yeah, just like many people will say they aren't engaged in sock puppetry even when they are. Point is, how do you know for sure – are you going to take a person's word as being the truth just because they said it is? Addressing your quote, "There is no deal to be made here" – you clearly didn't read my statement. I'm not proposing a deal. It's a choice that the closing admin will make, and – like everything else in life – there will be consequences for each of those choices. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@IP who claims to be Milburn – "[A]t no point have I suggested that you should be blocked because you support changing a rule" – no, but you have equated my legitimate request for reform with refusing to assume good faith (a blockable offence). Hence, you are essentially calling for me to be blocked because I demand fairness and transparency (no matter how many times claim otherwise), which you are only now jumping on the bandwagon expressing lukewarm open-mindedness to the idea of having a rule that enshrines both. Delaying updates in order to deceitfully hiding points from other competitors is gaming/abusing the system. I'm simply calling a spade a spade, and I never implicated anyone in particular as being guilty of such malpractice. So your claim that I am "overly combative" is puzzling – to whom am I being overly combative there with that statement? Is demanding fairness and transparency really too much to ask for? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Bloom a legitimate request acting in good faith wouldn't imply other users were gaming the system it would say that users were disadvantaged by the lack of information without implying people were doing it deliberately. It wouldn't call them or their actions deceitful. They wouldn;t imply, as you did further up the thread, that anyone who disagree supports unfairness, and has no integrity. It's not the rule you asked for that lacked good faith it was the way you asked. SPACKlick (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

SPACKlick – My comment implied any hypothetical competitor who engaged in behaviour such as delaying updates in order to hide points would be gaming the system. Calling these actions anything but deceitful would be utterly dishonest on my part (and I'm not the kind of person who tells lies – I say it as it is). A "lack of information" is therefore irrelevant if hiding points from other competitors is done deliberately. There's no lack of good faith in the way I asked, because there is no good faith to be assumed in such a hypothetical situation. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The anonymous poster claiming to be me was me. I stand by what I said. I consider my characterisation of Bloom as offering an "accept my terms or the deal[']s off" proposal as perfectly reasonable- to quote Bloom himself: "I either remain unblocked while adhering to those three sanctions, or block me and the deal is irrevocably off the table". J Milburn (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

• Question - Right now it looks like there is enough of a consensus to block, but I am wondering if the people who gave their opinions earlier think that a topic ban will be more effective in preventing further disputes/troublesome behaviour. Tagging Ritchie333, Cullen328, AmaryllisGardener, Ivanvector, Sergecross73, and Yunshui. I should note that, if a block were to be implemented, it would be first and foremost to prevent further disruption. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Disrupting what? Bloom's current activity Special:Contributions/Bloom6132 mostly consists of editing What Child Is This and some DYK stuff. They've been asked to disengage on the Wikucup stuff and they have. NE Ent 12:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• A topic ban from what, exactly? This is about the user's combative attitude everywhere they go on the project, here, at WikiCup, and especially on their own talk page. Behaviour for which they were recently blocked, and which they resumed when the block expired. No, I don't think a topic ban is preferable in this case. In the discussion above, I don't see a user who's understanding that their actions are viewed unacceptable by the community and agrees to change for the better, I see a user who's trying to bargain to avoid a block. Furthermore, the previous block didn't apparently encourage the user to check their attitude at the login screen, thus I see no reason at all to believe the user's simply going to step away from it now. I once again reaffirm support for a full block, which prevents the user's disruption from continuing, and which they can appeal by convincing an administrator that they genuinely understand the reason for the block and understand that they cannot continue that behaviour. Ivanvector (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• After much thought, I must oppose this also, it seems that Bloom has problems with his attitude wherever he goes. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• Ivanvector describes the situation well. I agree completely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• This is another example of his inappropriate behaviour, assuming bad faith, somehow thinking a section break was a reference to his wikibreak. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't know what a "convenience break" meant until NE Ent kindly explained it to me. I thought Ivanvector meant that I was conveniently taking a wikibreak at this time (which is not what I'm doing). It's unfortunate how you had to assume bad faith here by labeling my honest misunderstanding as "inappropriate behaviour". If you're going to demand that I assume good faith, why don't you demonstrate the same too. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• You assumed that Ivan added that section in bad faith, you should have assumed good faith, but you did not. There is no question about whether you assumed good faith or not IMHO. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• No, I didn't. He didn't provide any explanation as to why he added such a heading. I've assumed good faith but – to paraphrase Milburn – Ivanvector has sure as hell "eaten up a lot of my goodwill". The way he deceitfully characterizes me as "trying to bargain to avoid a block" in the same edit that he adds the heading makes it very difficult for me not to assume that the two were linked. On the other hand, there is no question about whether you assumed good faith towards my misunderstanding – you clearly didn't. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• So, you misunderstood, I misunderstand things often, but that's not the problem. Saying things like "stop lying about my intentions" when you misunderstood is the problem. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 05:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Saying things like "stop lying about my intentions" is part of my misunderstanding, for which I apologize. The real problem here is your inaccurate characterization of my honest misunderstanding as "inappropriate behaviour", as well as dismissing it as me "somehow thinking" that – no, I actually thought that. Your claim that there's an assumption of bad faith is true – albeit it's coming from you, which you have still failed to acknowledge or apologize for. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• I can see how the use of a section break titled "convenience break" at roughly the same time as Bloom posts a wikibreak notice is bad optics, but I assure you the addition of the header was merely for my convenience; the timing is an honest coincidence and any meaning read into it is a misunderstanding - I'm not sure if "good-faith" is the right word for it here but I don't find Bloom's assumption to be malicious, given the circumstances. I have changed the title to be descriptive to the proposal at hand. Apologies all around for the confusion. Ivanvector (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ivanvector's hit the nail on the head - RFA and WikiCup are not the underlying problem here, and so I don't see that a topic ban from either is an effective solution. I would hope that an editor whose behaviour is the subject of an extended ANI thread like this would be willing and/or able to take a step back and reflect on whether that behaviour is appropriate on Wikipedia, and perhaps make some adjustments to how they interact with other editors. Last night (when I saw this section, but didn't have time to compose a response), my gut feeling was that Bloom6123 was starting to make some progress in this direction; however the above exchange and diffs have convinced me that they still retain an intractable attitude that is not conducive to productive collaboration. I regretfully stand by my earlier recommendation. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from WikiCup and other contest related pages. Bloom has repeatidly (over multiple years) shown he takes the WikiCup way too seriously. It is not in his own best interest, or anyone else's, for him to participiate. I am certainly concerned about the general attitude shown as well and imagine it would carry over into a content dispute. However, since no eveidence of such as been shown at this time, removing the problem area (contests) should be tried as a less harsh solution to blocking. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

break

This thread opened with the perfectly reasonable request for assistance in getting Bloom to stop their inappropriate combative attitude on the WikiCup and OP's talk page. That has been achieved. Furthermore, some neutral editors (e.g. Nick and Hafspajen) have indicated they see underlying problems with the Cup the should be considered. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the subsequent discussion has lived down to ANI's WP:PITCHFORKS reputation. We should be here to seek the least harsh solutions, not some sort of "justice." (We just, rightfully, don't do justice as explained at WP:NOJUSTICE.)

Unfortunately, the standard edit counter is down, but using this script User:Ais523/editcount, I get:

Edit count for User:Bloom6132
Counted at 10:40, Monday December 1, 2014 (UTC)
Article >5000
Talk 773
User 1390
User talk 717
Wikipedia 1050
Wikipedia talk 283
File 11
Template 602
Template talk 183
Category 5
Portal 39
Portal talk 4

(The script stops counting at 5000). Blooms' first edit was in 2010 [85]. They never had an issue I'm aware of before this wikicup stuff. While Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy, let's not be like American tobacco companies (hey, correlation doesn't prove smoking causes cancer). Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, Wikicup makes it competitive. In the US, major sporting events include a large, visible police presence. The UK used to put fans in "caged in enclosures" [86]. Stories of crazed parents at kid's sporting events abound in the US.

Bloom had already removed the "banning" statement from the top of their page and pretty much agreed to disengage, as they need to prepare for finals in real life. Certainly in the US, it's the right time on the calendar for that. In this post [87] Ivanvector at least implies Bloom is fibbing a bit: "I don't see a user who's understanding that their actions are viewed unacceptable by the community and agrees to change for the better, I see a user who's trying to bargain to avoid a block." Is it any wonder Bloom, in a really boneheaded move, misinterpreted a fairly standard break?

Some editors see that as just more evidence of his 'combative attitude.' I see that as evidence this editor has spent four years mostly editing mainspace, and has so little experience on "dramaboards," they don't even recognize a standard discussion break. That's probably not a bad thing.

So, could we possibly just let Bloom walk away unblocked and gain little perspective? NE Ent 12:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, NE Ent is correct, that was a very boneheaded move on my part for honestly misinterpreting that break. And though I already apologized above for that, I'll take this opportunity to do it again and say that I am sorry to anyone offended. That'll be all from me here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Block, with comments. - I could not agree more with NE Ent's comment immediately above. Yes, Bloom has exhibited a combative attitude; yes, he indulged in a personal grudge "oppose" vote in a recent RfA; and, yes, he needs to drop the stick regarding the recent Wiki Cup. I have several points to make ---

1. If Bloom did not understand the community's increasingly low tolerance for treating RfA "oppose" votes and comments as a forum for score-settling, he certainly does now. I see no history of prior problematic behavior at RfAs, so the proposed topic ban is a solution in search of a non-existent problem.

2. Bloom has been a productive content-creating member of the community. Yes, he has been involved in several small dramas. Yes, he has placed far too much importance on the outcome of a meaningless "Wiki Cup" competition. No, Bloom would not be the first productive community member to wander into the weeds and lose sight of the forest. This is not a reason to block him; blocks are supposed to preventative, not punitive. Blocking him at this stage serves no valid purpose.

3. To the participants in this discussion, I say that the ANI pitchforks brigade also needs to drop the stick and gain a little perspective, too. The solution to every dust-up is not topic-banning and/or blocking productive registered editors who have wandered off the path. Sometimes, the best solution is issue the warnings and let the dust settle. There will be plenty of time for topic-banning and blocking later -- if necessary. As things stand now, topic-banning or blocking would serve no useful purpose.

4. Finally, to Bloom6132 I say: be careful, my friend. Law students are supposed to be smart; lawyers are supposed to be dispute resolvers, not the perpetuators of petty disputes. You have bigger things to do in life than getting involved in on-wiki conflicts and raising your frustration level/blood pressure. Treat this as a learning experience. A substantial number of your fellow community members see your recent conduct as problematic. Your best solution is to drop the stick, let go of the grudges, and modify your own behavior. It is not a sign of high-functioning intelligence to believe that your own opinion and behavior is correct when everyone else sees various levels of problems with your opinions, attitudes and behavior. If you continue to act as if you are right and everyone else is wrong, this is going to end badly -- now or sometime in the future. And something far more important than your participation in Wikipedia may be at stake. Please consider this carefully.

Unless someone else has something constructive to add -- beyond chastising Bloom6132, that is -- I suggest that it is time to close this thread and move on. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @NE Ent: I strongly disagree that Bloom's combative attitude has been dealt with; if anything the thread above is evidence to the contrary, they're simply being combative here instead of where the problem was reported, and they're defending their combativeness, not understanding that it's problematic. Your comment on their talk page that they're digging themselves deeper by arguing with everyone here is exactly the point: their evidenced style is arguing with everyone, and it doesn't bode well for the user's participation in other topic areas if we ban them from this one. However, you seem to be quite passionate about letting this editor away with only a warning. I don't find your theory that the user is inexperienced on the drama boards all that convincing, given their goings-on at WikiCup and their recent battles at RfA (the ultimate drama board) but in the interest of resolving this I will take you up on it.

@Bloom6132:, the thread above is very strong evidence that your combative attitude is viewed unfavourably by the Wikipedia community, and there is consensus here per Crisco 1492 that you should be blocked for it, but since you are away for most of this month anyway a block would be mostly symbolic. So please consider this thread the strictest of warnings: your contributions are of high quality and very much appreciated, but if you continue to treat Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND you are on a short path to a long block. I would encourage you to consider staying away from WikiCup as it seems to be a source of consternation for you, but I will not support a topic ban. I hope that you do take the advice contained in this thread to heart and continue to be a valued contributor for a very long time. Best of luck on your finals. Ivanvector (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ivanvector. Also, I think this essay (which I cowrote) might help explain the problem with the talk page blacklist. Origamite^{is out right now} 17:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Dirtlawyer1: I think you are almost entirely right, but there is one thing I want to pick up on in what you said: "Sometimes, the best solution is issue the warnings and let the dust settle. There will be plenty of time for topic-banning and blocking later -- if necessary." While I certainly agree, Bloom has received many warnings (and generally took them exceedingly badly) and, indeed, Bloom has been blocked before (recently). The reason I started this thread is that minutes after I posted a "final" warning on Bloom's talk page, he was up to the same stuff (then, given the fact that some people may consider me too "involved" to block and given the fact that I was "banned" from Bloom's talk page, I got cold feet and didn't actually block him myself). @NE Ent: I agree that competitive editing seems to have brought out the worst in Bloom. How do you feel about Thaddeus's suggestion of a topic ban from competitive editing (the WikiCup is just one on-wiki competition among many), given that Bloom signed up for next year's WikiCup on Thursday? J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think imposing a topic ban now would be hasty. I've found nothing puts Wiki stuff into proper perspective like time and real life. Let's see how things are when Bloom returns to editing. NE Ent 14:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Letting the dust settle and waiting is all fine but from the above I doubt doing so will encourage Bloom to look at how they communicate with other editors when they disagree. I just hope then next nomination, if it regretably comes, doesn't shy away like this one did. SPACKlick (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/87.228.204.54

I can't tell if this is blatant vandalism or inside jokes or just being disruptive. Special:Contributions/87.228.204.54 This IP is making changes on FunkMonk userpages and making hoax/borderline attacks on templates this site and foreign language wikis. @87.228.204.54: care to comment?

I reinstated this report after the IP removed it with an edit summary of "ha ha,really funny nonsense. Still didn't got it? I'm NOT a vandal!" - Arjayay (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it doesn't belong here. I support an final warning for his patent nonsense. I also support an IP block if there is further trouble. @Arjayay:, @87.228.204.54:, do you think that this is reasonable? --JamesJNHu (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

you don't need to do nothing because I will leave on Friday,and It is NOT nonsense NEITHER vandalism but,if you want,check out this--87.228.204.54 (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Compas

Hello.

I am posting here to report an ongoing issue at Compas regarding neutral point of view. Please step in. Thanks. 2602:304:59B8:1F19:21CB:A4AF:A6F9:1D0 (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The 'issue' seems to be an ongoing edit-war with no attempt by any of the participants to discuss the matter on the talk page. I suspect that any 'stepping in' is liable to consist the whole lot being summarily blocked. Nobody is going to try and figure out what the unspecified 'neutrality' problem is while nonsense like that is going on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess. "Ongoing" = there seem to be a handful of editors who have been fighting over this article for upwards of a year. I'm very quickly judging by all-caps and "Dear Sir" style edit summaries going back to the start of March of this year that this involves an off-wiki cultural dispute and a fair bit of socking. Might I suggest this article needs a heavy dose of full protection? Ivanvector (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is so much sourced to "Pintade, Wikipedia editor"? That's just the same as WP:OR. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be someone who edited that article. I've notified them of this discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Pintade seems to have some WP:OWN issues with a number of articles.[88]. I've been taking a hacksaw to a number of them but that doesn't really relate to the editing issues reported here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Pintade

Can another editor warn User:Pintade that you can't list "Pintade, Wikipedia editor" as a source and removing it is not vandalism? I'd do it but I'm now involved being the editor who removed the content (and was called vandalism perpetrated by an egotistic mind" The editor has made it clear he is going to "repost the original article in its integrality" regardless. I'd ask for page protection as well from the nonsense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Currently moving up the chain of standard warnings for original research. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir I am sorry to have treated you this way. It has not been easy keeping this article due to vandalism. Compared to zouk, cadence-lypso and kizomba, the compas article has more sound references and I will improve it by next year. I am in the process of writing a book on Caribbean music and at time I am using some here. Sorry for using the Pintade reference I thank you for the reminder. The problem with zouk and cadence-lypso editors is that they haven't shown a clear understanding of "music style, music genre, innovation, addition of technologies or new instrument" they don't understand what make a style unic or its distinguishable features, etc.

In several occasions I took the time to discuss the matter with them but unfortunately they are more guided by passion and narcissism. they just want to have a proper music style while refusing to fully acknowledge another existing style. they want credit for kizomba or coladeira even though they didn't even have a music in the 70s. they always come up with a merger or fusion to justify new music while it is not as easy. Another point is the fact that before Webert Sicot frequent tours of the Caribbean with his cadence there was no such things. now that they have been initiated they are talking about cadence lypso that they play and dance the same..Hope you understand. I don't mind giving them as many credits they want since they are also players of the compas or cadence style but calling compas zouk or cadence lypso is another thing. It is like rock n roll; Englishmen and other nations who have adopted it did not change its name.

The main reason behind the French Antilleans vandalism and resistance is because they have made so much noises with the zouk that faded away in the 80s; now in order to stay alive they have been promoting compas as zouk; but everytime you intervene that creates a problem for them since they have taken credit for influencing this or that music. cola zouk, kizomba. Haitian bands have influenced Cabo Verdean music since the 70s-80s...zouk love being compas they cannot take fully credit. NO matter what I put them they will complain because it will be detrimental for their survival.

Regards and once again sorry Pintade (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok but at least that editor is putting in the effort to find sources for their statements. If you have contrary sources (or can show that they are misinterpreting the sources), then that editor's antics won't succeed. If you legitimately think they are different, help us figure out the evidence to support that. Otherwise, why should anyone believe you over them? All we have right now is two yelling parties here and that's a long-term solution. If you know this to be true, how do you know it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, with this edit ("You have demonstrated your ineptitude even on Caribbean music") I can't tell whether you are serious or not. I have asked you before, who exactly are you accusing here? There's a serious case of righting great wrongs here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

At this point, there's a pretty clear edit war going on at Compas between Pintade and 50.192.218.161. I've warned both, but I think page protection, blocks, or both may be warranted. Neither side's hands are particularly clean here (between incivility and sniping in edit summaries, repeated introduction of original research, and section blanking... they're both doing something wrong). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at compas, Cadence rampa, Zouk-love (and zouk which looks like the same thing) at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Since there's more edit warring happening, along with some significant bad faith commentary from Pintade, I've filed a report at 3RRN. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Joe Rogan Experience

An AFD that I filed was closed a few days back with the result of Redirect. Since then, a long time editor of the page has been edit-warring to reverse the result. They've been warned via edit summary that they should take it to deletion review if they disagree with the close, but have continued to revert. I don't think that the closer is an admin (and so is not really able to enforce the close, though I could be mistaken in this), and since I originally nominated the page I'm heavily involved. So I would like to have an uninvolved admin step in. IMHO the warring editor, User:K.A.Gesell, needs to be warned in no uncertain terms to either respect the close, or appeal the close to the proper avenue. But that they should not continue to edit war against the AFD's close. I'll notify Gesell and the AFD's closer right after submitting this... - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. The two I mentioned already, as well as another editor who has reverted a couple of times to **enforce** the close, have all been notified. - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I put it back to the redirect. It doesn't seem that they have made any effort to discuss this just reverts. No revert messages. They have reverted in 4 times since the 24th. If they revert it again they should be indeffed. Really there's enough reason to block them now.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'd recommend a temporary protection (a week at most) for the redirect to discourage any further attempts to re-create the article without going through deletion review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Just coming at this from another angle: if it's a non-admin close, and some users have objected to it by reverting the redirect, it should be re-closed by an admin. Even though the closer pretty clearly judged the discussion correctly. Nobody is entitled to edit war over it though. Ivanvector (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

An unmarked revert doesn't count as an objection. If tyhey object they need voice their objection and not leave it up to mindreading.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with K.A. Gesell's edit warring, however, I will point out that a NAC shouldn't be done for a redirect per WP:BADNAC, but yes, that was the appropriate consensus, so I agree with having an admin re-close this still as a redirect. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Not so: the way to object to a non-admin close is to revert it; any revert is an objection by definition. However that is academic: the close is clearly correct (per WP:IAR if you like) and I don't think there's anything that would change at DRV. This user doesn't seem to have any knowledge of the deletion process though, so I suggest someone should walk them through it, including helping them with the notability guidelines and indiscriminate list policies. If they feel strongly about it and they have good sources, maybe encourage them to work on it in Draft: space and resubmit through AfC. Whatever happens here it should be posted in clear language on their talk page - they didn't participate in the AfD and might not understand how discussion works here. And if they ignore all of this and just continue to revert then it's an easy indef per WP:CIR. Ivanvector (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This is still ongoing and I am not convinced that it is by different users. I would suggest a page lock.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Black Kite has protected the page. The user might have been reverting while logged out, but they aren't revert warring at other articles, so this should solve the problem. Ivanvector (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

BKPATIL1234 continuing to create contentless stubs after warnings

BKPATIL1234 (talk · contribs) has been warned not to create any more stubs that consist only of infoboxes and is urged to communicate with other editors. While their approach to editing may suffice to identify the subject of the article it leaves the question of significance and notability open. Moreover, our readership can expect articles that contain at least one coherent sentence, while infoboxes are a supplementary element to sum up what has been written in the article. If there is no prose in article it doesn't need an infobox either. De728631 (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

---

BKPATIL1234 (talk · contribs) is a newish editor (created 17 Nov) who is creating many stubs about Kannada-language films. S/he creates an infobox, and nothing more. Many articles (example) have been proposed for speedy deletion, inappropriately as they do contain an infobox. Others (like Bhagya Jyothi) have been PRODded. A couple have gone to AfD (example). The editor has been asked/told numerous times on their talk page that articles need text, not just infoboxes. This advice, and warnings, has been ignored. This morning I have warned at levels 3 and 4 but the creation of inadequate stubs continues. There is no evidence that the editor has read anything on their talk page. I suggest that a short block by an Admin might draw their attention to the problem and encourage them to stop adding such inadequate articles to the encyclopedia.

A short stub is fine, preferably with sources, but it does need to have a lead sentence. (Note that I've fixed up their more recent creations, out of a wish not to have such inadequate stubs littering the encyclopedia.) PamD 09:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be just as quick to write a one-line lead sentence based on the infobox as it would be to tag with PROD or file an AfD request? This seems like someone who's trying to help (but perhaps isn't sufficiently confident in English to write lead sentences), so might a bit of collaboration be worth trying? Squinge (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

But it shouldn't be necessary for another editor to do either of those things: write a lead sentence or nominate for deletion. And if an editor is not confident enough in English to write a simple sentence "X is a [date] Indian film in Kannada language", then perhaps they should not be trying to help create the English language Wikipedia. WP:CIR. PamD 11:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not about what *should* be necessary, it's about cooperating to build a globally-useful encyclopedia, or have you forgotten that? So instead of aggressively tagging everything this person is creating (and they're films starring notable actors directed by notable directors in the most, so don't you think there might just be some chance they're actually notable?), how about trying to offer constructive help? Squinge (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

PamD, you should better read Wikipedia:CIR, your use of Template:Uw-mos4 was definitely inappropriate.[89] You are complaining about the article creations and trying to convince us that it is impossible to contribute into his article. If he is not adding a lead you must tell him about it or you should contribute yourself. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've gone through some of these contributions and added simple lead sentences based on the infoboxes, and have added relevant stub tags. I'll do some more later when I have the time, but until then wouldn't it be nice if all those people on a tagging/deletion spree could channel a little of their energy into helping this new editor by checking for notability (*before* declaring articles non-notable) and helping expand the stubs? You know the way we're supposed to be working together here? Just a thought. Squinge (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• You can also ask for assistance on some of the relevant pages like Wikipedia talk:INB and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Pam's got a bad habit of drive-by tagging/prodding/warning newbie users who are creating articles in good faith. A recent example was declined and easily turned into a decent DYK. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Hatting unrelated chatter. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It appears I have been warned by @Owais Khursheed: for removing a PROD tag, using inapplicable BLP PROD reasoning! Squinge (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC) @Squinge:Common man it was not an BLP PROD but it was only PROD. Please see your talk page. Night Fury (A good day to Die Hard) 13:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC) PamD triggers Template:Uw-mos4 for not adding lead and Owais Khursheed triggers Template:Uw-blpprod1 for making a movie article better than it was.[90] Seems like Wikipedia:Twinkle is being abused. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC) At the first place i didn't tag the article by BLP PROD it was only simple PROD, the edit summary provided by @Squinge: is "That is *not* a BLP PROD and you are *not* allowed to reinstate it once it is contested" but it was not tagged by BLP PROD. Second thing is that on the talk page of Squinge i have not mentioned that he has removed BLP PROD. It was a simple warning about removal of PROD. Night Fury (A good day to Die Hard) 13:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Your message[91] still read "don't remove these PRODs from articles unless they contain at least one reliable source or were created before 18 March 2010", anyone who has spent 3 hours in patrolling new articles would know that you are referring to the article about a living person that has no citations. You are patrolling pages for months and you still don't know that? I think you should stop until you have enough knowledge about patrolling new pages. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC) @Bladesmulti: I have not abused TW, I would never think of abusing because i love it but TW has no option of warning a user whose has removed PROP tag other than BLP PROD, if u find it, please let me know. Night Fury (A good day to Die Hard) 13:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC) The warning you gave me was "Please don't remove these PRODs from articles unless they contain at least one reliable source or were created before 18 March 2010", which is *only* applicable to BLP PRODs - I am allowed to remove an ordinary PROD at my discretion and you are not allowed to reinstate it (or to warn me for having removed it) Squinge (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC) @Owais Khursheed: Re: "TW has no option of warning a user whose has removed PROD tag other than BLP PROD" - That's because it is *perfectly acceptable* to remove a PROD tag and *wrong* to warn people for doing so! If you're going to patrol new pages and taggings, you need to learn the policies rather than just guessing as you go along! Squinge (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Then u did the right thing the PROD tag was right on the article but it was right to left a message on your talk manually. I didnt know March 2010 stuff is only applicable to BLP. thanks Night Fury (A good day to Die Hard) 13:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC) No, it was not right for you to leave a warning on my talk page of any type whatsoever, because I did not do anything wrong. I accept you didn't understand and you made a mistake, but the honorable thing to do in such circumstances is apologize rather than keep on insisting you were right to warn me. But I forgive you anyway. Squinge (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There are over 40 of these infobox-only stubs now and it is natural that people will respond to them in different ways and occasionally slip up in deletion procedure, or put on a questionable template or whatever. So let's not niggle at each other but address the original question. A dialogue with the editor would be much the best but it doesn't seem possible. So we either have to block or let the process continue, we don't know how long. It's a dilemma: to balance creation of what may turn out to be valid articles, against the the extra workload being created for others and the presence, at least temporarily, of stubs that don't meet our minimum standards: Noyster (talk), 18:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What I find sad is that a newcomer trying to expand Wikipedia's very thin coverage of Kannada language films finds not help, but a barrage of warnings, criticism, and deletion notices - and is reported to ANI without anyone doing anything to help expand the stubs. Now, I really don't know if these films are sufficiently notable, but with foreign-language films (especially those in a language using a different script) being considerably harder to source, a bit of extra effort and time really would have been nice here. Squinge (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

They are notable as long as they have included the contributions of multiple notable movie actors and filmmakers. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I brought this matter here because I hoped that Admins might help to encourage this editor to add at least a single sentence of text to each stub s/he creates, and perhaps sources too. Articles with no text are contrary to MOS, so the uw-mos series of warnings seemed the most appropriate. I have not tagged any of these articles for deletion, though many other editors have. My first comment on the editor's talk page was 8 days ago when I pointed out that all articles need to have text. This, along with all other advice on the editor's talk page, seems to have been completely ignored. How can we encourage this editor to add sources and text to the stream of stub articles they are producing, if talk page messages have no effect? The editor's talk page shows that many editors find these stubs problematic, though of course they are not eligible for speedy deletion "no content" as they contain an informative infobox. PamD 21:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you heard of collaboration? Squinge (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

As you have seen, those who find them to be problematic have failed to explain their point. If article creator is not going to write enough, then someone else will have to. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I find it problematic, and I'll tell you why: I think it is rather rude to just drop infoboxes and expect other editors to do even the slightest amount of work--like writing a single lead sentence that establishes unequivocally that we're dealing with a notable topic. This is creating extra work for lots of other editors for whom the relevant information, we can safely assume, is not as readily available as it was for the person who "wrote" the infobox. PamD and I have not always agreed, but on this we do. I find blocking to be somewhat draconian and I wouldn't do it without looking into it much further, but the editor should be aware that there are legitimate complaints about their editing. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I appreciate both the efforts Squinge and sentiments expressed by them et al with regarding to not biting a newbie, it's been my observation that new editors who do not respond at all to posts on their talk pages are disruptive to the community process -- see the second nutshell line in WP:Civility - "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors." So I'd suggest a hopefully short indefinite block -- that is, until the editor begins communicating at all, however imperfectly -- might be in order. It simply should not have to be the efforts of PamD et. al. to be their "editing assistant," if you will, and we owe our readers articles that have at least some content. NE Ent 6:04 pm, Today (UTC−5)

(edit conflict) (x3) There's no rule that says a new stub article has to be taken to minimum standard by one single editor, and I didn't find it a problem writing some simple lead sentences based on what's in the infoboxes and was happy to do so - it's one way in which collaboration can work. Anyway, I think I've said all I want to now, so I'll just repeat that I'm saddened to see the experience this new editor has had - that wall of templated deletion warnings was surely not the best way to deal with this. Squinge (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not hard to standardize his article. I just did his last 3, took 5 minutes, including a page move. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There's more to it than that -- does Madhuve Madhu Tamashe Nodu, for example, meet WP:NOTFILM? NE Ent 23:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at some of those main points, I cannot be sure about the notability. But there is some possibility that those who have worked in these areas have idea about these movies and the reliable citations, maybe asking on a relevant page like WikiProject:Film would work. These types of articles have usually got those citations that are not available in English. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Final warning/attempt made; I've pinged some of you in it. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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

69.121.122.165

IP has been blocked. Watchful eyes could be needed though once the block has expired. De728631 (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

---

69.121.122.165 is constantly putting up future shows that are gonna appear on WGN America. It is considered crystal balling unless you have a valid source. He has been blocked before and he did it again today. To avoid an edit war, I discussed this in the talk page. He ignored my warnings. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked now by the ever-faithful Master of Puppets. They do have a page full of warnings, don't they. Well, let's see what happens when that block runs out: you seem to be keeping an eye on things; if they go back to it, ask for more blocks here and/or for protection of frequent targets at WP:RFPP. Or just ask Master of Puppets to get busy: they look young enough to not be busy with other important things. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Promotional User Page

Lots of blocks have been handed out. Is there still something like the Wiki Embassy? If so, we might notify our fellow editors at ruwiki. De728631 (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Can a admin please ban Cygnus Flare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He is using his userpage to promote his unnotable band (recreated after deletion & removes csd tags) Avono (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

And Now we also have a sock DavidGab98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [92] Avono (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

And another one 46.19.102.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [93] Avono (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

created report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cygnus Flare Avono (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Original account blocked (Avono, please see WP:BLOCKBANDIFF) by Orangemike, who is government-certified as a spamblocker. DavidGab blocked indefinitely as a sock, IP blocked as a duh, of course. Thanks for keeping the place clean, Drmies (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Do we have someone who's active on the Russian wiki? There's a user there as well; it'd be nice to get a global block and deletion on the Russian wiki: please tell them "Удаление это всего спама." For some reason I don't have administrative powers there (fancy that), and can't even blank the page. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Insistingly adding contentious material without adding a proper sourcing

After several requests from different users for providing a page for this edit in order to comply with WP:Verifiability the users are again reinserting the same material in this inadequate way. After listening to some ugly accusations to my person for properly adding other sources and opposing the addition of a controversial edit not properly cited and impossible to verify, I am requesting you gentleman here please to take action against User:The Banner as his conduct is disruptive in this highly sensitive article. I am not going to be called POV-pusher and white-washer only because requesting proper sourcing. I warned them that if they restore the edit without adding the page number that they will be reported, and they made fun of it. FkpCascais (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact, there is another edit war going on on Kosovo war where people are removing a statement about low moral that was clearly inconvenient. It is interesting to see that just FkpCascais is filing this case, as he was [canvassed to join in in this dispute. As far as I can see, the IPs all geolocate to Serbia. I do not know why user:Bobrayner mention the meat puppets and sockpuppets, I leave it to him to explain. The Banner talk 22:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Page 332 [94]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That article is in my watchlist and I participated in the previous discussion about it, so it is indifferent for me if someone leaves comments on my talk-page of things I see at my watchlist anyway. I want to thank AndyTheGrump for bringing the page so now the claim can be verified. I still beleave it is very inappropriate for someone to be called POV-pusher and white-washer for asking for a page of a citation. Attacking someone because is requesting proper sourcing is a no-no. FkpCascais (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I can not help to notice that you were also talking about POV-pushing and a fake-page (Removing clear POV pushing by users that dont even provide a page for their edit. If you restore the edit without page or with a fake page youll be reported) And sorry, I do not buy your bluff and rude behaviour. Ow, you may find this interesting: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo The Banner talk 22:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That was my answer for your provocations already. When you add something to the article of such contentious nature, add it properly, or don't. FkpCascais (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sir, this is not a battleground. We try to discuss things. Removing a sourced text just because the source lacks a page number is not a good way to open up a discussion. especially, when several removals were done without even mentioning the page number. That request only came when you were pushed to give a good reasoning for the removal (and not only by me). There are several people involved in this case, why are just just attacking me? Why not user:212.178.243.185, why not user:2602:304:59B8:1F19:65C6:59E1:C52B:9B3A, why not User:IJA, why not User:Bobrayner or User:Vanjagenije? They were involved in this edit war too... The Banner talk 23:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It's the most reliably sourced content on the entire page; citing an acclaimed historian published by a university press. However, an obvious sockpuppet of a banned editor canvassed both FkpCascais and Vanjagenije to remove it. Both happily complied; this is normal in the Balkans. (You should see how many times FkpCascais helped with Evlekis' editwars). The sooner the meatpuppets and sockpuppets are stopped, the sooner our articles on the Balkans will reflect what reliable sources say. bobrayner (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: The text actually does have a citation; in fact, the quote is sourced to a book published by Yale University Press. Why do you say that the edit was not sourced? --Biblioworm 03:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Because it was not properly sourced. The page was missing, and we had instances in the past when claims were cited only by adding the name of the book and then it turned out the text was not exactly what was being added to our article. If an editor is adding a quate, besides adding the publication, he should add the page number, just as we all do. What is so hard to understand there? FkpCascais (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

And because the page number was missing, you used it as an argument to remove the information. Information you clearly did not like. The Banner talk 11:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

False claims about sourcing are just one of FkpCascais' tools for whitewashing any mention of what Serb forces did in the Kosovo war. See also: [95]. Of course FkpCascais does not apply such demanding requirements to all the other content - some of the text that FkpCascais adds has genuine sourcing problems. This is tendentious editing, as is the canvassing, and the regular tag-teaming with socks of banned editors, and the personal attacks, and encouraging blocked editors to use more sockpuppets and meatpuppets, and adding copyvio... Nobody really believes that text is badly sourced; such claims are just one more tool that FkpCascais can use in POV-pushing. bobrayner (talk) 13:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that my comment on the talk page "Kosovo war" has been removed for no good reason by another user. If any experienced editor would please help, I would be grateful. 212.178.243.11 (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Bobrainer, as I already once said, you seem to be a fine editor on some subjects, but when it comes to Balkans you become extremely partisan. You said that your own mission here is to fight against Serbian POV and Serbian myths. Regarding this particular situation here, you saw that quote, probably added by someone else as you couldn't even add the page number during all this time, and you loved it because makes quite an unique claim of an unnamed Serbian commander allegedly saying he was shooting children :) You liked it that much that you even made a section just for it. This same edit was discussed already: Talk:Kosovo_War/Archive_6#Morale_Section_Should_be_Eliminated. User:IJA agreed and removed it. You know one of the main goals of NATO was to brake Yugoslav moral and it was not going well for NATO as seen in the sources I brought yesterday. So highlighting a quote which is exceptional claim of an unnamed allegedly Yugoslav commander saying that he was shooting children... hummm... but anyway, it is sourced now (finally can be verified thanks to Andy who did the homework you should have done before edit warring) and it is in the article, although still making the quotation seems undue weight. So before accusing others of the things you said, look at the mirror. FkpCascais (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, stop removing IPs comments, what is a matter with you? FkpCascais (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC) What sock? Show me the sockpuppet investigation link first. FkpCascais (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You know it's a sockpuppet. I know it's a sockpuppet. We all know it's a sockpuppet. There are so many Serb pov-pushing socks that it's hard to keep track of them all. FkpCascais regularly tag-teams with these socks and pretends that they're legitimate editors; that's just what he does. However, deleting my talkpage comments and overwriting them with comments by the sockpuppet that canvassed him - that's a new variation. It's unfortunate that the community has let this continue for so long. bobrayner (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's unfortunate unregistered editors must face such discrimination and blatant lies. It's unfortunate that I cannot post my opinion on a simple talk page, in a civil manner, without it being removed and me being called "sockpuppet". It's unfortunate that I get no protection from abusive editors such as yourself. It's unfortunate that your behavior goes unnoticed. Truly unfortunate. 212.178.243.11 (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Kosovo War for one month due to the probability that IP socks have been editing there. The registered editors can continue to contribute, but be aware that further admin action is possible if people don't appear to be following proper WP:Dispute resolution. The 'morale story' keeps being added and reverted. Someone could easily open an WP:RFC to see if it should be included. Full protection, blocks or WP:ARBMAC sanctions might be considered if the trouble continues. Anyone who has posted here at ANI that certain IPs are socks is encouraged to file at SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: I see that AndyTheGrump has found the quote in the book (it's here). Doesn't this pretty much verify the quote? --Biblioworm 18:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I thanked Andy for it. I only pointed out that users should do its best to cite everything adequately and if an editor points out that a page number is missing and requests it, he should not be attacked and accused of POV-pushing and brainwashing as that is not productive in any way and encourages battleground mentality. Also, editors should not erase IP comments accusing them of being socks without filling a SPI report first. Now there are some content issues that can be discussed, possibly a RfC can be mad, and calm and civility should be expected. FkpCascais (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but with statements like this, I don't believe that at all: Yes, OK, whatever... I also spoted you now ;) defending the worst POV pusher around, so your words have zero value for me from now on. Take care, cheers. By now, I start contemplating asking for a topic ban for you and a permanent semi-protection for all articles related to the Kosovo War. The Banner talk 22:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't edit-war when the sources are not properly cited, dont call other editors "POV-pushers and brainwashers" just because you want to, and dont interact with me other than strictly aticle content, neither will I with you. Lets focus on content, not on contributors. Good day. FkpCascais (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. From what I see, a source was rather innocuously removed because the specific content being cited wasn't readily verifiable (talk page discussion helps here). That's not a horrible thing at that point because if someone really feels strongly about including the source where the information was not easily found (if it exists in the source), they just needed to find the page number and the matter would be solved. There was no reason for anything to escalate beyond that, to accusations of POV pushing, or even ending up all the way at ANI.

I haven't looked to see how clean FkpCascais or others hands are in the matter beyond posts here, but seeing some of the The Banner's comments in this matter and previous ones, the user does seem to have trouble with WP:AGF in letting comments like POV-pushing fly rather quickly. This isn't exactly the mark of civility when a page number would have killed the issue quicker than a jar of cyanide. Even if someone was dealing with the worst POV-pusher out there, that doesn't justify escalating things for a content issue as mundane as this. No admin action needed except maybe warnings on civility if someone wanted to push for that. It's not apparent who actually set up the powder keg here, but no editor should let a page number of all things set that off. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Effy770

Five days ago I posted the following here:

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

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

Today I find it necessary to repost this, since this editor continues to undo my reverts of his edits. Unfortunately, he simply doesn't understand what I am trying to explain to him. For example, he thinks that he should add the {{Citation needed}} template to 6 statements, 4 of them in the same paragraph which are sourced to a certain book, just because he wants to know the page. Likewise, he deletes information, claiming it is not in the footnotes. Just because a link is now dead or needs a subscription, is no reason to remove the footnotes. He also adds information of a (too) general nature to the article, and continues to do so, even after I explained to him on the talk page that such is not a good idea. In short, he doesn't know how to really improve the article, but he knows all too well how to press the revert button, and I am pretty fed up with it. Debresser (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) First of all, you need to provide diffs. Second, I would suggest you go to WP:RPP to request page protection. I'm tempted to revert his edits, as he's inserting malformed wikicode and appears to be removing sources, but I can't quite tell what's going on from the page history alone. Also, I have no clue about the subject matter, so I couldn't say whether his changes are applicable to the article or not. For the content-related aspects, try WP:DRN. You might also try contacting a relevant WikiProject. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to protect the page, but I'm going to give him an "only warning" for edit-warring; regardless of how good or bad his position is (I've not looked), hitting the "undo" button is edit-warring and harmful. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, now I see this discussion here. Debresser has actually been undoing every single edit I have made on the page. Each time I add something he deletes it. And doesn't explain it. Please have a look at the talking page of the messiah subject. I wore some of this there and on my talking page, but putting here all can see. Debresser has been undoing and reverting every single edit I have made to the page, no matter how big or how small. He does not like any of my edits and changes them all without using the talking page. He has also repeatedly called me an idiot who makes lousy edits and a fucking prick. I want consensus and am not trying to edit war, please don't get the wrong side of the stick. I am not trying to disrupt wikipedia style, I am trying to follow it by making the page better. At the top of the page there is a notice to try fix the page. But any time I try make the page better, by either adding new information, adding a new footnote, or removing a footnote that leads to no where, Debresser just undoes it without discussing and without explaining. When he does say something it's in the realm of "idiot" or "lousy" or "f***ing prick" (without the stars)! Should I really be getting this warning then? Or should Debresser also be getting a warning not to undo any edit that I make and not to insult me for no reason. I want to discuss, and I want to make the page better. But it seems that Debresser thinks he is the only one that can say what goes on that page. I hope I was clear and respectful and I hope you can understand. I am also newish to wikipedia. I don't know much although my brothers use wikipedia a lot.Effy770 (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I do explain, both in edit summaries and on the talkpage. I have written 7 posts (in 10 edits) on that talk page section. See the talkpage history. My latest edit was very detailed, because I really want to help you, and I really dislike edit wars. And, as I said on the talkpage, if you don't want to be called a "prick", don't behave like one. You undo my reverts, even though I try to explain to you why I revert you. However, you don't seem to get the point, and make the same mistakes time and time again. So either you don't understand or you ignore my explanations, but insisting on your edits, knowing and acknowledging that you are a new editor, is the way of a prick. Debresser (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

By all means, please check out and see if Debresser is saying the truth here. He did write 7 posts but for more then 10 edits. It's interesting he refers to them as edits, while in fact every single edit of his was hitting the undo button that he accuses me of! Also, the first (7th) decent response on the talk page (other then aggressive posts calling me idiot etc.) came only after he tattled on me here and needs to save face. If he really wanted to help and didn't like wars as he claims, he would have been more detailed to begin with, not only after continuously hitting unto to all of my edits. I'm not sure your not liking my edits allows you to call me a fucking prick. If anything it just shows me you have an agenda. As I said many times on the talk page -- please have a look at it -- I want to make the page better, but any change I make whether I add information, add a footnote, remove unfootnoted information, anything at all, Debresser just hits revert. In fact, I woke up this morning to see that all edits I (and other editor) made last night, were all undone by Debresser. Because of the warning I got I can not put it back, but I ask others to have a look. Again, I am not trying to disrupt, I am trying to make the page better, but an obviously bias editor is just acting like an aggressive owner is just undoing every single edit I make while calling me a fucking prick. Also, lets remember that he had been undoing all my edits for a nice while, clear violation of brd.Effy770 (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said I am newish to this and just figuring out these things, but as the history and talking pages will show, It seems to me that I have been a victim of WP:NEWBIES, of WP:BULLY, of WP:INDCRIT, of WP:APR and of WP:PERSONAL all by one and the same aggressive editor who in turn claims I am undoing. Debresser is the one who is constantly "hitting the undo button" and who it seems has violated WP:BRD including what seems to be a violation of WP:3RR.Effy770 (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that Effy770 is learning. :) No WP:3RR violation took place, of course. As for WP:NEWBIES, I have apologized for that above, noting that I had no choice. As to the question who is reverting, that is easy to check. It is Effy770 who is trying to change the previous consensus version of this article. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I guess I am learning. I have to when I have been called idiot and fucking prick and had all my edits undone one after another for days on end and then been tattled on here as if I am a menace to society. All I want to do is to work to make the page better - as the note at the top of the page calls for. I want to work to make the page normal, clear and concise. Not long with unnecessary information or with long undocumented section. At the moment the page is a mumble jumble that mixes and confuses so many different issues together. It's very difficult to read through. . . As I said, if there is something I put that is not good, editors should point it out on the talking page, or try edit it instead of just hitting the undo button -- and then accusing me of that! I have constantly asked for consensus, and constantly asked for other editors to chime in. Each time, however, I have just been undone. I didn't see that I violated any consensus.Effy770 (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That is one thing we both agree upon: the article is in bad shape. I hope that with some guidance, and with heightened awareness of some vital points in editing articles on Wikipedia, you will be able to make valuable contributions to this and other articles.

If, however, you are of a mind to repeat your edits, then that attitude is detrimental to this project. The choice is yours. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to get your input whenever possible. I hope I will be able to make valuable contributions to this and other articles, but I don't think that is determined by yourself only. I also hope that from now on, if you continue to not like my edits, you will refer to the talking page, and not just undo all my edits every single time.Effy770 (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I do post on the talkpage, as I said above. But I can not promise that I will not undo your edits. If the edit makes the article worse, I will undo it. Debresser (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof

Has been disruptively editing Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian, redacting discussions about information found on verifiable sources (her own personal blog). His history shows numerous anti-gamergate edits and complaints from others. I asked him to stop harassing me and he will not. Please intervene. Xander756 (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The complaining user has repeatedly and persistently inserted and reinserted unsourced/poorly-sourced and clearly-defamatory content regarding living people on Talk:Anita Sarkeesian, including two abuses of the rollback privilege, for which I intend to request that it be revoked for misuse.

I made several different attempts to warn the user that their edits violated multiple policies, including but not limited to verifiability and the biographies of living persons policy, and [96] suggested that they discuss the issue on the talk page, but they ignored or rejected my requests and simply continued to revert the material into the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• NBSB appropriately redacted negative claims you made about two living people based on a source that doesn't meet our sourcing standards. You reverted his redactions without discussion twice, and then added a third inappropriate claim. Please read WP:BOOMERANG an my comment on Sarkeesian's talk page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with NBSB that your use of rollback was inappropriate, and note that you have previously had it revoked for using it to editwar. I have revoked +rollback from you, per the standards for its use found at WP:ROLLBACK. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm it seems he is now deleting my comments on this incident board. That should be added to his list of offenses. As I was saying, I cited a primary source, Anita's own personal blog, to connect her to pick-up artist Bart Baggett. He didn't like that information because he is anti-gamergate. He has a long history of b eing anti-gamergate and getting into many kerfuffles on Wikipedia. I do not. I am an objective editor with no history of editing anything related to gamergate. He is trying to censor information he doesn't like no matter how factual it is. That's not how wikipedia works. Here's the source: https://web.archive.org/web/20070912100534/http://www.neonandchrome.com/events.html Xander756 (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Xander756 is correct that there should be admin intervention. Thanks to Kevin Gorman for taking the first step, but more is needed. Even after all the above, Xander756 has again posted "it means she's connected to pick-up artist [living person]" (diff). That degree of tenacity regarding the highly troubled Gamergate issue (see WP:GS/GG) should result in a topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Kevin appears to be a feminist based on his edits and profile page. He is clearly not unbiased when it comes to Anita Sarkeesian so it comes as no surprise to see that the information should not only not be included but not even DISCUSSED for inclusion on her talk page. I would like other administrators who are NOT CONNECTED to this subject to weigh in. Should someone who has never edited a single gamergate or feminism article in his lengthy wikipedia career be "subject banned" or should the people who are biased and have numerous edits to gamergate, feminism, and other related subjects be the ones subject banned? Xander756 (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I have never edited an article about gamergate, and only have a peripheral familiarity with what it is. I've written a number of articles about feminist philosophers, but there's a wide gap between writing about Alison Jaggar and being too opinionated to enforce policy on an article about a living person involved in a controversy that I've purposefully primarily ignored. Moreover, WP:INVOLVED has an exception for actions that are obviously correct - and making nastily negative accusations against both Sarkeesian and Baggett without a reliable source certainly meets that standard. If you looked around, I think you'd probably notice that John and I aren't exactly besties; in a situation where we are agreeing, you would probably be best served by re-reading WP:BOOMERANG and taking some time off from the article. To hopefully demonstrate to you that this my opinion is not singular, I'll wait for someone else to formalize it, but will note that I agree that a topic ban should be handed out here. To passersby: it's worth looking at his rights history, his talkpage history, and his recent edits to Sarkeesian's talk as well as my own usertalk. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Xander's old user page says he writes for the Examiner and provides a link; his examiner profile links to a twitter account that is currently calling for people from an anti-Sarkeesian viewpoint to swarm her article. (Redacted) Since Xander was notified of the discretionary sanctions before this thread, I am indefinitely topic banning him from topics related to gamergate broadly construed given his behavior on-wiki coupled with trying to attract offsite editors to push a pont of view, as well as blocking him for the next two weeks. I am intending the topic ban as an action under WP:GS/GG, and the block as a normal administrative action (if any admin views two weeks as overly harsh, please feel free to reduce the length of the block without consulting me first.) I was going to hold off on taking action on this, but offsite brigading and using rollback to insert BLP problems on an article talkpage that is already under discretionary sanctions already means I see less than zero way that Xander can productively contribute to topics related to gamergate at any point in the near future. His edits at Brianna Wu were also highly problematic. Enacting and logging my actions after I post this. Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Xander's current userpage mentions writing for the examiner in the past, and one of his most recent diffs explicitly mentions what column he wrote along with his name. He uses the same username everywhere, has additionally voluntarily disclosed links to his Twitter account in the past without seeking redaction (since his examiner column links his twitter account,) and this content is materially relevant to the block. Personal information voluntarily disclosed that reveals both a COI and offsite canvassing does not fall under WP:OUTING. When information used to make an administrative decision can be made publically available it should be, to allow full scrutiny of the block. Other comments forthcoming. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Endorse topic-ban and block: this is textbook BLP disruption of the kind that is supposed to be prevented by discretionary sanctions. Compounding that by attacking other editors as "feminists" (if that's an attack, it appears to be meant as such) and evidence of off-wiki calls for attacks on the subject call for immediate action to stop the disruption. Eyes please on related articles. Acroterion (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• An indef block should be applied. Xander's employment as a Video Game Journalist and his link to said twitter account pointed out above would suggest actual involvement in this gamergate controversy. That would certainly be a conflict of interest. Xander abuse of rollback rights makes that COI much worse. Rollback is a guarded ability. Not everyone has them and they are handed out rather carefully. They opened this ANI it would seem in bad faith. It really does seem they have abused the communities trust here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• Kevin has been lenient in my opinion, this user clearly returned to Wikipedia with an axe to grind. I would have indeffed them had he not blocked them first. — east718 | talk | 21:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• While I am inclined to agree with the block and removal of Xander's rollback privileges, the topic ban was in violation of procedure as I have explained at Gorman's talk page. There seems to be a more important issue here, however, in that Gorman has apparently dredged up off-wiki information through opposition research the fruits of which were posted above and subsequently redacted by another editor. He actually made a very serious claim that I am having trouble verifying regarding an unnamed social media account. Making matters worse Gorman is very thoroughly involved on feminism issues to the point that his activities on the men's right articles were written about on Jezebel. I think his actions in this case under these circumstances make attempts to simply endorse his use of the tools woefully inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not consider myself to be categorically WP:INVOLVED with any and all articles about feminists. Neither do I consider myself categorically involved in any and all articles involving men, women, dogs, planes, trains, or automobiles. Posting voluntarily disclosed personal information is not WP:OUTING. I have been significantly involved in disputes on the Men's rights movement, and have written about a number of feminist philosophers, among many other philosophers. I've barely touched most of the content area and I had to Google what Gamergate was. Even if you did assume me to be WP:INVOLVED with Sarkeesian's article, WP:INVOLVED contains an exception for actions that are obviously correct. WP:BLP additionally contains a fairly broad exception for involved administrators enforcing clear violations of BLP policy. Xander's entire recent edit history is disruptive editing on gamergate related articles. I fully stand by the topic ban. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I redacted part of Kevin Gorman's post. I checked Xander756's history on a whim and found no reference to him writing for anyone. The only link I saw was to his gaming site where he ran an RPG based on DragonBallZ, Ryulong did go ahead and revert me, I explained why I reverted and he's self-reverted. If the revert can be proven wrong, you can flame me all you'd like (just explaining why the redaction is there ) KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 00:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I have explained why the redaction was incorrect, both earlier in this section and on Ryulong's talk page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Self trouting applied KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

He's been extremely explicit about his identity on Wikipedia on his twitter and talking about his topic ban/Kevin, having seen the redacted bits, which would make me assume that OUTING doesn't apply here at all, considering both accounts also have the exact same name. Parabolist (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Per the relevant policy: "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be."

The exemption for COI does not mean you get to get dig up dirt on someone and then tell everyone here what you found unless it is clearly relevant. Given that the offense is apparent on its face there is no clear need for Kevin to disclose any of the details except to harm the editor's reputation. Kevin also seems to be making a potentially defamatory accusation that cannot be verified in the way he claims, while informing people about this individual's identity, thus making it also a BLP issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You should know better than to accuse someone of making a defamatory accusation without providing any evidence in support of your accusation. Xander identifies himself on his userpage as a journalist still in a way that easily links him to his offsite activities, since he names the sites (though he cannot change that now that he lost TPA.) The fact that he has clearly and willingly linked his professional identity to his Wikipedia account makes pointing out his identity not outing. You also seriously posted an off-site link about me, while redacting one about him? (We've both clearly linked our identities to our accounts so both activities are fine, but the double standard is worth noting.) You have explicitly disagreed with my imposition of a topic ban on Xander, that makes it inappropriate for you to be striking evidence that is explicitly permitted by WP:OUTING and is directly relevant to why he needed to be topic banned. Strike your accusation of defamation against me or provide evidence of it, and strike your accusation that I have violated WP:OUTING, or follow it up with a request for what WP:OUTING calls for. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

In the redacted portion you claimed the existence of "another social media" account and used that as the basis for the accusations, but the link to the account is not present on the page you claim and I am not finding anything there pointing to any such statements. Again, it is not even clear why you raised this information in the first place as it seems to be unnecessary to raise at all, let alone publicly, given that the basis for action is clear enough without it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with removal of rollback and topic ban. Clear abuse. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• TDA, did you seriously just redact the mere fact that the user in question has been canvassing offsite/is involved directly in the dispute/has a COI even though that information is available in two clicks from the user's previous userpage diff, and a not insubstantial part of why I sanctioned him and why others have supported the sanction? "However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums" It's not a long jump from his current user page either, and there's no indication that he removed it for reasons of privacy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Are you really going to claim that the mere fact of being a game journalist is a COI, while arguing that your highly-publicized editing on feminist issues here does not make you involved regarding Sarkeesian? I do not believe anyone who is in any fashion involved in the gaming industry past or present inherently has a conflict of interest regarding all content covering the industry. Why are you even invoking COI when the issue should be BLP and misuse of rollback? Seems like you just wanted an excuse to post the info about him.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that he's a game journalist directly involved in the actual events of Gamergate certainly means he is involved, and strongly suggests he is incapable of productively editing in the area. The fact that I edit tangentially related articles doesn't mean I am involved. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

How is feminism only tangentially related to a prominent feminist critic exactly? That is like saying you are involved regarding Climate change, but are free to act as an admin on the pages of climate change scientists because they are only tangentially-related. It is just incorrect. Are you suggesting a bank teller who was part of the Occupy Oakland protests has a conflict of interest regarding the entire Occupy Movement? What you are suggesting about COI is just not how it works.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A gaming journalist who actively writes about, calls for people to brigade the Wikipedia article about, and (Redacted) (his tweet history, which again, is publically linked to his on-wiki disclosed professional identity,) while tagging more than a few of his tweets #gamergate is pretty obviously involved to the point of being unable to productively contribute to articles related to #gamergate. BLP and rollback issues can justify a block, even a lengthy one, but I wouldn't normally automagically topic ban someone for nasty BLP stuff; his direct off-wiki involvement in the actual controversy pushes it from something to think about to something that is pretty clearly necessary. I've been involved in articles about the men's rights movement, and written articles about women philosophers, some of whom (but far from all) work in feminism related areas. I had to google gamergate to figure out enough about what it was to figure out that a tban was necessary.

Most admins do admin work in areas that are tangentially connected to things that they've edited previously; I don't consider myself automatically involved on topics linked to feminism or philosophy, or, er, living people, even though I've edited articles related to all three (and probably have stronger feelings about treating BLP subjects with decency and per the sources available than feminism or philosophy.) I step back when I have strong enough feelings that I think they'll effect my judgment or when I've been directly involved in content disputes about the actual subjects at hand. BLP and WP:INVOLVED both have exceptions that would apply even if I had a stronger degree of involvement. Are you going to start arguing that I shouldn't perform admin work that relates to articles about living people, because I've been involved in controversies in articles about living people?

You repeatedly redacted information that wasn't outing or a violation of WP:BLP despite it being directly relevant to the block and despite others pointing out the same thing. I'm glad this isn't a controversial block, because if it was I'd have to take stronger exception to your actions. Even now, if you seriously thought I was outing anyone, the appropriate thing to do would be to email WP:OS for actual meaningful redaction. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how tweeting about GamerGate is a conflict of interest, even for a gaming journalist, which is a pretty slim claim in itself as this most directly concerns Sarkeesian not GamerGate. You also do not seem to grasp that the policy I am linking to also addresses "opposition research", which states you cannot simply dig up dirt on people to use against them here. There is no clear reason why his tweets prior to this incident have any relevance and you made a completely unverified claim regarding this individual on top of it. I do not see how BLP violations and abuse of rollback to edit-war were somehow insufficient to the point where you need to publicly detail off-wiki matters. You doing this while involved only aggravates the issue. You continuing to be evasive about what constitutes "involvement" by suggesting that my reasoning would make you involved regarding women in general or people in general is absurd and obfuscates the fact that generally-speaking admins are construed as involved with regards to an entire topic area where they have been heavily active and not just the articles they have edited within that topic area. You have also been highly active regarding the Isla Vista Killings from a similar perspective so it is not just the men's rights articles that are relevant here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The user in question voluntarily disclosed on their Twitter account that they are one and the same as the Wikipedia account. (Redacted) I have restored the redactions, as WP:OUTING clearly does not apply here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Please pay attention, this is not a simple issue of posting a name.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to pay attention. I have restored the information which is clearly supported by the user's self-described connection between the Twitter account and the Wikipedia account. The user in question is screaming at the top of their lungs for attention — (Redacted) and can hardly be said to be concealing his identity. He is loudly and proudly declaring that everyone is corrupt and calling for a page to be brigaded. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think including any of the information under the circumstances is inappropriate, but since you acknowledge the most offending portion I will leave it at that.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• @NorthBySouthBaranof and Kevin Gorman: No, linking to their Wiki account from Twitter does not satisfy the self-disclosure clause of WP:OUTING: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." Also, no, being able to easily get from their username to their twitter account because of a userbox also does not meet the threshold, per WP:OUTING, "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be." This is a warning to your both that if you post that Twitter handle again, I will block you both for outing.--v/r - TP 01:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

TP: the user in question has disclosed their professional identity on-wiki, including specifying their name and exact column they were writing. They never sought redaction of that information. The fact that their professional identity is directly relevant to the reasons for topic banning them clearly falls out of the scope of WP:OUTING - "However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums.". If you believe outing has occurred here, the appropriate response would be emailing the oversight team at a minimum. I'm rather disappointed that you would issue a threat to block without at least reading over the thread well enough to see that the disclosure of his professional identity occurred on-wiki, and that it's directly relevant to the point of tbanning him. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Show me the edit they made with their twitter handle.--v/r - TP 02:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This diff includes the statement "I am also currently the National Xbox 360 writer on Examiner.com," and his current page still mentions writing for the examiner as well as several other outlets, while professing to be a gaming journalist. If you take his statements that he was the 'National Xbox 360 writer' for Examiner and that his name was Alex, finding the column he wrote for four years under his disclosed identity is easy, and since he disclosed doing so on-wiki, it's fair game under OUTING to talk about it during discussions related to potential conflicts of interest. His Twitter handle is integrated with his column. Being a gaming journalist directly involved in offsite criticism of Sarkeesian, Wu, and the other figures involved in gamergate and who is calling for brigading offsite is exceptionally relevant to his ability/likelihood to contribute productively to the topic area, and thus talking about his professional identity that he voluntarily disclosed on-wiki falls under the part of WP:OUTING I quoted in my previous post. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Per the part you quoted, you can use "such information" that he volunteers on Wikipedia. Until he volunteers his Twitter, you're out of luck.--v/r - TP 03:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

When someone volunteers their professional identity on-wiki and their professional identity is directly relevant to their editing behavior, they should expect it to be discussed, even if the most pertinent information takes one click to get to from their main page. If mentioning offsite brigading by someone who has listed themselves on-wiki as being a journalist and who openly links their twitter from all of their columns is a violation of WP:OUTING and who is simultaneously using the same twitter to appeal their to Jimmy, then you have a lot of retroactive revdels to go through from the last few months of ANI and COIN alone (especially when the same handle is used both places.) The fact that you haven't revdeled the edits in question, or apparently emailed OS, coupled with your comment on my talk page makes it look an awful lot here like your interest is making a point about a recent arb action that you disagree with, rather than any interest in the letter or spirit of policy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

1) No, that's not what the policy says. 2) That's an ad hominem and an attempt to get me involved.--v/r - TP 04:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• My question is was he properly notified of the general sanctions at the time of the actions for which he was banned? He seems to have added these so called "unsourced/poorly-sourced and clearly-defamatory content" was at 07:24, 30 November 2014 [97]. He was notified of general sanctions for Gamergate at 08:34, 30 November 2014 [98]. All of his uses of rollback occurred before he received the general sanctions notification.

A COI argument can be made against him, but that alone should not lead to a topic ban (we have people with a COI request edits all the time on talk pages). And even assuming you can link the twitter account to the WP account (of which the fact that the twitter account said he was the WP is irrelevant you need only on WP confirmation that the twitter account is his), even then "A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or mailing lists in which Wikipedia or its contributors are discussed, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct. The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community." Is his behavior that grave?

So upon which edits (after he was notified of general sanctions) for which he topic banned? --Obsidi (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell, his initial claim was the BLP violation and subsequent claims were backed by a source, though one of disputed reliability. The initial claim could be considered supported by the source he later provided, but it would fall under poorly-sourced information. His block is probably not an issue as a result, since he was warned about BLP and misused rollback, but the topic ban is more dubious since he basically ceased his problematic editing after being notified of the sanctions and the gap between the notification and topic ban was just two hours with about one hour between his last edit and the topic ban. I think if you review the article talk page you will also notice that Baranof was not exactly being constructive in engaging this editor.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I made a polite effort to explain to the user, on their talk page, what was wrong with their edits and why they needed to cease inserting the material. He responded by accusing me of harassment on my talk page, to which I politely replied that he needed to stop inserting the material and engage on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That vague boilerplate talk is neither informative nor polite.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The gamergate issue has infected several articles where new or returned users add original resarch which often violates WP:BLP. Ideally the community would take the time to talk each such user through the issues and explain why BLP and UNDUE are the way they are, and why soapboxing about issues like this is not done at Wikipedia. However, it takes a very long time to convince enthusiasts and not enough good editors are available to mentor each case. Accordingly, the general sanctions (my first link) provide authority for uninvolved admins to apply sanctions such as topic bans without bureaucratic justification. My comment above includes a diff (rev-deleted) where the user again posted "it means she's connected to pick-up artist [living person]" which was a repeated violation of BLP by claiming that a living person is evil (the earlier rev-deleted posts were more detailed). If the user were to study the norms that apply to editing the encyclopedia and realize their approach was flawed they could mount an appeal. That is the only practical way to handle the coordinated off-wiki attacks. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

So we're proposing reversing a community-supported block on the basis of it being based on evidence collected which violates WP:OUTING? What wikilawyering nonsense. Kevin's block was absolutely the appropriate action - ok, if we can't use coordinating off-wiki attacks as rationale, then we'll use the far more serious issue of repeatedly abusing the rollback function to edit war BLP-violating material into articles under general sanctions, and say Kevin's block and discretionary topic ban were highly moderate. I fully support these actions, and in light of a recent barrage of complaints that administrators are too slow to act with the Gamergate general sanctions, I say Kevin is to be lauded for it. So well done, sir. Now we have one or two users who refuse to stop beating this particular dead horse. Just close this, already. Ivanvector (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No one has really objected to the block in itself. I think Gorman is involved regarding these matters given his heavy activity regarding feminism and men's rights issues, but the only sanction to which anyone really objects is the topic ban since it came very soon after the editor was notified of sanctions with all clear misconduct ceasing almost immediately after the notification. The opposition research and potential BLP issue regarding his comments is just an additional point of concern.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

He was never notified of BLP sanctions so he cannot be topic banned for that (and even if he had been notified that would only apply to the LP he was talking about not the whole gamergate topic). As to the abuse of rollback, Wikipedia:Rollback: "editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed", that is the appropriate sanction for that not a gamergate topic ban. --Obsidi (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Fleetham

Fleetham has been asked by Wuerzele (see #635418845) and by Ladislav Mecir (see #635489158, #635766997, #635829315, #635830178, #636015423, #636015452) at Talk:Bitcoin#Achieving neutral point of view neutrality dispute and at User talk:Fleetham to respect WP:NPOV and cease employing WP:ICANTHEARYOU. The edits are:

• #633444683
• #633445806
• #633586783
• #635363006
• #635438273
• #635438747
• #635439305
• #635828640
• #635829763
• #636012427
• #636012830
• #636014925

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that Fleetham has been messing with the Bitcoin article for quite some time now (going back to Oct 2013), as evidenced by the comments on his user page. Mrcatzilla (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

After being warned about this issue, and still in the 24-hour slot Fleetham added reverts:

• #636085219
• #636085598

which totals with the three previous reverts to 5 reverts at Bitcoin in the 24-hour slot. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham is one of the best, most reasonable, most tolerant, most even handed, most valuable and most intelligent contributors to the Bitcoin article for a very long time. There is nothing wrong with his contributions. There is nothing non-Wikipedia in his contributions. Ladislav Mecir, surprisingly, demonstrates a complete inability to accept defeat in pushing for a specific statement. That is very regrettable on Wikipedia. Ladislav Mecir has to accept that he cannot win all fights. That is impossible in life and on Wikipedia. He does not accept that. That is very evident. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Fleetham´s very good additions to Wikipedia. Ladislav Mecir should be banned for at least three months from contributing to the Bitcoin article which he very firmly believes he owns. That would be a very good outcome of this complaint. Ladislav Mecir has also made tremendous - maybe the most - fantastic contributions to the Bitcoin article. He and Fleetham are the best contributors to this article. However, Ladislav Mecir does not know how to accept defeat. It would be very good for the article and for Ladislav Mecir if he were to be banned for three months from editing the Bitcoin article for his many reverts of Fleethams latest addition. August Figure (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC) — August Figure (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Quite the hagiography from a zombie account... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm seeing a content dispute between the OP and Fleetham, not an NPOV issue. ANI seems the inappropriate forum for resolution. Have the users tried WP:DRN? Also noticing some questionable actions from the OP, naming the wording of the ANI notification and the liberal use of templates on a non-newbie account instead of dispute resolution. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

What are "OP" and "templates"? August Figure (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@August Figure: Pardon the lingo usage. OP means "original poster", in this case Ladislav Mecir. By templates I mean the use of warning templates on a user's talk page. Templates such as these here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing a content dispute - To explain the situation: There has been a neutrality dispute related to the neutrality of the lead section of the Bitcoin article. The dispute was properly announced by edit #635636301 using the "POV-section" template. Five editors: Creationlayer, Fleetham, JorgeGabriel, Ladislav Mecir, and Wuerzele took part in the dispute. Once there was a consensus established, the dispute was finished, the "POV-section" template removed and the consensual wording used in the lead section, Fleetham started to revert the consensual contents of the lead section replacing it by his own nonconsensual, biased (according to not just one editor), and grammatically incorrect wording, demanding his wording to be respected and any change to it disputed with him. Nobody denies Fleetham the right to start a new dispute, if he wants to establish a new, changed consensus, but that is not what is going on. He is just repeating that he does not see any consensus, and usurped the right to revert the lead section 5 times in 24 hours as demonstrated above. I do not think any new dispute is needed until Fleetham starts one without reverting the consensual wording of the lead section. Does that sufficiently explain the current situation? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

To find out that the consensus was established in the dispute note that: there is a statement by Creationlayer expressing his agreement, there is a statement by JorgeGabriel expressing his agreement, there is a statement by Ladislav Mecir expressing his agreement, and Wuerzele took part in the dispute by just correcting a typo in the final wording, which is interpreted as an agreement. The only editor that did not explicitly express agreement was Fleetham, but he also did not express any disagreement, nor he expressed any opinion related to the contents of the section. All his contributions to the dispute were unrelated to the contents of the lead section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I edited the Bitcoin article for a while last year and, while I disagreed with Fleetham on many positions, I found him to be a level-headed editor who was interested in pursuing a neutral article. I haven't scrutinized his every edit, but a casual look at User talk:Fleetham and Talk:Bitcoin shows that he responds to reason with reason. He tends to ignore overly aggressive rhetoric and demands on this Talk page, but we can scarcely fault him for that. Please use normal dispute resolution channels. --Laser brain (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I do completely agree with you that there were many reasonable and neutral edits by Fleetham. However, this is not about the reasonable edits Fleetham made in the past. This is about the present behaviour, which is observably different. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The difference between Ladislav Mecir and Fleetham: Although they are the two best contributors to the Bitcoin article, Ladislav Mecir firmly believes that the "owns" the article. See: "Please don't act like you own the bitcoin page. Have you read [[WP:OWN]]?" Ladislav Mecir thinks he is "the boss" of the article while Fleetham does not show that tendency at all. It is very obvious what is acceptable on Wikipedia and what is not acceptable on Wikipedia.August Figure (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir firmly believes that the "owns" the article. - there are two problems with the note: the note is demonstrated by a citation of a comment by BoA-BTCopsec-14, which is a WP:SPA, and the second, and more important is that it is irrelevant to the present dispute. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This ANI process is about Ladislav Mecir and not about Fleetham. Banning Ladislav Mecir for at least three months would be great for him as a life lesson (which he would only realize 20 years from now) as well as for the Bitcoin article. August Figure (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)— August Figure (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

How is an ANI thread started with the title 'Fleetham' not about that contributor? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I notified User:Fleetham that he broke WP:3RR on 30 November and asked him to respond here. He deleted the original notice of the ANI but has not yet deleted my notice. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, for me the issue is that Ladisav will claim "consensus" and do something that appears completely unrelated to whatever consensus was just reached. I don't believe that consensus was ever achieved on removing a paragraph of text dealing with bitcoin and deep web black markets. Have a look at Talk:Bitcoin#Achieving neutral point of view... While at the very end of the section, Ladislave briefly mentions that "it is also inappropriate and nonneutral to list all illicit items that can be purchased with bitcoins", no one mentions removing from the lede a paragraph concerning bitcoin's links to deep web black markets. A single contributor responds regarding something other than removing this paragraph from the lede, and Ladislav replies, "we... achieved the necessary consensus on the neutral wording of the paragraph #4, and therefore on the wording of the section."

Basically, there's no consensus to remove material here. One contributor brought the idea up in passing and no one mentioned it again. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS when there is no consensus, material is not removed from the page.

I also reverted a single edit by Mrcatzilla regarding a claim made by the Bitcoin Foundation. While 3RR is, as I understand it, reverts per page not reverts per section or issue, this was a separate case... I'm also unsure why a contributor, Mrcatzilla, would go from having an interest in an ANI dispute to editing the page at the center of the dispute instead of the other way around... But from my experience on the page, Internet people who take the time to edit the bitcoin article often don't like to see negative material about the cryptocurrency appear on the page despite it being well cited and compliant with Wikipedia rules. As I'm one of the few editors who doesn't solely contribute pro-bitcoin content, I am often at the receiving end of WP:PA etc. (Cf. User:Wuerzele) Fleetham (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Facts are: four of Fleetham's edits were reverts of the lead section; the above mentioned fifth reverted a single edit by Mrcatzilla is described incorrectly, in fact. The original sentence by Fleetham was not a claim made by the Bitcoin Foundation, but a synthesis of two claims, the first one made by The Economist. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason for my interest in this particular ANI dispute is Fleetham's consistent insistence (example [99]) on slating the lede to show Bitcoin in a negative light, a trend I noticed over a year ago when I attempted to clean up some imperfections in the Bitcoin article. Of course, Fleetham as a rule does that in a civil manner, and has also greatly positively contributed to the article, and being unfamiliar with wiki editor culture perhaps I am out of place showing up in this ANI thread. Mrcatzilla (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I have experienced Fleetham's disruptive editing ever since I edited the Bitcoin page nearly a year ago now. (But it goes back even further, as his userpage shows.) I made a case for a block here in April 2014.

Fleetham not only has a block log stating that he's been blocked once for block evasion, once for breaking the three revert rule and twice for edit-warring. He has a long track record of this behavior, which I think is the most compelling argument to consider. The 15 user comments over less than 6 months express exactly what I have experienced ( and I wouldnt be surprised if there is an 8 year history - I didnt look:

• You have undone eight months of changes with the simple comment of "restore". Aug 2013. Ttwaring
• Your edit summary appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Last warning for sneaky vandalism. Do this again and you'll find yourself back on the chopping board of ANI, which I've warned you sometime back. August 2013 User:Dave1185
• Any reason you removed 2 Tata Nano Photo without any comment?Ctny
• About your recently somewhat strange editing behaviour: Why you seem to have tried to remove my comment. Sep 2013 Thomas.W
• Please stop your disruptive editing. -Sep 2013User:Thomas.W
• Final warning for removing content, with a deliberately misleading edit summary. -Sep 2013 User:Thomas.W
• Bitcoin lede bias re illegitimate uses of Bitcoin -Oct 2013 Orbixx
• Your rewrite of the bitcoin article- asking to reconsider making unilateral sweeping changes that include the wholesale deletion of others' work. Oct 2013 Canton
• Caution for unexplained removal of 6K bytes of content from the article, with a misleading edit summary saying "clarifying".
• Bitcoin Article Edits - a lot of your edits aren't helpful. VinceSamios
• Challenge verifiability on the talk page first instead of summarily removing content. Chris Arnesen . In reply Fleetham promised: In future, I will go looking for sources before I remove anything.(Jan 2014)Mr.choppers said he had explained this "many times in the past".
• Warning : you've used up your three reverts for the day. Feb 2014 Chris Arnesen
• Warning : You're edit warring. Feb 2014 Chris Arnesen
• Cut and paste: a better approach would be to simply modify the language or flag the issue.
• "rearrange new material" in edit summary- euphemism for deleting. 4 April 2014 Richardbondi

Ever since our ANI April 2014, Fleetham will absolutely not communicate with me, even though I have pinged him on the Talk:Bitcoin page regularly to collect input. check a recent section from November: Talk:Bitcoin#Edit#633157351 or hereTalk:Bitcoin#Analysis of bitcoin price drivers where he didnt reply to Ladislav. This is passive-aggressive and to say the least, unhelpful, counterproductive. Fleetham has never thanked me for an edit (I have). Fortunately, Fleetham stopped biting newbies, after I complained, seeing he didnt just do it to me and driving editors away.

Besides the behavioral issues: I do not agree with the "zombie accounts" Laser brain's comment that Fleetham is a good editor. He is good at finding references when needed, but his English writing skills are weak. his edits often lack precision and we regularly find mistakes we need to correct, the source or the sentence. Now, this is no personal attack, this is just calling a spade a spade, and to rebut the incorrect notion of "good editor". Before I even wrote here, Fleetham has accused me above (and others) of a WP:PA without any incident in the last ? 7 months I can remember. When confronted in a discussion, Fleetham will warn (!) Ladislav to be polite, even though nothing impolite was said. Fleetham cannot tolerate an opinion different from his; for my edits at first this was concerning formal stuff, and as he started holding back with his constant reverting, more and more his inability to accept other opinions on the page has crept into content disputes. If he doesnt delete it first, he will question everything one writes, and repeatedly ad nauseam, saying he doesnt understand it.WP:ICANTHEARYOU. He has difficulty understanding or does not understand NPOV, and thereby pushes POV - I agree with Mrcatzilla. I do not think I have an opinion eitherway on Bitcoin , so I reject Fleetham's notion that he is one of the few editors that enters information critical to Bitcoin.

This ANI is of course about Fleetham, and not Ladislav, I agree with AndyTheGrump. Yes , Ladislav has been making a lot of edits lately, but there is no rule against it, and he is doing work, that others dont, and yes, I agree that the "consensus" was hastened. I wait days until people have a chance to chime in. But when you look at the process and the arguments Ladislav made, they were NPOV oriented, and completely rational.

As far as page WP:own: It is ironic, but Fleetham for the longest longest time, was the irrational owner of the page, but he has obviously had to relinquish that. I suspect Fleetham is envious towards prolific or smart editors. --Wuerzele (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion: Fleetham and Ladislav Mecir are the two most productive (the best) editors of the Bitcoin article. First Fleetham "owned" the article. Currently Ladisliv Mecir "owns" the Bitcoin article. We have to help the two of them to work together peacefully within the framework of WP policies. Neither of them should "own" the article as per WP:OWN. Currently it requires Ladislav Mecir to give up that "ownership" of the article. It would be completely counter-productive to punish the one or the other. It would be very wholesome if Ladislav Mecir could - in the current dispute - accept and respect that. They should shake hands and fair play should win. August Figure (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's the conclusion. It does not address the recent disruptive editing by Fleetham nor the behavior outlined by Wuerzele in any manner, although the very existence of this ANI may be enough for a cooldown. Mrcatzilla (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Let´s get the knives out!! Who-ever has the patience can produce a Wuerzele-length list of crimes by Ladislav Mecir too. I can assure you of that. You favor the counter-productive punishment route. Agreed, that is a permissible option, albeit an extremely negative option. You want Fleetham to be punished. Consequently, what punishment do you agree to be meted out to Ladislav Mecir, who Wuerzele clearly indicates to being the current "owner" of the article? If you want to punish Fleetham, then we have to proceed to the punishment of Ladislav Mecir too for undoubtedly "owning" the Bitcoin article currently. August Figure (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

{U|August Figure}}, You wrote "...Ladislav Mecir, who Wuerzele clearly indicates to being the current "owner".." No, I did not say that and I do not appreciate your manipulation. I said "Yes , Ladislav has been making a lot of edits lately, but there is no rule against it."

Your "Lets get the knives out" is not funny, not helpful and it disregards the true grievances that we are bringing forward here. It has no place on this page.

You are mocking me saying "Wuerzele style list" which I find abusive.

Your evaluation of who are the 2 best editors on the page shows that you are clueless.

You may have read Bitcoin but not made a single contribution in your name and very few elsewhere. Nobody knows you (except probably Fleetham?). Leaving alone the fact that your language and grammar skills are subpart (it's accusative above, whom not who), your tone suggests that you are not invested in resolution. I would really appreciate, if you stepped back from this page.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he needs punishment per se, I think a scolding without restricting editing rights would be sufficient. Mrcatzilla (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The greatest response I have ever seen! :-) Great, you go and scold Ladislav Mecir! Good luck! August Figure (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can personally see, Ladislav Mecir hasn't done anything wrong besides attempting to keep it neutral and balanced. Ideally Fleetham would promise to respect WP:NPOV and cease employing WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Mrcatzilla (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The most grating/annoying aspect of the Bitcoin article is that Ladislav Mecir currently "owns" it. It is very clear that Ladislav Mecir currently "owns" the page. Everyone knows it. Even his friend Wuerzele admits it. And Ladislav Mecir flaunts it. He knows there is little we can do about it. To stop him "owning" the page would really require a huge campaign in the correct - I do not even know which - forum. I am not available/interested to go on such a huge and time-consuming campaign. August Figure (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Before this "he-said, she-said" gets any more out of hand, I propose the article Bitcoin be subject to 1RR for some limited time, say a week, and the users Fleetham, Ladislav Mecir and Mrcatzilla be banned from any reverts on the page for the same time. Based on the last 100 edits there's an awful lot of just-under-3RR edit battles and arguments in edit summaries, and these three users are somewhat equally responsible. Ivanvector (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why my three reverts over a three day period warrant a revert ban for a week. Mrcatzilla (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Mrcatzilla, your reverts dont warrant a ban. You have not been editwarring. I think, Ivanvector is pulling this out of his Grognard hat (a 2000 edit award per his user page). However, Catzilla, I dont understand why you want to punish/scold Ladislav.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Retracted. I believe that's a 3000 edit award, or maybe I haven't updated it. It's irrelevant, anyway. I went to the page, pulled up the last 100 edits, and saw those three users edit warring via reverts and arguing in edit summaries rather than engaging in proper talk page discussion. You are right, though, that Mrcatzilla was only responsible for a very small number of those reverts. Thus I've removed their name from the suggestion, but I'm leaving the rest up. And really, a ban on using the revert function is pretty minor; you shouldn't be using it except for clear vandalism anyway. Blocks are not punitive; 1RR throws a wet blanket on some of the disruption. Ivanvector (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support: block for Fleetham.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector: ...arguing in edit summaries rather than engaging in proper talk page discussion. - taking into account that Fleetham did provably engage in talk page discussion only to state things not related to the contents of the article, this partially fits the behaviour. However, it does not fit otherwise, since there are discussions at the talk page available for examination, which prove otherwise, see: Talk:Bitcoin#Edit #632751647, Talk:Bitcoin#Edit #633157351 and Talk:Bitcoin#Note about illicit purchases made with bitcoin. These can be examined to make sure that the engagement in talk page discussion existed, even though Fleetham largely ignored the effort. At least the last one shows that the exact same matters have not been negliged in any way as far as proper discussion is taken into account. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me make that clear: I want to "punish"/scold Fleetham only as I haven't noticed Ladislav refusing to hear the other side out and discuss any issue to the point of consensus. Fleetham, on the other hand, has been seen passive-aggressively dodging issues and making some stubborn reverts to a consensus left behind in his absense or refusal to discuss, I cannot tell. Mrcatzilla (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Mrcatzilla thanks for clarifying. The way you had written it above, "he" was referring to the last mentioned subject, ie Ladislav, which was the opposite of what you said otherwise.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I have had the misfortune to encounter Fleetham many times in the past, and always with great exasperation. He has been getting better, but I am still seeing the same behaviour as before. He keeps on doing the same sorts of disruptive edits over and over and over again, and when told for the thirtieth time over to stop a certain behaviour (for a while he was deleting all images he encountered, as he didn't think Commons pictures were allowable) he keeps on deflecting, ignoring, and generally exasperate his opponents into despondency and silence. After a move of Changfeng Motor had been agreed to, for instance, he moved it again unilaterally a month later. To see the entire enervating ensuing discussion, displaying all of his passive aggressive methods for blocking and inhibiting actual debate, go to the talk page. I am aware that my example is positively ancient, but Fleetham still exhibits the same exact behaviour albeit toned down rather a bit. I have never encountered anyone so unable to engage in fruitful conversation, simply a master at stonewalling. I am personally happy that he has gotten himself stuck at Bitcoin, as this means he has mostly stopped vandalizing other articles that I happen to care more about, but I think that his is largely a negative presence. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, I've taken a closer second look at this. The characterization of the problem by Ladislav Mecir is fairly accurate, and the talk section Talk:Bitcoin#Achieving neutral point of view is a good picture of the current issue. Ladislav and others responded to a series of reverts by engaging in a policy-based discussion to establish specific changes in the article; Fleetham also participated in this. When a conclusion was reached, edits were made to the article, and soon after were reverted by Fleetham, indicating disagreement. There was a brief revert war, but eventually that and the discussion reached a natural conclusion, disruption was limited, and the editors moved on to other parts of the article. Observing subsequent discussions, I agree with other editors above me that the discussions have been civil, and other than a series of reverts, this is a content dispute and dispute resolution should be a next step. By many editors' own words, Fleetham's contributions have been on the balance highly constructive to the article - even considering the occasional tendentious edits, banning them would be a net loss. I've struck some of my statements above but I stand by calling for 1RR here, as that would stifle what seems to be the only active conduct issue - the revert warring. I'd also encourage everyone here to seriously limit their editorializing in edit summaries - there is a character limit and your long explanatory statements are getting cut off. Ivanvector (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector, your "conclusion" is flawed, missing the point with "highly constructive" and "discussions have been civil, and other than a series of reverts, this is a content dispute". This case is more than a content dispute and does not belong on WP:DR. You do not have the insight, likely because of your brief WP presence in general (the only reason why I mentioned Grognard), and the superficial review of a mere 100 edits on Bitcoin specifically. Fleetham's long standing, uncivil methods have been pointed out by numerous veteran editors. So: in your own words: I'd "encourage you to seriously limit editorializing" on this page." --Wuerzele (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I recommend the above comments by August Figure = Penny Seven as an excellent indicator of what will be wrong for Wikipedia to believe. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/66.191.128.205

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

---

This person (User:66.191.128.205 - talk) has vandalised the SQL article for five years, see their contributions: Special:Contributions/66.191.128.205. I request that they be blocked. —ajf (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That sure is one slow-burning edit war. Shouldn't we (finally) warn the IP about that particular policy? To answer my own question: will do. Favonian (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

They've received previous warnings and I don't think they've really taken heed of them. I'm not sure this new one will make much difference. —ajf (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Has there been any real attempt to discuss this change with them?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

They've been given warnings before, but I suspect they haven't read them. They may not even know they've received them. —ajf (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

There have been several discussions about the pronunciation and particularly the term "sequel" at Talk:SQL (which is hopelessly unstructured in terms of dates) but this particular IP did not participate there nor in any of the archived talk page threads. However, in November 2012 they referred to the talk page when removing the "sequel" variety from the article. The consensus since 2013 seems to be though to include "sequel" as it is backed up by reliable sources.

Because there are also other IPs involved in this long-term edit war causing persistent disruption I have now semi-protected the article. De728631 (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! I think that'll help the problem somewhat. —ajf (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Conflict of interest in regard to our article on El Marino, a 1917 Chilean newspaper.

El Marino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). See also Talk:El Marino/GA1

User:Diego Grez, a long-term Wikipedia contributor (under that name - his real-life one - and as User:Küñall) recently created an interesting and well researched article on El Marino, a provincial Chilean newspaper produced for a few months in 1917. Or rather, he produced the article, and then denoted half the space to coverage a website (www.diarioelmarino.cl) which has now taken up the 'El Marino' name. The owner and editor of this website is none other than Diego Grez Cañete - the creator of the article. Despite the obvious conflict of interest (which per COI guidelines would suggest that he should not be making edits concerning his website at all), and despite the fact that no evidence whatsoever has been provided to suggest that there is any meaningful historical continuity between a newspaper published for a few months in 1917 and a 2014 website, has repeatedly restored the COI-violating material after I removed it as off-topic promotion of his personal website. It should be noted that this is not the first time that Diego Grez has ignored Wikipedia policies and guidelines in regard to self-promotion. As a thread on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a now-deleted article on Memoria Pichilemina an earlier personal website owned by Diego Grez notes, [100] he had also engaged in relentless self-promotion in an article on his school Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu, created a self-promoting article on the Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu Students' Center (a student body representing around 500 students aged 4-19 years) and created Category:Presidents of the Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu Students' Center for no other purpose than to get his name blue linked. It seems self-evident to me that while Diego Grez is a competent article creator, he has a blind spot when it comes to self-promotion, and cannot be trusted to conform to expected standards of behaviour in this regard. Accordingly, I suggest that it is in the best interests of Wikipedia that he be topic-banned from any subject with which he has a personal connection. I have little doubt that he will respond to this with indignant bluster and attempts to side-track the discussion, as he has in the past when asked to explain his repeated violations of WP:COI policy, but such bluster should not be permitted to distract us from the simple facts of the matter - that Diego Grez self-evidently regards Wikipedia as legitimate a platform for self-promotion, and needs to be stopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to say that Diego Grez is making some very offensive comments to AndyTheGrump in his talk page ("Stop being a dumbass and discuss this shit on the talk page"), as can be seen here. --Sfs90 (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll step in on Diego Grez's defence here - we stopped being polite to each other long ago. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If Diego Grez Cañete is one and the same as Diego Grez the editor then yes there is much need for a topic ban. How do you know that this is who that editor is?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Because he says so: "Indeed, I am the owner of El Marino...". [101] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'll make my one and single comment here: I am a little worried that my comments have been misunderstood massively. I edited the article and always stated that I was the editor of such newspaper. From what I understand (and many others do) is that editing an article directly related to me as an user, is not condemned, in fact, I am only required to make explicit my vinculation, which I did. I believe the article has been written according to policies of Wikipedia, with reliable sources, and with no bias (even one administrator stated on the good article review page it has no visible -don't recall the exact word- bias). If people here think I should not edit articles related to me, okay, I won't, but I don't think I have made anything that is wrong or opposite to the policies of this website. All context re. El Marino dispute was largely commented by me on the talk page of the article. Regards, Diego Grez (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that the above singularly fails to explain why an article on a 1917 newspaper should devote half its content to a 2014 website with which it shares no meaningful historical continuity whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about newspapers, but articles on radio stations include all the stations that have ever used that callsign on one page, even if they're completely different music formats or have been owned by different companies. I can't imagine that this is a common problem with newspapers so you might want to open an RFC if there isn't an existing policy or accepted convention at the moment. — east718 | talk | 21:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• wp:COS makes me think they should not have created the article or edited it. While, AndyTheGrump, you do make some good points, does it really matter? It seems to be clear that the 2014 El Marino is a continuation of the 1917 Paper. As the owner of the paper in 2014 it doesn't seem they should be writing about it's history in 1917 or 2014.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, how is it shown that there is any continuity other than the name? We write articles about specific subjects, not 'things with the same title'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Whether there is or isn't is a content question for somewhere else other than ANI. For ANI though there is the fact that Diego Grez clearly thinks there is continuation and is the current owner. You can't write about the company founded in 1920 that you bought in 2010. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right - the question regarding claimed historical connections isn't an ANI matter. What matters is that Diego Grez is using Wikipedia to promote his own personal website (not for the first time...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking Diego's point, though. It's not forbidden. We advise against it. We say it's not a good idea. We say it all with a lot of "should". But we don't bar it. And citing to your own work is permitted within reason. So how is it a matter for AN/I? And is there any meaningful gain to be made by referring the very small number of people consulting the English Wikipedia about a 1917 Chilean newspaper to your site?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't Diego Grez 'citing his own work' that is the problem (or at least, not the major one), it is him misusing Wikipedia to promote his website. And as far as I'm aware, we don't make exceptions regarding self-promotion just because it is done in less-popular articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

We wouldn't allow Sam Walton to create and write an article about Walmart.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

We would if he wrote it according to Wikipedia standards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

To which the relevant standard seems to be wp:COS.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Proposal Instead of a pure topic ban of El Marino I propose an editing ban for Diego Grez for the article space only. They would still be allowed access to the articles talk page and to discuss the article in other locations such as the appropriate noticeboards and ect. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per my comments above.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see enough problematic behavior to topic ban him, much less "namespace ban" him. But resort to the former before the latter. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support mainspace ban. I agree that the behaviour and attitude thus far have been problematic enough to warrant a ban on directly editing subjects with which the editor has a direct connection (that includes the creation of new articles for subjects that relate to the editor). But they should have the same access to the requested edits process as anyone else with a conflict of interest. If they can demonstrate a capacity to work in a collegial manner with others to edit articles where they have a conflict (through that process) then any topic ban can de dropped. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Zarcusian and long-term edit warring and incivility

I'm not sure where to go with User:Zarcusian. This has gone from adding insignificant/non-notable events and people to our article on Mankato, Minnesota to outright incivility, so ANI seemed best. (If there is another place to take this, please let me know.) This dispute started in July with Zarcusian adding an unreferenced event which I reverted and added a welcome template to his user Talk. (Ironically, he also removed unreferenced events as "Not notable" in his previous edit, so he seems familiar with the basic idea of notability.) I figured it would stop there, as these things usually do. In November, he reverted me and added an unreferenced/red-linked person, which I reverted, along with unrelated edits, like adding a reference to an unreferenced event. At the time, I also started a discussion on the article Talk and started a discussion on his user Talk regarding the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:PEOPLE, and WP:USCITIES). He reverted again (including removing the unrelated reference), saying he would discuss on article Talk (which he hasn't done). I reverted, started another discussion on article Talk and added to my comments on his user Talk, this time calling out WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN. Two days later, he revertedtwice while logged out (the last edit calling mine "vandalism"), so I warnedhim there. I figured he saw the final warning as nothing happened until today, when he replaced his user Talk page with an insult and finally commented on article Talk with more insults and a statement that he intends to continue adding this material. I'm not sure where to go from here. If I'm out of line, please tell me and I'll eat my hat hot pockets. But the last time I checked, these types of things needed standalone articles or third-party sources showing relevance to a city, or both.

The user has specifically asked that I not speak with him, so I will honor that request and avoid his user Talk. Would someone be kind enough to notify him of this discussion? Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User notified and WP:NPA on talk page removed. Amortias (T)(C) 20:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The users response to the ANI notification [102] is: "Thanks, but I don't care."-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not encouraging. Has this user had issues with other editors or on other articles? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I doesn't look like it. Just with me on that article. I've found that templating can sometimes escalate issues so I try to start with personal messages (unless there's a really good explanatory template) but that didn't seem to do the trick here. Woodroar (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This editor has few edits since it's creation in 2013. He does seem to have a similar slow motion edit war going on on the Rose Tyler article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the admins eat hot pockets, too. Woodroar (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if clarification is needed, but may as well clarify for anyone wondering in case it proves relevant. The reference to eating hot pockets is a 4chan meme, used to insult admins, who are claimed to either live off of, or receive payment in the form of Hot pockets (or both). So (although I guess this could be inferred by context) it's likely not meant as a harmless at guess at the food tastes of admins. Bosstopher (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• They seem to not be here to build an encyclopedia WP:NOTHERE. They are making reverts that they are not willing to discuss. On the very few times they have engaged in discussion or rather to reply it's just been a hostile message.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• If I go through the RfA gauntlet and eat a couple of hot pockets, will I be transformed into a virgin? I am 62 and have two adult sons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, if they're not interested in discussing their behaviour, or apparently interested in having users discuss things with them at all, then their career as a Wikipedian is bound to be very short indeed. I suggest we just get it out of the way and indef per WP:NOTHERE. I don't have any hot pockets to offer to sweeten this proposal, though. Ivanvector (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, so which nights of the week do you guys get together to play Magic: The Gathering? I'm assuming your parents don't allow you alcohol or caffeine, so is it chocolate milk and the aforementioned hot pockets for you guys? And honestly, as I've stated, I don't care what you folks say about me, but your savagery towards the pocket? Uncalled for! Zarcusian (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

And Zarcusan hasn't been blocked because? Good faith only goes so far and the above response is obvious trolling. Blackmane (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• And now we have the excellent edit summary "Reverting edit by moron who has been vandalizing pages all day". It was reverting a questionable edit and probably vandalism, but that edit summary points towards an inability to play well with others. Woodroar (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We've either got a shared account, an impersonator, or a COI SPA that we need more eyes on

Roger_Pearson_1927 (talk · contribs)

Name and activity totally implies that this is Pearson, and yet he regularly refers to himself in third-person.

When I asked if the account was run by Pearson, an associate, or shared, the response was a bit of an overly-protesting non-answer especially focused on the "shared account" question. When User:Dougweller asked further, Roger gave this combative non-answer with a claim that they had changed their username.

Either we've got a shared account, an impersonator, or a WP:COI WP:SPA that we need more eyes on at a minimum.

User has only edited at Roger Pearson (anthropologist), where they added WP:SELFPUB material from Pearson in his defense, which multiple users considered inappropriate for a variety of reasons. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The user is argumentative and on a crusade. At this point, I would consider blocking him myself (at a minimum as WP:NOTHERE) but I consider myself to be WP:INVOLVED because I've argued over the content he keeps trying to add. I don't know whether he is in fact Pearson or whether he's just an affiliate of Pearson. I can't imagine he would be doing this if he were not one or the other.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the first post by them [103] This does seem to suggest they are Roger Pearson. Have they at any point suggested they are not the subject of the article?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

When asked directly they evade the question. The page has a history of editors who are clearly intimately familiar with Pearson's life and opinions inserting OR in favor of him. So there is a possibility that it is one of them who made an account in his name. I think the person either is Pearson or is editing on his behalf. I think we should pay more attention to making sure the article is neutral than to procedure in this case, lets remember that this it is likely an scholar from the pre-internet generation who wants to make sure he is not subject to derogatory descriptions online.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

See also the contributions and talk page of User:Teddyguyton. BMK (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

All else aside, this username qualified for {{Uw-ublock-famous}}, so I've blocked it. I was careful to turn off autoblocks and to permit the user to create a new username. Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The editor has requested a new username: Gyu93. Cf. "Teddyguyton". BMK (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I unblocked him yesterday (about eight hours after blocking him) because of his username-change request and his clear statement that he's not Pearson. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Still a SPA, one with a possible COI. BMK (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, he is not Pearson. But we need to know whether the personal site is actually approved by Pearson. How can we find out?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Close required for Media Viewer discussion

Moved to AN NE Ent 11:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Does this fall under WP:NLT?

This malformed AfD was created for a page that was redirected at AfD prior (see the WP: space page) but restored, and has since been re-redirected. Skippertheeyechild (talk · contribs) added the tag, created the WT: page, and wants the page deleted as a "trademark violation"; AgnesJones (talk · contribs) added CSD tags; Michig declined the CSDs. I'm not sure what should be done about this, if anything. ansh666 22:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This [104], I think. NE Ent 23:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not a legal threat I think, just a malformed copyright takedown request. It's apparently a new nomination, so the page should be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Courtesans (2nd nomination) or similar (not sure of the exact form for that). Skippertheeyechild will need to be more specific about what part of the article is violating the copyright, I think. Ivanvector (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the issue is rather moot because the redirect was restored. I think they're objecting to having an article with a title they believe they have a trademark on about something that is not what they believe the trademark is for. Anyways, the AfD has been moved to the proper place and discussion can continue there, provided it isn't speedily closed. Thanks all. ansh666 23:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I have now moved this to the proper namespace. And I agree that it's not a legal threat. De728631 (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, actually it probably should have gone to RfD. Oh well. The result will be the same. Ivanvector (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, at the time the 2nd AfD was created, the redirect had been undone, so it's somewhat valid and the reason that I didn't simply close it as wrong venue when I saw it. ansh666 23:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

inappropriate removal of content

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

---

User:Formerly 98 seems to act as a shill for the pharmaceutical industry. This user removed content that did not meet criteria for removal because it disagreed with their opinion.

(cur | prev) 00:37, 2 December 2014‎ Formerly 98 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (70,456 bytes) (-1,356)‎ . . (→‎Suicide warnings: remove redundant) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 00:32, 2 December 2014‎ Formerly 98 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,812 bytes) (-44)‎ . . (→‎External links: remove link to WP:FRINGE site per WP:ELPOV) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 00:29, 2 December 2014‎ Formerly 98 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,856 bytes) (+460)‎ . . (Undid revision 636211624 by Corpuskrusty (talk) sexual dysfunction <> efficacy in treatment of PE) (undo | thank)

Removed link by this user did not meet WP:FRINGE criteria. In fact the external link provided news stories where SSRIs were mentioned. It gathers articles from all media sources regarding SSRIs. It's removal was inappropriate

This user also undid 2 other links that were inappropriate

This user should be blocked because they do not follow the rules for fair editing on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpuskrusty (talk • contribs) 01:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You have made no attempts to carry on any prolonged discussion with the user. You left one warning on their talk page, and have made no attempt to discuss your side of things with them in a collegial manner. Until you do so, and can show that you have made reasonable attempts to work this out over an extended period of time, you will expect no action to be taken in any direction. Instead of trying to get people blocked, you should try to work with them, try to understand their point of view, try to get them to understand your point of view, and then arrive at a reasonable consensus. That may take some time, and that may mean that instead of editing the article in question, you spend considerable time in discussion instead. But that's how Wikipedia get's better. It doesn't get better because you tattle on people who think differently than you do. --Jayron32 02:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This new WP:SPA user has registered today for the first time, and begun methodically adding an anti-psychiatry link to multiple psychopharmacology articles, including Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, benzodiazepine, and Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome. His addition to benzodiazepine was immediately reverted by a Medicine project administrator @Jfdwolff:, and the edit to Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor by myself. He immediately responded to my reversion by attempting to edit war the link into place, left a nasty note on my userpage calling me a shill, and raised this ANI complaint against me without leaving notification on my user page.

I respectfully submit that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and request that at a minimum, he be sternly warned against edit warring and attempting to use Wikipedia to WP:SOAPBOX. I have been here for a full year, and have never been blocked or warned in many thousands of edits. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• In their one day as an editor, or at least one day registered with this name, OP has 16 edits, most of then fiddling around with external links to anti-pharma advocacy sites that fail WP:ELNO, then a revert citing WP:FRINGE, an edit-warring warning laced with an accusation of acting as a "shill for the pharmaceutical industry", blanking well-sourced content, restoring duplicate content, blanking MORE content, and then right to ANI complaining the OTHER editor is blanking. OP is clearly a sock/"returning editor" with an axe to grind if not an outright troll. Zad68 02:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I've issued a warning to the OP for their disruptive editing. If they don't stop I will block. Zad68 02:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked, not infinitely. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Drmies The block log says "indefinitely". Could you clarify? JFW | T@lk 11:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that "indefinite" and "infinite" are different words with different meanings - one means "for a time that has not been specified" while the other means "for ever". Squinge (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

An indefinite block is not an infinite block: if the user decides to play by our rules of engagement they can place a reasonable unblock request. The idea is that an indefinite block is a signal that a significant change in editors' behavior is required, and that we are open to entertain the idea that this is possible. It is especially appropriate if an editor seems to have good faith but goes about it in a completely wrong way, as may have been the case here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

70.48.151.176

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

---

User hasn't taken kindly to my warnings for submitting unsourced future content at List of Breadwinners episodes, for example here, which was supported by the incoherent summary "Bad people that was mean On what you did you need to learn to accept it now look at this to learn your lesson and appologize". Also here, where they resubmit the same unsourced content. To get back at me, they have started adding jive warnings on my talk page here and here. Not sure what warning template would be effective here, but I think it best to ask an admin to intervene here, please. It's obviously disruptive, but these sorts of reports don't go over well at AIV. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The templates to consider are Template:Uw-nor1, Template:Uw-nor2 and the like. Editor was blocked for 31 hours either way though. Page protection seems unnecessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Official City Names

We've got a user changing official names to common names on a lot of articles.[105] I don't have the time to deal with this, so I'm dumping it here in hopes that someone with more sleep will sort it out. If you look on the user's talk page, you'll see that he's had this issue before, and the matter was discussed on the MoS page. Apparently he's decided to ignore the resolution. Rklawton (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I'd say the edit summary of "tidying up" is misleading to say the least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

As a minor plus, each of the edits in question seem to only have a change on the "official name" line so probably all easy to undo without disruption to the edits on 3 March?(Non-administrator comment) ♪ Tstorm(talk) 09:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

We can do mass rollback on the most recent edits, then explain to him again why this is unacceptable. Epicgenius (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed he was doing exactly the same thing back in 2011 and was told to stop it then? Squinge (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that was different. Back then, the user was adding commas everywhere. Epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, OK Squinge (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion on the MoS page was a bit minimal: [106]. Jeremiestrother made a decent point that was never really addressed, and after the discussion went stale there was more discussion on his talk page supporting the idea: [107]. Personally I would go with our established convention but please consider being gentle with this user - he's clearly acting in good faith on not-so-good advice. Ivanvector (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Indefinite block due to legal threat combined with offensive and harassing epithet

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

---

Regarding this, I blocked the offending editor, and placed a kitten on the victim's talk page. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the kitten on the talk page? A block notice, which is reasonable and appropriate, but no kitten. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Kitten's here. Bearian, why are we at ANI? Seems like a decent block. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The block was a no-brainer. The kitten was a nice touch though. Bobby Tables (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, nice kitten. But can we move on and archive this? Seems like admin action had already been taken in the first place by instituting the block. Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I was just going to NAC this, but I'm also now wondering if this was posted here for further notice/action? Block was appropriate. Should the comment be revdel'd? Ivanvector (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as "grossly insulting, degrading". I've taken care of it. Jehochman ^Talk 21:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Because I think the substitution of vandalism with a kitten or similar is a really great idea, for which I salute User:Bearian, I think some of you might be interested in seeing Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Proposing function to substitute user talk page vandalism with a wiki-love message. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Harassment and personal attacks by Dan56

On September 26, 2014 I opposed Dan's FAC nom based upon the FAC criteria and another user, Spike Wilbury's, earlier oppose for similar reasons. Dan56 then proceeded to badger the living daylights out of every comment I made until I was utterly exhausted. During that time, another editor also opposed the article's promotion.

Soon afterwards, Dan56 began a concerted effort to discredit me by repeatedly accusing me of being a sock. September 27, September 28, again on September 28, again on September 28, September 29, September 30, October 3, October 7, October 9, October 15, October 20, again on October 20, November 1, November 4, November 12, November 13, November 27, and again on December 2.

I have repeatedly asked him to refrain from making baseless accusations: October 3, again on October 3, ditto, October 8, and December 2. All I am asking for is that Dan56 either, a) file an SPI report, or b) stop making baseless accusations. These continued false accusations constitute harassment designed to discredit and discourage me from editing Wikipedia, and they are personal attacks. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dan56: If you think Rationalobserver is a sock of Jazzerino, you're the one who needs to come up with evidence and file a report. If you're not going to, stop posting accusations on random admins' talk pages. Ivanvector (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously. I mean, I'm not above calling out a duck when I see one, but I don't harp on it for weeks without filing a case at SPI. If this keeps up, we're going to be back here soon with a request for an interaction ban. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Potential legal threat

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

At Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Richard_Constable, [108].

Not "we'll sue" level of obviousness, but what reason was there to announce that they're a law firm to introduce their demands? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Two or three things: (1) It definitely qualifies as a legal threat; and (2) someone needs to be sure that the article in question is well-sourced. And once that's been done, (3) block the IP until or if it disavows the threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

After taking a look at the article, it appears the allegations the IP made are baseless. The article appears to be well sourced, and the part about the Mayor of Hoboken are sourced and do not put the subject in a negative light; in fact, the article gives the impression that the claims put forth by the Mayor of Hoboken are false. I also could not find anything about the "George Washington Bridge controversy". To me, there appears to be nothing wrong with the article.

That said, I don't believe it would be prudent to ban the IP now. This wasn't a blatant legal threat, and it makes it look like the IP might be willing to work with us on this issue. Banning the IP would exacerbate the situation, and that could result in a blatant legal threat. I'd suggest someone take the time to talk to the IP, make sure they understand Wikipedia policy and make sure that they understand that this article doesn't appear to be in violation of it. If they continue to make legal threats, either implicit or explicit, then I would agree it's time for a ban. demize (t · c) 02:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:FreeRangeFrog and Demize. I don't see a blatant legal threat. There isn't even mention of defamation or how he "reserves the right to seek legal remedies" or however people usually make passive-aggressive threats to sue. Just because he works at a law office doesn't mean that he's threatening to sue. Let's wait until there's a more credible threat. By the way, "block" and "ban" mean different things on Wikipedia. Users are blocked to enforce a ban, but they are not (normally) banned because of legal threats. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Real lawyers send letters or contact the offices that run the website, they don't post publicly. Clearly meant to have a chilling effect to push a point of view. Chillum 04:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. If they had merely noted that they were hired to "fix" the article, asked for a change, and tried to work with us on it, that'd fall under the usual WP:PAY. But to post a notice that starts off by telling us they're a law firm that represents Constable, tell us that well-sourced material "should not be allowed to be posted" and tell us to scrub that part of the article and never allow the material again regardless of whatever sources say? That's not simple paid editing, that's saying "we're a lawfirm, so you better never allow this material our client doesn't like, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines be damned." Ian.thomson (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Saying that you're the subject's law firm can be seen simply as saying that you're speaking on the request and behalf of the subject. For certain matters, we pay extra attention to the subject's requests. It's a reasonable step. I don't see any legal threat given here, no mentioning of either editors or the Wikimedia Foundation. There's no stop-it-or-I'll-sue, but a request that certain procedures be implemented. At this stage, it all seems reasonable, frankly. The next step should not be to block, but to try to get specifics on the objections, so that we can be copious in verifying that the material is properly sourced and, if not, address that concern. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

But Bugs said it definitely qualifies as a legal threat, so it must be. --Malerooster (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's stay constructive here. I left a polite message on the IP's talk page. Maybe that will clear things up. Sometimes people respond better to personalized messages than templates. I really don't think that we need to block anyone based on this. The article does need work, though. I cleaned up a bunch of misspellings and removed a copy-paste copyvio. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Chillum has it right. Posted verbiage need not say "I'm going to sue" in order to qualify as a legal threat. As regards the IP, he only posted the one item. If he keeps it up, he's a candidate for blocking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If it were just "I work at a law firm" + "I represent subject X" + "this is wrong and should be changed". I wouldn't classify it as a legal threat. In this case however he calls it "malicious and unsubstantiated comments" and that he has been "linked to criminal or corrupt behavior" that "should not be allowed to be posted". That to me sounds like a lot more then just "I represent X as their lawyer" and to me sounds a lot more like "we are about to sue you". --Obsidi (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I dunno; it looks to me like the paid-by-the-hour version of saying "this is not properly sourced" and "this is harmful to the subject" and saying that unsourced and harmful things about a living persons should not be posted is not e legal threat, it's basically a statement of BLP policy. That is not to say I am agreeing (or disagreeing) with the concerns (I've not investigated it one iota), but if we bop subjects - or their reps - out for simply saying that the content is wrong and harmful and should not be put in the article, what venue does that leave people with legitimate grievances? Over at the BLP board, Baseball Bugs said that the poster should have to retract recant his threat or be banned, and I got ask, what part of the post is he supposed to retract recant? The claim that the content is harmful? Or the claim that they're a lawyer? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Claiming to be a lawyer, and by implication, ready to sue if we don't yield to their demands. Since it was a one-shot drive-by IP, it could just be a troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Would an admin be willing to close the BLPN at the very least? Even if it's not legal thread, it's not the correct forum. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• Throwing my two cents in here. I'd say that this is both a threat and a request in that while no threat of legal action is explicitly worded, it is implied. The IP stated that they wanted specific information removed and for the page to be locked down so no further edits about this material can be added to the page- pretty much essentially allowing only what the lawyers/IP dictates can be added. They don't outright say that they'll pursue further legal action if they don't get what they want, but assuming that this is all legit and they're actually going to pursue this, then odds are that they will follow up with an actual legal threat. This is worded in just such a specific manner that if we did voice any of the above suspicions, they could just as easily state that this wasn't their intent unless they did want to follow it up with any serious action. Bluntly put, stuff like this is just a scare tactic to see if we'll do what they want. It's supposed to sound both reasonable and scary at the same time. In this instance all we can do is just politely inform the IP that the negative material in the article is properly sourced and written in a neutral manner, and that as long as those two qualifications are met, there is no reason to remove the negative material because it would not violate our BLP policies. It probably also wouldn't hurt to make a point to state that removing any negative coverage from the article can actually do more harm to the subject than good. I can easily see the media slavering over the opportunity to report that one of Christie's people tried to sanitize his own Wikipedia article. (I know that the media has pointed out stuff like this in the past, which led to the humiliation of various different people.) Offhand I do think that the article could be cleaned up to flow a little better and to more concisely describe the controversies section, but other than that it doesn't appear like it's anything that would overwhelmingly need a ton of work or be an obvious BLP issue. Basically at this point there's noting we can do because all they're doing is poking us with a stick. We can acknowledge that they made a post and that some editors felt it came across as a threat, but until they post anything else stating that they would indeed pursue legal action otherwise, all we can do is state that we'll look at the page and try to clean it up, but that we would have to include events or controversies that were well covered in reliable sources. Of course the implication therein would be that if the controversies were well recorded enough to warrant being added, that us removing them wholesale from the article would accomplish absolutely nothing to improve Constable's reputation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• TL;DNR: Basically this is a wait and see situation where we just clean the article up for basic flow and sourcing issues and wait to see if the IP follows this up with any outright legal threats. I do think that legal threats are implied in the original post, but they're not stated and there's nothing we can or really should do about that at this point in time. It could be that this was just a one-off to satisfy their client. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive reverting/ownership by IP user

• Special:Contributions/203.215.123.233

I have been trying to improve the Hi-5 (Australian band) article in the form of two major items:

1) Simplifying of Band members section to current and former members. I have done an RFC to get consensus that this is the right thing to do. RFC info HERE

2) Adding a discography table and providing reliable sources to the album charts and accreditations. HERE

However the IP has been insistent on undoing these improvements, multiple times, claiming it is vandalism and then not observing good faith editing.

REVERT #1 by IP 121.97.142.149 with no comment: [109]

my response to his revert: [110]

REVERT #2 by IP 203.215.123.233: [111]

my response to revert #2: [112]

REVERT #3 by IP 203.215.123.233: [113]

at this point another IP undid his/her revert: [114]

REVERT #4 by 203.215.123.233: [115]

I tried to warn the editor about disruptive and 3RR editing: [116] I also posted the issue on the article talk page: [117]

At this point, I am crying out for help on this issue. The IP is not being reasonable with good faith improvements, and is insisting on restoring the article to its fancrufty, unsourced state, making only minor edits that are still unsourced. Other IPs have logged in under different addresses to do the same reversion, none of which were discussed at RFC time.

Thanks for your time. -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought I remembered that article. It turns out that I contributed to the RFC. I reverted the IP editor, but I guess it's only a matter of time before I get reverted, which seems to be happening with increasing frequency these days. WP:ANEW or WP:RPP might be a better forum for this, if it's basically restricted to IPs edit warring against consensus. I guess I'm a bit involved, but consensus (and policy) seems fairly straightforward here: the unsourced cruft needs to go. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• This belongs at WP:AN3RR rather than AN/I. If the behavior were to continue after a block for WP:3RR, then it might possibly merit bringing it up here. Also, a discussion needs to be started on the article's Talk page explaining to the IP why you and others object to their edits/reversions. Softlavender (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Added note: Your so-called "RfC" is not an RfC. To create one of those, you need to follow the precise steps detailed in WP:RfC. Softlavender (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Yes, it was an official RFC. What's your problem, Softlavender? That's what RFCs look like when they expire – the big "rfc" banner gets removed by a bot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, my error; I thought it was something recent, since the posted edit-warring concerns has only been in the past day or two. Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason I didn't put it up on AN3RR is because of the IP address hopping. Originally I had made changes to simplify the members list but it was reverted by multiple IPs without any reason so I would have ended up hitting 3RR before any of the individual IPs would. But if it belongs there, that's fine. -AngusWOOF (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any IP address hopping in your OP complaint: all your diffs are only one IP. This is not AN/I material. If there are several IPs disrupting the article, it's still not ANI material -- you should go to WP:Requests for page protection and request semi-protection, which prevents IPs from editing the article itself. You also need to address the IP user on the article Talk page and start a discussion there with him/her. Softlavender (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Will report to RPP. I've attempted discussion on the article talk page. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for page protection from vandalism

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

---

Please could the following page be protected from vandalism. Anonymous users are continually making changes to the page of Carwyn Jones, First Minister of Wales. The changes relate to his successor being identified as Steven Doughty which is factually incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carwyn_Jones

The current version - 08:49, 3 December 2014‎ - is correct.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARhysD (talk • contribs) 09:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This does not seem actionable - only two such changes recently, both reverted. It may be better handled at WP:RPP anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

PR Agents on Jill Kelley and Paula Broadwell

Sending to WP:COIN.--v/r - TP 17:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried asking for help at WP:COIN? It's a bit more tailored for conflict-of-interest discussions than ANI is. --Jayron32 17:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Joloimpat

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

We are having trouble reasoning with this user. He is editing disruptively in a couple of articles. Currently that means he is adding interwiki links where it has been decided that these are not helpful and we should instead be using {{ill}}. This user has been edit-warring in List of people declared venerable by Pope Francis and List of people beatified by Pope Francis and has refused to discuss. In fact this user has never, in 700 edits, ever used a Talk page or an edit summary. His talk page is littered with dablink notifications and warnings, including me asking him to use an edit summary and warning him about adding unsourced material to another Pope Francis article. Due to edits like this I believe he has begun to edit logged-out, perhaps because he's on his mobile phone, but it has the additional effect of avoiding scrutiny. 72.209.251.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has an active editing history since September up to two hours ago. I gave him a warning about going to ANI with, of course, no response. So here we are. Any suggestions? Elizium23 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

rev-del latest on my user-page

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

---

Hi, I need an admin to rev-del the latest "fun" on my talk-page, I suspect this is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis, as usual, User talk:Nishidani‎ also needs protection, probably from the same charmer. Btw, I thought that he vandals could not use throw-away IPs when my user-page was protected?? Huldra (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked for a month and revisions deleted (I think I stepped over some toes). Your page was protected against editing (until Dec 4) and indefinitely against moves, so I'm not sure what's up with that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note the "23:23, 3 December 2014‎ Euryalus" null edit revision also needs to be rev-deleted - all revisions from the abuse being posted to its being removed, in fact, not just the revisions actually edited by the IP. Squinge (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks FreeRange, My toes will survive - you evidently have a faster connection than I. It is certainly Jarlalxe, dynamic IP so he'll keep trying for a while. Apologies to Huldra for having to put up with him again. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Nobody actually removed the abuse, so it's still there in all visible revisions since the one in which it was added. I've now removed it, and your two revisions also need to be rev-deleted because the abuse is still in those too. Squinge (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Squinge, thanks, hopefully done. -- Euryalus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That'll do :-) Just as an aside, you didn't actually need to make a new null edit and rev-delete my revision, as my revision did not contain the abuse. Squinge (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Possibly not. I wasn't immediately seeing the vandalism in the diff of the earlier null edit either, but better safe than sorry. We all rushed to remove the edit summaries and you were the only one to notice that the actual page content still hadn't been removed. So thanks for pointing it out. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't show in the diff if it was still in both versions being compared. Squinge (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

A great thanks to you all; I´m quite used to JarlaxleArtemis by now. (he *really* loves me: [[118][119]) He is probably on a new IP as I type. It was my understanding that he could not post on my user-page as an IP (when it was protected), something seems not to work? And you really need to protect User talk:Nishidani‎! I´ll bet a bottle of wine that that is Jarle, too, Huldra (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please block 190.198.152.117; pretty sure it is JarlaxleArtemis, Huldra (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Your user page was protected, but your talk page was not (but it is now, though only until tomorrow). Squinge (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. It really should be opposite, my talk-page is often vandalised, my user-page rarely, (but then again, that is probably because the user-page has been protected since 2011. Again, a great thanks you to you all! -for now. Now we can just wait until tomorrow, and all the fun will start again. Huldra (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

And the troll has moved to a new IP address apparently as per here. John Carter (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Now 190.79.157.174. This is classic JarlaxleArtemis: he goes after the last articles I edited, and vandalise them. Huldra (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Now 190.79.139.25 Huldra (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Demiurge1000 banned without community oversight

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Long-term user User:Demiurge1000 seems to have been banned without explanation in some kind of Star Chamber trial by the WMF. I can't quite bring myself to trust in the divine wisdom of the WMF given their recent history. Not a good precedent for an open Wikipedia. 24.224.199.77 (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC) It would be interesting to know what the IP's personal interest is in this, and what user ID he normally edits under. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC) I'll be honest, I'm curious as well. I've seen this editor do a lot of good copyediting, such as when I requested a GOCE copyedit for Siege of Sloviansk. I don't know anything about him otherwise. It seems odd that an editor that seemingly was of value to the community has suddenly disappeared, with no on-Wikipedia record of whatever caused him to be banned. RGloucester — ☎ 03:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Not only that, but banned globally instead of just here. We can only assume that he did something seriously wrong. It's been known to happen. But if there's any kind of skullduggery about it, you can be sure Wikipediocracy will be all over it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Interesting case, really. Maybe the IP is standing in for D1000. Epicgenius (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Or trying to trick us into thinking that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC) If only there were a conspicuous template on the editor's User: and User talk: pages specifically instructing us to Please address any questions to legal@wikimedia.org if we had any questions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC) I don't think I'd ever want to send a message to an address that uses the word "legal" in that way, but pay me no mind. RGloucester — ☎ 04:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Wait, what? Demiurge1000 was banned globally by the WMF? Has there been any indication, however subtle, as to why this has happened? This is a highly prolific contributor we're talking about here. I'm not saying sensitive details have to be divulged, just that I feel as if we're entitled to some greater degree of assurance from the WMF that the issues for which he was blocked are extremely serious and unambiguous, that Demiurge's behavior crossed a legal (let alone moral) boundary, and that there are privacy concerns which preclude further discussion on Wikimedia sites. Then again, I suppose this was all heavily implied, and TenOfAllTrades is right that there is a talk page notice directing us to contacting the WMF for further information, but I have very little confidence in their willingness to explain anything to those who are not strictly on a "need-to-know basis". Kurtis (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC) I'm not uninvolved, having previously clashed with Demiurge, and I'm not privy to why he was banned now. However, there were rumours and strong indications of specific problems for years, and if those have turned out to be true (or at least enough evidence has surfaced to convince the WMF), then that would be more than enough reason to ban him, no matter how much of a content contributor he was (I mean really serious issues, not paid editing or copyright violations or the like). Again, I don't know if this was the reason, but I suspect it is, and then it really isn't anything to discuss here but truly needs to be taken up with the WMF and "legal" if you have reason to believe that the ban was in error. I would suggest that some uninvolved admin closes this discussion, as there is no way that it can have any positive results. Fram (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk page vandalism after final warning

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

---

Please see here, 13 minutes after the same IP received a final warning for the same sort of action here. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis, (see two paragraphs up) Huldra (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

...and now he is on 190.204.86.48. Guys and gals: this will not stop until you protect Nishidanis talk-page. Huldra (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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

User with suspected agenda

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

---

brunasofia (talk · contribs) has a history of removing anything critical of the Arrowsmith School and inserting promotional statements in that article. Even despite being reverted by other users besides myself that user persists in edit warring. For example brunasofia inserted unsourced promotional statements which were removed by user:Drmies [120]

Some of Brunasofia's promotional edits can be seen here [121] and removal of sourced sections of criticisms by scholars[122][123] while I keep restoring them, brunasofia keeps removing them. I issued a vandalism warning on the individuals talk page, but the user persistently edit wars and tries to blank out criticism while inserting unsourced promotional material the latest being this edit[124].

What I find really suspicious about this person is that the only contributions this person has is to the Arrowsmith school article and anything related to the topic.--Taeyebaar (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the report--I took the liberty of blocking indefinitely. If the user is not a promotion-only SPA, they can explain in their unblock request. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh you're an admin as well? Well then problem solved. I wish I had done this months ago but this user would disappear after being reverted and so I'd think no bother. Thanks for the quick response.--Taeyebaar (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes I am--I got my tools when I bought a pack of detergent. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Caius XX

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

---

User:Caius XX has tried to censor information from António Garrido (referee) two times (one, two), marking the edits as minor. The account was created only for this purpose. SLBedit (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Hahc21

When looking at the current ArbCom candidates, I noticed User:Hahc21, admin since March 2014.

Looking through his contributions, I noted that what we have here is an admin who created (in those days when he still was a content creator) a GA which was a massive copyright violation, even adding more copyvio paragraphs to it after these concerns had been raised at the peer review of it; who fully move-protected an article for "move-warring" when in reality he had been the only one ever to move it, and who made up a completely false reason when asked about it; who deleted an older article to move a newer article on the same subject over it, and sees no reason to restore the history of that page even when asked to do so; and who speedy deleted an article on a song by notable artists, with more than 100 reversions at the time, claiming that it was done under WP:NSONGS, which is not a speedy deletion criterion and specifically says to redirect instead. When confronted with all this, he claims to feel bad about the copyvio, and defends all his other actions to the end. I have linked to the evidence below.

I noticed a GA, San Antonio de la Eminencia castle, which I subsequently deleted as a copyright violation (translation of copyrighted texts). It turned out that Hahc21 was aware of these problems at the time but he gave a variety of reasons why he hadn't done anything about it[125][126][127][128], not all of them believable. No explanation was given on why he added a further copyvio section after the first concerns had been raised.

I then checked his admin actions, and encountered an at first sight recent misuse of protection. I asked him about this[129], but got no reply. So I went to his user talk page and repeated the question[130]. His reply, while plausible on the face of it, turned out to be completely incorrect[131]. He then undid the protection, but when asked for an explanation claimed "I don't think it was a mistake to do the protection, but I don't really care enough to try and defend it." and some other fluff.

This lead me to further look at some other admin actions he did, which I briefly described in this post. When asked to defend a speedy deletion of an article on a song by two notable artists, he replied "A simple answer: WP:NSONGS. Take a look at it." (with edit summary "basic policy knowledge"). Seeing how this answer was completely wrong and showed a disturbing pattern of misuse of admin tools and either lack of knowledge or lack of care about our policies, I warned him that I would start this section, giving him a final chance to go back and change his answer[132]. His final reply was "Sure, go ahead."

If some people can take a look and convince him to brush up on policies and actually follow them, it would be a nice improvement. Fram (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'm looking at his AfD closes and accompanying deletes. Closing a string of AFD nominations by the same editor, with either no outside participation (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moxie Raia,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spencer Lee) or where the only outside participation is contradicting the nomination argument (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Perry (singer)) seems rather dubious as well. A subject like Moxie Raia seems worthy of a real debate[133], not summary deletion. The same goes for Spencer Lee([134]). Fram (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I spot-checked some of the user's past and recent contributions and found a number of additional edits where it appears he has contributed non-free text, or translations of it, to articles. I've opened a request at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Hahc12. As I'm a CCI clerk I could self-endorse this but given this is a high-profile case it would be better if another clerk or administrator could review the request. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of the additional edits that might contain copyvios. They might be located here: Santa María de la Cabeza castle, Santa Rosa de la Eminencia castle and Solano castle. I'd appreciate if somebody could go and check if there are any copyvios and help me fix them. I know I should have done this ages ago but I completely forgot about it after I stopped working on these articles. → Call me Hahc21 14:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious that you have more serious issues with competence. After reading some of those AFDs, I have to ask if you have ever read Wikipedia:BEFORE. Don't you think that those listed AFDs should be reopened? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to remind you that Wikipedia:BEFORE applies to the filer of the AFD, not to the closer. That said, I closed these AFDs boldly, and I will happily apologize if it was a mistake. I already stopped doing such bold closes, and I will undelete and relist them if that's what's desired. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 16:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are talking about AFD closure, then you must know that you could have voted instead of deleting as there was no other vote. You haven't answered, so I have to re-ask: Do you think that those AFDs should be relisted? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing, Blades -- the closer should only go on what's presented in the AfD. If she does her own research, that's risking a super!vote.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed the admin must go with the consensus but in these AFDs there was no vote except the nomination. In these types of AFDs, it is better to vote rather than delete. I didn't clarified but I was also talking about the speedy deletions that have been mentioned by the OP. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Report here alleging multiple infringements of WP guidelines by User:Wheels of steel0

Wheels of steel0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Report here alleging multiple infringements of WP guidelines within thread:

Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#the term "Rebel group controlling territory" is fake term made up in order to replace the term "unrecognized state"

The alleged infringements are:

• WP:YESPOV particularly "Avoid stating opinions as facts.."
• WP:ASSERT "Assert facts, not opinions" as per:

• the thread title.
• "the term government has nothing to do with nationality at all" (23:49, 29 November 2014 edit).
• "your rhetoric is desperate and full of demagogy, i don't know if you are just hating this group too much that you have to disagree with everything that these people want to make themselves look like(like with being "jihadistic" and your pointless and presistant opposing for calling them like that) or just realy get things wrong at the beginning but can't backoff from your claims after you made them even when you see that you are wrong. in both cases you need to let go instead of using demagogy and desperate rhetoric." (23:45, 1 December 2014 edit) [note here the repetition of the term rhetoric]. I replied to this with content, "Please read WP:WALLOFTEXT. Please read WP:rhetoric. Please stop making unsubstantiated accusations". (01:16, 2 December 2014 edit)
• "Gregkaye you just posted a pile of mumblings...", "you just say what you said before just as a long and pointless speech full of accusations and links" [to which I replied "Wheels of steel0 @ "full of accusations" - cite them! What do you disagree with and why? I am more than happy to talk about "some news network" but usually on condition that the news network concerned fitted into the more reliable side of WP:RS. I wouldn't trust "random online pages" at least not without researching. I tend to be one of the more cynical editors here " (18:37, 2 December 2014 edit) I also disagree with the rest.] (18:15, 2 December edit),
• "..your pointless speeches and desperate rhetoric."
• "you just said her that wikipedia should ignore the news networks when they call the islamic state "jihadist" and stop calling them jihadistic on this article" [I replied: "You have now additionally made a fallacious accusation that I said that: wikipedia should ignore the news networks. You need to strike your libellous attack."] (02:11, 3 December 2014 edit)

• "you just throw blindly accusations" (16:01, 3 December 2014 edit)

• WP:Weasel words as per:

• "some people who are simply too eager to attack everything relating to ISIS from their legitimacy" (21:30, 28 November edit)
• "the statehood of the islamic state is talked in many other articles and mentioned by people who live in their territory"
• "anyway most people will agree that for long time the islamic state is no longer ..." (17:29, 29 November 2014 edit)

The issue of the "most people" remark was raised in comment, "please read and understand Wikipedia:Weasel words with regard to your unsubstantiated statement regarding, "many actual real-life examples the term state"." (18:40, 1 December 2014 edit)

• False allegations as per:

• allegation to either myself or Legacypac: "don't try to made up new terms and rewrite the international law and known defenition of 'state'"
• unjustified counter accusation of the use of weasel words now also adding rhetoric as in content as per "Gregkaye the term "weasel words" just described the rhetoric you are using now ..." (23:45, 1 December edit)

IMO, discussions should have a quality where all editors can feel comfortable in their participation. I don't view/feel this to be the case in the current discussion and request admin guidance/ intervention to be given.

Ping @Wheels of steel0: @Legacypac: @P123ct1: as editors that have contibuted to the thread.

10:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Add: Issues were raised with Wheels of steel0 on his/her talk page in thread Please note

Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, WP:YESPOV, WP:ASSERT, and WP:WEASEL refer to how articles should be written, not editors' own opinions on talk pages. Other editors have criticised you; such is their right - even if you feel their criticism isn't correct. It's not for administrators to police civil, on-topic discourse. If you feel the discussion isn't progressing, you should use the dispute resolution mechanism. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Finlay McWalter That's the approach I had originally considered but was advised otherwise. None of the above points have any justification in this thread. The content has plenty of WP:PA. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)