Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email directly with your concern.

Sections older than 36 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.


When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Centralized discussion

Noticeboard archives


CFCF Not Here on E-cigs[edit]

CFCF(User talk:CFCF, CFCF) Has recently made several controversial edits, reverts and moves on pages related to e-cigarettes whilst refusing to engage in consensus building. These pages are subject to General Sanctions

here he re-reverts material that was disputed back into the article despite discussion on the talk page relevant to it that he was not involved in claiming established consensus.

here he hatted a discussion relevant to that controversial material he had added in where he was being asked to justify the inclusion of some material but he did not engage in it.

here he accuses me and/or S Marshal of vandalism for removing content which did not have consensus for inclusion and was being discussed at the talk page when reverting & here he accuses me of vandalism again. (I freely admit here I was slow edit warring however it didn't come close to vandalism, it was a content dispute that I was handling badly and have been sanctioned for). I posted to his talk page to ask him not to accuse me of vandalism when I was not doing that

and here he 1 click archives it without response. I Reposted a request that he engage in discussion to build consensus
and here he 1 click archives without response

here he admits that he finds discussions to seek consensus unproductive and so reverts without contributing or considering them.

here he re-introduced a controversial claim with a long discussion on the talk page which had not found consensus and in which he had not participated.

here Despite an ongoing discussion which CFCF had not participated in at the talk page CFCF moved the article from Chemicals in Electronic Cigarette Aerosol to Electronic Cigarette Aerosol. here CFCF had added a "Redirect you may have meant" tag to Cigarette smoke with no discussion. It had been reverted and he re-introduced without taking it to the talk page.

here When I posted to his talk page about the above he 1click archived it immediately.

here The part about being designed to appeal to 11 year olds we had reached consensus to remove, the later sentences, Quack Guru had Boldly Added, S Marshal Reverted because it was controversial. CFCF re-introduced without discussion

I could go further but this is already long enough and covers just the last week.

I know this isn't a major issue but I feel CFCF has earned at the least warning in an area of general sanctions because this pattern of behaviour is not conducive to consensus building in a topic which, touch wood, has calmed down somewhat recently from a prior battleground and is in some ways being productively edited. I know S Marshall has been frustrated by some of CFCF's edits and they show that CFCF has little or no interest in working collaboratively in this topic area per WP:NOTHERE.SPACKlick (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF has made good edits to various e-cig pages. This should be closed immediately. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
This looks very much like abusing process to attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Admins take a bit of a dim view of that. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I have no intention of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. My desire in this would be for CFCF to engage in the collaborative process so consensus can be reached on the disputed content but nobody can force that. The issue I have is that when discussion is on-going and the nuance of consensus is being reached, whether in the direction I initially wanted or not, CFCF makes driveby reverts without reference to that discussion or any of the consensus and kicks the process back a notch. Hence why I've asked for a warning or a prod and not any form of ban/block/Tban/Iban that would limit CFCF's contributions.SPACKlick (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The e-cig pages have greatly improved as a direct result of CFCF's edits. That's what the evidence shows. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I see nothing in CFCF's edits needing sanctions. I agree with Guy. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Guy. CFCF's edits seem quite reasonable. This appears to be a content dispute and not sanctionable. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 03:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
[Some of] The edits would be reasonable if they responded to consensus but CFCF actively ignores consensus, ignores ongoing discussions, When he adds information and is reverted he immediately reverts back and ignores all discussion about the inclusion. Whether or not the content of his edits is good, and I won't weigh in on that here because there is content dispute, the lack of collaborative effort is a clear example of NOTHERE. SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again I'd appreciate it if someone could restore order on that page. I certainly don't think all of CFCF's recent edits have been 100% helpful, but he's far from the only offender and what's actually needed is a large injection of clue.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Of Note CFCF again included without consensus. There is a discussion about this hatnote on the talk page. 4 editors see the hatnote as outside policy 1 has made an argument for it. CFCF claims to have made his point on the talk page. His one post on the talk page is No, you're wrong. WP:HATNOTE. How are these not WP:NOTHERE edits? SPACKlick (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagreed. See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • SPACKlick is pretty much a WP:SPA for e-cig topics per their contribs. The topic seems to draw such editors or turn otherwise useful editors astray. SPA warns about situations where there is "...evidence that a user is also editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus, possibly with limited interest in pure editing for its own sake....") On their userpage SPACKlick makes their advocacy position on e-cigs very clear (which is very "pro"): here. In my view SPACKlick should be trouted for bringing this groundless case, and should be warned to broaden their editing at WP, with a topicban per WP:NOTHERE, per SPA, riding on their failure to broaden their scope of editing. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Once Again CFCF added a controversial hatnote without engaging in discussion, where the discussion was ongoing, where the bulk of discussion was not in favour of the edit. Likewise CFCF has repeatedly reverted inclusions by S Marshall without discussing it but not reverted the same or near identical inclusions when written by QuackGuru as discussed by S Marshall in this post on the talk page. Whether or not I am sanctioned per the below discussion. I would appreciate if someone could cast eyes and a decision over CFCF's interaction with the page which I feel is pretty clearly not in the benefit of either consensus and collaborative editing at the article or the encyclopeida's aims as a whole. SPACKlick (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

A brand new account reverted the change. Before that an IP reverted the change without an edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
As Quack points out another editor removed it after my above comment and CFCF immediately re-instated claiming consensus on the talk page. This is now bordering on Edit Warring Surely? It's ridiculous. Thats 4 reversions 1234 of the same hatnote with only 1 comment of non-engagement on a talk page where 4 editors (not including two who have removed the hatnote) have disagreed with inclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The new account only made one edit to Wikipedia so far. The IP made four edits to Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF again added the hatnote, calling its removal vandalism. Still has not engaged on the talk page, the discussion still not having come to consensus. That's 3 reversions in 25.5 hours. walking right along the line of an edit war. SPACKlick (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The new account might be a throwaway account. The IP is from Germany. The editor from Germany was banned and indef blocked. Reverting a banned editor is not a revert. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I suspect DaleCurrie is a throwaway account but it's misleading to link to Fergus there Quack, because while they are banned they haven't been shown to make either of these edits, if there's concern you want SPI. By the way CFCF doesn't just do this on e-cig pages. he reverted me on Domestic violence for a formatting fix pointing to a consensus on the talk page. The formatting hadn't been discussed even once on the talk page. I'm rounding on the conclusion that CFCF has a problem with certain editors and fails to follow AGF.SPACKlick (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The 89 IP is back. The IP numbers change but it still begins with 89. The previous edit was this by the 89 IP. The 89 IP made yet another comment. QuackGuru (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The 89 IP made this comment. QuackGuru (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Boomerang topic ban for SPACKlick[edit]

Per comment above by User:Jytdog, I propose a topic ban from the e-cig pages for User:SPACKlick. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudjpg: Are you proposing a topicban for yourself too? Your edit count shows a "bizzarro-sock" of SPACKlick and not one with a longstanding edit history.--TMCk (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This proposal is based on a fallacious and hypocritical comment by User:Jytdog, which itself seems a good justification for BOOMERANG. If SPACKlick can be considered a SPA, Jytdog should be as well.
Spacklick's top edited pages:

94 Electronic cigarette 56 Monty Hall problem 34 Roger Moore 28 List of Durham University people 26 Orthodox Presbyterian Church 25 Sean Connery 24 Electronic cigarette aerosol 24 Safety of electronic cigarettes 23 Top Gear (2002 TV series) 18 St Cuthbert's Society, Durham 17 George Lazenby 16 List of Old Boys of The Scots College (Sydney) 14 Zoe Quinn 11 Trial of Oscar Pistorius 11 College of St Hild and St Bede, Durham


675 Genetically modified food controversies 584 Monsanto 327 Genetically modified food 319 Glyphosate 220 Genetically modified crops 159 Genetically modified organism 155 Organic farming 139 GlaxoSmithKline 137 Electroconvulsive therapy 128 ZMapp 124 Organic food 108 A2 milk 99 Séralini affair 99 Novartis 98 Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms

SPACKlick is surprisingly the only editor to speak out against CFCF's unsupportable redirect from "Electronic Cigarette Aerosol" to "Cigarette smoke". A read of the resulting talk page section (where QuackGuru seems to speak for CFCF, who is absent) should have uninvolved observers questioning why it is SPACKlick who is being portrayed as the problem. petrarchan47คุ 22:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Petra you are so dependable! As I wrote above, per contribs. The bulk of my editing on GMO stuff was mid-2012- mid-2013, with spikes when anti-GMO advocates come around, or back around as the case may be, and yes that has been an enormous amount of work. If you look through the past couple years, the edit count would look very different than the totals you present there.
Getting back to the topic, if you actually look at SPACKlick's contribs in the past year or so, he has indeed become pretty much a SPA for e-cigs; those articles cause people to obsess and e-cig topics keep causing trouble. My recommendation is above. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Of my last 500 edits, a quick and dirty analysis says that 60% are e-cigarette related (if there's a tool for better temporal analysis I'd appreciate the link), including talk page edits and user talk edits. but that may have missed some of them. If we go to the 500 edits before that, very few of them are e-cigarette related. It comes and it goes. And I won't deny e-cigarettes has been my focus recently, just s monty hall was for a while. I come and go from the project with certain dense posting periods. I still monitor a lot of RFC's and where I feel I can contribute, do so. I had hoped to get started on a long project in project tree of life but real life got in the way and another stellar editor had done the majority of the legwork prior to my return. I edit where my interest is at the time. E-cigs has been a focus for a long set of editing bursts because it still has major problems and I haven't yet found a tack that leads to productive improvement although progress has been made. SPACKlick (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
That User:SPACKlick finds the diffs listed concerning is I agree a concern in itself. Some time away from the article may due SPACKlick good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Of note, In all but one of the diffs I've posted above I have attempted, however (un)successfuly, to point out that my issue isn't the content of the edit but the context of the edit being ignoring, over riding or avoiding discussion between editors attempting to hash out consensus. The one I don't point to avoiding ongoing discussions relating to consensus is where he avoided BRD on a potentially controversial addition by unreverting his own edit. I also pointed out that this wasn't a major issue but it is an issue of disengagement from the process and the sort of behaviour I thought the general sanctions were supposed to nip in the bud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talkcontribs) 21:42, 8 July 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Comment. SPACKlick is well aware of the sanctions.[1] Me thinks SPACKlick repeatedly deleted sourced text.[2] See Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol#Re introduction_again for the current discussion. He was warned by the admin User:Bishonen to stop making personal attacks.[3] Back in April SPACKlick wrote: this previous section at the e-cig talk page: "It's almost like you're not competent to edit this page", "your ridiculous addition", "a ridiculously long caption", "it was pointy, tendentious or ownership", "you do not own this article", "You arrogantly inserted".[4] In June SPACKlick wrote "QuakGuru, whether or not particle size is medically relevant is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of this article which is about the CHEMICALS WITHIN E-CIGARETTE VAPOUR. Particle size, is not relevant to what chemical a particle is. You're nuts"[5] He was recently warned again about NPA.[6] QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Quack talking about ownership: Me, I and myself. Cheers.--TMCk (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
      • You wrote in your edit summary "I'll promise you my friend, I will not cease in standing by your side in battle..."[7] You wrote "I also shall not cease in doing so until you have learned and turned (until death, online or real, will takes us apart).[8] QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

General sanctions are failing[edit]

General sanctions on e-cigarettes aren't working because it's so hard to attract the attention of an uninvolved administrator. The only participant in this discussion who might remotely count as an "uninvolved administrator" is JzG and he's only contributed one sentence. Everyone else is divided along party lines. What's actually needed here is a referee; but I can fully understand why a previously uninvolved person would shy away from such an entrenched situation with such a lot of history.—S Marshall T/C 07:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Since this thread has attracted so little attention from uninvolved administrators, it should be archived without result.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I can try to referee if you think it would help, but I strongly suspect that my long-standing support for WP:MEDRS and opposition to pro-CAM edits will not sit well with the group that makes up the pro-ecig side of this war. In the absence of uninvolved admins, and given the clear need for some firm action, I guess arbitration may be the only option. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I certainly do think it would help. It shouldn't be necessary to go to arbitration over this; that's like going to A&E with a hangnail. I don't think I could produce diffs that would be of much interest to arbcom.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I can also take a look, but I have some notifications and an Arbcom case evidence to do over the weekend, so if it can wait a couple of days for another set of eyes as well then that would help. Is it deteriorating notably fast? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
      • No, it isn't. I'm finding the situation's improving, probably thanks to the extra eyeballs on the subject. Thank you.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. User:Georgewilliamherbert, please review the current atmosphere at the e-cig pages. I am not aware of "the extra eyeballs on the subject".
  • S Marshall is well aware of the sanctions. In your edit summary you wrote "tag-teaming".[9] You claimed "Consensus can change, and it will. I learned this when I got broad consensus to change the first paragraph of this article in many ways, and then started an RfC to discover that changes in the population of this talk page meant my consensus was no longer there. Wikipedia's a waiting game, QG. A quick look at your block log tells me there are pretty good odds that you won't be active on this talk page forever, and when you're gone it will be possible to make the fixes you're preventing. Don't get me wrong, QG, I do think you're a net positive to Wikipedia despite the fact that I find you very frustrating to deal with. I've argued in many discussions before that you should not be blocked, just reined in. My views in that respect have not changed."[10]
  • S Marshall, so why do you want me "reined in"?
  • Both SPACKlick and S Marshall deleted a 2014 MEDRS compliant review from the Addiction section recently. The 2014 review is relevant to the section, especially since it is concerning youth. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I want you reined in because I'm a mean and nasty POV-pushing industry shill, of course!—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Whew, glad we got that settled. <g> BMK (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Pretty sure E-cigs is going to need to go to ArbCom, since editors are reporting that GS are not working, and since there are or have been so many SPAs editing the e-cig articles. I propose that someone start to draft an ArbCom request proposal -- but it obviously shouldn't be drafted by QuackGuru or by one of the SPAs or virtual SPAs, past or present. I don't know that there is anyone editing the articles who is completely neutral about the topic, but perhaps Doc James might be willing to, as he has in the past edited on the subject, but has remained decidedly quiet when related subjects come up on ArbCom or ANI. If he or someone of his ilk would draft and post an ArbCom request, however brief, others could chime in on ArbCom with their opinions. Just a thought. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Will take a look in a two weeks as off to Wikimania. I am sure that some would view me as far from neutral. Especially those who continue send me hate mail regarding the topic. User:S Marshall has done some good work condensing the prose. QG adds generally well supported text. The discussion on the talk page get more snarky than it should be at times. Would be good if many of those involved would work more on other pages but of course we cannot mandate that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You're right. Someone reverting with a misleading editsummary to re-introduce utter unscientific fringe nonsense -- I sure don't have much (or any) confidence in them. Even less when the same supposed to be a scientist. But go for it anyways. It doesn't matter who is filing.--TMCk (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion on the talk page showed the restored text is well sourced. For example, see Talk:Electronic_cigarette_aerosol/Archive_1#Re_introduction_again. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I have started reviewing pages; I tagged one more with the talk page "under DS" notice. Still getting a feeling for how the conversations are going. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I recommend you check the archives too. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 24 and see Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 25. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Georgewilliamherbert: Are you still looking into it and intend to comment? Just wondering since it's been a while and problems on those pages have been "abandoned" before several times. Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but had other things I am working on as well. They're all watchlisted now and I am still reading histories. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Softlavender that e-cigs proabably needs to go to ArbCom at this point. After following the topic from afar, but purposely avoiding actually being involved from articles aside from RSN, my main concern is advocacy and (relatively) civil-POV pushing that's degenerating the topic into the state it's in now. ArbCom could cut both ways though and end up hindering editors who overall are trying to push back against these problems too and just lock the articles down into the state they're in now. Seeing this ANI with unfortunately nothing that appears actionable (it should probably be closed soon), how often it comes up here, and how many editors that have just given up on it, ArbCom seems to be the only thing left. Kingofaces43 (talk)
  • There are two things stopping me opening an ArbCom case. The first is that there's nothing blatant I can point to. There are lots of problems each of which is individually small but annoying, adding up to a great big annoying ball of sludge. I've got to say that the majority of editors from WP:MEDRS treat me like a POV-pushing industry shill to be closed down with the minimum effort, and I've been unable to make any substantive edits stick or to educate them in any article-building technique more advanced than "find a factlet in a reliable source, cite it and shove it in the article". The idea that competent editing involves removing text seems to be some kind of heresy... but what I can't do is provide diffs of the kind of smoking gun breach of the rules that'll solve it. The closest I can get is the inappropriate use of twinkle's anti-vandalism tools to deal with good faith edits by editors in good standing, inappropriate refusal to use the talk page, and some apparent language comprehension difficulties. I'm reluctant to go to Arbcom waving those diffs and demanding action.

    The second is the triviality of it all. I've been involved in much more complex and difficult disputes on Wikipedia that are about challenging real world issues. This is nothing. It's so petty and pathetic to get hung up on whether the statistics are in the lede or just in the body text... like I said above, if I opened an Arbcom case I'd feel like I was calling an ambulance for a hangnail. Can't a sysop just step in and tell it like it is?—S Marshall T/C 19:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • All of those are serious distortions of what happened, QuackGuru. However, even if they were accurate, it would still be inappropriate to bring details of the content dispute to AN/I.—S Marshall T/C 20:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I think it is accurate to come to the conclusion that editors disagreed with at least some of your proposals. For example, it appeared you proposed deleting well sourced content but editors disagreed. You also proposed moving the stats to the reference section. It is not an improvement moving the stats out of the frequency section. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 25#Proposal to streamline. You claimed "It would be helpful QuackGuru if you could please be less obstructive."[13] Your said "Can I ask you, is English your native language?"[14] This is not focusing on article content. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've tried to have a moderating effect on some of these discussions (e.g. by going on hours-long sourcing sprees to see what the actual ground-truth is in the reliable sources, and cutting through this-side-vs-that-side invective, as at Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol. While I have an opinion on the RM on that page, I have no other developed opinion on anything to do with e-cigs. I'm not familiar with every detail in this particular sub-dispute, above), but on the same talk page I just linked to (but now archived here, CFCF engaged in tendentious and WP:ICANTHEARYOU, irrational nonsense that is indicative of serious WP:COMPETENCE problems with regard to basics like what disambiguation hatnotes are for (hint: they are not "see also" sections), and a my-way-or-else attitude to conceptually tying e-cigarettes to tobacco smoke. On the other hand, his lead detractor SPACKlick is also exhibiting similar tendentiousness and ICANTHEARYOU patterns, as are several others, especially in persistent belief that WP:COMMONNAME topples all other possible concerns (even when the desired common-name topic is directly misleading and has POV problems because it is marketing language), and a similar position that WP:MEDRS cannot possibly apply to a nicotine delivery device simply because it's "recreational", even when the article is about the biochemical output of the device. In actually reality, it's entirely reasonable, as I believe QuackGuru has maintained, that MEDRS might apply to Electronic cigarette aerosol and to any med/bio-chem claims at Electronic cigarette and other subarticles, but not to other kinds of material in it/them, e.g. about "vaping" subculture, marketing, legislation, etc. Having no dog in the various fights about e-cigs and their great value or terrible effects or whatever, I find the level of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior bewildering and alarming.

    I do think these disputes, as a class, should go to WP:RFARB, because a) it's clear that that this is otherwise going to be a continual war between e-cig WP:ADVOCACY boosters and their WP:GREATWRONGS outlawing proponents; and b) even accidentally wandering into one of these morasses, as I did in responding to a routine WP:RM notice, is a terribly unpleasant, hostile experience for editors who are not thrilling in their part in the ongoing WP:FACTIONalized gladiatorial combat on this topic. When it comes to a three-with conflict between "e-cigs are great!", "e-cigs are a menace!", and "Wikipedia policies apply regardless of your stance on that", I think we know where consensus actually resides.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

    PS: I note above SPACKlick making BIG ALL-CAPS POINTS to exclude material because it wasn't quite medical enough for his liking (and he was wrong about that point; particle size is entirely relevant in that context). Meanwhile, when it suits his aims and convenience, he argues in the face of all reason against applying MEDRS. Does not compute; more to the point, it smacks of WP:GAMING.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

    • Earlier this year I made a 16,000 plus edit. Some editors did not like that. I continued to add a ton of new sources to the article. I created Cloud-chasing (electronic cigarette), Electronic cigarette aerosol, and Vape shop. After I created the Electronic cigarette aerosol article things got a bit heated.
    • As for the hatnote I think I did help resolve the issue. I added to the lede "The e-cigarette vapor resembles cigarette smoke.[1]" See Electronic cigarette aerosol#cite ref-Cheng2014 1-1. User:SMcCandlish, this did go to arbcom previously. They tried to topic ban me. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Understood. I'm skeptical that anyone will be pilloried over adding sources and sourced material (unless it's WP:BOLLOCKS which I don't detect in that big edit), nor about disagreements over which data is put where in the article, unless someone's being a flaming WP:JERKs about it. There's a much more meaningful problem here, a campaign to keep genuinely reliable sources out of these articles, to push a POV against scientific coverage and treat this solely as a "lifestyle and culture" topic. There's a countervailing campaign to demonize the topic, and to spin primary sourced, largely preliminary data and a studies from journals as if there were a uniform, secondary-sourced view, and it's original research to combine them all into a "why e-cigs are the devil" message that steers readers to a conclusion. Both of these – exclusion of and misuse of pertinent, reliable sources – are wrong under policy. One might think they'd kind of cancel each other out, but it's not happening, just turning into a perpetual flamewar.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: To reply to a couple of your points. My big all caps point on the article was when the article was titled and moving towards "List of chemicals in" and QuackGuru was adding nanoparticles in a statement as if they were an additional chemical. That would be outside the scope of the article. As for my stance on MEDRS, I don't believe there's no MEDRS relevance at the topic I just don't believe the whole topic falls under it. How e-cigs are constructed and the social aspects of their use don't require MEDRS level sourcing and some of the sub pages are of limited health or medical relevance. I don't believe the chemical components of something is a medical topic, especially when it's explicitly split off from the medical effects of those components into a separate article.

And as you bring up the content dispute about "Vapour is a marketing term" I have yet to see that claim sourced. It appears to be a claim that people believe for whatever reason but not one that can be justified, it's also a bit disingenuous to say I believe common name trumps all other concerns when I've addressed the other policies as well and so have others to show that, in our opinion, vapour is the name that follows policy. But I'll await that RFC's close to see the assessment of consensus. SPACKlick (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the source "Blu lets me enjoy smoking without it affecting the people around me, because it's vapour not tobacco smoke," says Stephen Dorff, the scruffy heartthrob star of The Immortals."[16] Big tobacco has been very successful in marketing e-cigarettes as simply "vapour".
User:SPACKlick, you seem to have a pattern of deleting well sourced text from the new article.
"metal nanoparticles" and "When propylene glycol is heated and aerosolized, it could produce propylene oxide."[17] deleted The text is sourced to Grana 2014. You criticised the review on your user page.
"copper"[18] deleted (I replaced it with another source)
The lede sentence was deleted twice.[19][20]
"4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone and N-nitrosonornicotine"[21] deleted
"The nickel and chromium nanoparticles that was found in the vapor may have came from the e-cigarette heating element." and "Propylene glycol could produce propylene oxide when heated and aerosolized."[22] deleted
"Aerosol"[23] deleted
"Propylene glycol could produce propylene oxide when heated and aerosolized."[24] Please read the sources: When heated and vaporized, propylene glycol can form propylene oxide, an International Agency for Research on Cancer class 2B carcinogen,69 and glycerol forms acrolein, which can cause upper respiratory tract irritation.70,71[25] Thermal degradation of propylene glycol can generate propylene oxide, which is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a class 2B carcinogen.[26] The text is clearly sourced in accordance with WP:MEDRS.
"The delivery of nicotine from the vapor is inconsistent among products."[27] deleted
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive882#User:SPACKlick_reported_by_User:QuackGuru_at_Electronic_Cigarette_.28copied_to_WP:ANEW_by_SPACKlick.29 for the previous AN/I discussion.
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive286#SPACKlick_reported_by_QuackGuru_.28Result:_Editor_sanctioned.29 for previous 3RR report. QuackGuru (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't intend to get into a content dispute on ANI, that's not the venue, however your list of deletions goes (Scope dispute, Scope dispute, Failed verification, style dispute, style dispute, scope dispute, verification/relevance dispute, style dispute, verification/relevance dispute, Don't know why I removed the last one), the verification/relevance disputes are the same fact, which several people disagreed with including because the source doesn't indicate its relevance to the topic at hand. Yes I got angry and edit warred at your assertion an image showed what was clearly not contained within it. Because it is frustrating to deal with your poor grasp of english, to deal with your ownership, to deal with you not allowing any improvement to the readability and formation of the article, for your shotgun approach to expanding the article by adding overly detailed repetetive sentences. You are an incredibly frustrating editor to work with Quack. Do you understand that? And when someone disagrees with you, or your methods, you claw back through the same complaints, bringing them up time and time again.SPACKlick (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, with a heavy heart, I'll accept SMcCandlish's recommendation and open an Arbcom case. I would suggest that this particular discussion has run its useful course and can be closed.—S Marshall T/C 17:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I would also agree with S Marshall's question and have asked it before, do we need to adapt how we communicate with you because of a difficulty with English. It appears you misunderstand words often and are blind at times to matters of context or subtlety and so the question becomes relevant. Do we need to adapt how we interact with you to overcome the difficulty of not sharing a first language? SPACKlick (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Potential sock[edit]

I have reported a potential sock here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FergusM1970. I would not have done this unless the IP: Contributions had made edits to two subjects which User:FergusM1970 is known to have engaged in undisclosed paid advocacy for. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 02:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Competence and civility issues with Koala15[edit]

My latest encounter with Koala15 was on the Ted 2 page, where I fixed a fairly simple grammatical error [28] and was blankly reverted on sight [29]. I reverted back with the summary "Unexplained" [30] and he kept edit warring with the summary "Go home, your [sic] drunk" [31]. This happened again, until General Ization issued an EW warning on my talk page, and a civility warning [32] on Koala15's page. Koala15 repeatedly refused to apologize or even acknowledge that he was edit warring, dismissing General Ization with sentences such as "Have a sense of humor" and "There is no need for you to get so worked up over this", assuring him that he matter had been resolved, when in fact, it was not - and still is not. I explained very clearly on my talk page why I performed said edit, which prompted Koala15 to respond with a guideline that directly contradicts his edit - which I also explained. However, he refuses to "get it", while writing replies on the grammar level of a twelve year old - which I extensively tried to explain within the same discussion, examples being seeing him "use patently incorrect expressions like "more clearer", open a sentence with "hence", miss punctuation, or consistently not capitalize "I" as in first person", not to mention his first reply to me via edit summary: "Go home, your drunk".

A quick look on Koala15's talk page will reveal that he has been taunting other editors for a while, in an abrasive and unapologetic manner. A few select examples: User talk:Koala15#Reversions... [33], User talk:Koala15#July 2015 [34], User talk:Koala15#No [35], User talk:Koala15#Redirecting [36]. Another example of insisting on edit warring and being rude is here. I would like to finish this nuisance on the Ted 2 page and move on, but I would like to ensure that he doesn't spite revert me again. Please take care of this matter. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about this at all. Thank you very much. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i tried to work with you, but you don't seem to wanna work with me. Most of the things you are linking from my talk page are simple misunderstandings. And i don't think you can report anyone for a 'lack of competence". Koala15 (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
How ironic... you have just given another dismissive and offensive reply. You are either not realizing it or deliberately insulting me, and neither case is welcome on Wikipedia. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I have had my own run-ins with Koala15, which can be seen at Talk:Penguins of Madagascar and Penguins of Madagascar. Koala15 had initially participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR over a copyedit tag about the article with a reason saying "And i do think an IP's suggestion is less valid, cause the majority of them are vandals.". Not all IPs are vandals. Some contribute with no issues at all. I find that comment uncivil and rather a POV statement. They persistently removed the tag until they reached 3 reverts. They stayed quiet on the article, but they removed it again but this time with reasons but not valid ones. There was still WP:Consensus going on in the talk page, which Koala15 dismissed. Instead of participating in WP:Discussion and ask for opinions, they removed the template again. I reverted them, stating that they weren't the user who added the template and to remove it from a user who disagreed with it in the beginning is very questionable. They started edit warring, making 5 reverts within a span of 12 hours, I believe. If they reached the 6th revert, I was going to report them. My warnings can be seen on the user's talk page and PfM's talk page. In terms of Koala15, I do think they make good edits and they help the community, but my only concern is the way they act. Upon disagreements they edit war and so on, it seems. I do agree that saying a user is drunk is uncivil as much as saying to a user they need help. It seems they have had run-ins with other people, excluding me, EauZenCashHaveIt and General Ization. I would suggest a warning about continuing disruptive editing but I'm not sure. Callmemirela (Talk) 21:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i apologize, i shouldn't have removed those maintenance templates without asking. And i don't think its fair to say i participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Koala15 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Per one of the bullets, "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental." You removed the template with this reasoning: "Uhm, yeah no." which certainly counts as you saying it's unnecessary without valid reasons and follows on of the statements "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." which you've given the impression (not even at this point) since the beginning and on the talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note for reviewing admins: here's the last "clean" version of Koala15's talk page, before he panicked and blanked it in order to invalidate the links I brought up earlier: [37]. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, it was time they cleaned their talk page (no offense, Koala15). It was so long, over 200 posts. They kept some stuff, so I don't think it would really matter since it's their talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The timing though... anyway, I've said too much already. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Koala15 care to respond? Azealia911 talk 10:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Well its easy to take my quotes out of context and try to me make me look bad, but in the context of the conversation they were more or less facts. Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines. Which is fine, it took me a while when i first joined Wikipedia. Koala15 (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh Koala15, you really are being serious aren't you? You're not even trolling, sigh. I guess that means no chance of an apology for being rude and condescending? (the latter of which is ironically displayed in your most recent reply). Azealia911 talk 17:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Well its definitely not my intention to be "rude and condescending" that's just how I talk. I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words. In the future, i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much. Now hopefully we can put this whole thing behind us and move on. Koala15 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
No, we can't... at least not while you maintain these dismissive and unapologetic replies. Each and every one of those reinforces the incompetence claim. You've been told the same thing by everyone here: apologize, show genuine regret, and we will move on. Your telling everyone to move on while sarcastically dismissing every concern raised on this page is nothing short of offensive. Notice that it's you who keeps brushing off every opportunity to make things right. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I second EauZenCashHaveIt's comments, completely accurate. Koala15, your replies just demonstrate what everyone here is trying to tell you, you just seem to not be hearing us, replying with the behavior and tone that landed you here. Back handed comments like "Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines" don't do anything but frustrate me, and "I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words" is absurd, so it's our fault for getting offended at what you say? "i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much" you say, acting as if we're burdening you with actually being...nice?! Maybe take responsibility for your actions, genuinely apologize (which you have yet to do) and maybe then we can move on. Azealia911 talk 18:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought i did apologize. But yes i apologize if i offended anyone, that was definitely not my intention. Hopefully we can move on now. Koala15 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for apologising Koala15, yep, that's all I needed, take care. Azealia911 talk 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
jeez a bit hypocritical to talk about incivility when you're saying he has the grammar of a 12 year old. and why would you care about grammar on the internet anyway? poli 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering when the usual devil's advocate would make their appearance. This is an encyclopedia, grammar is a basic requirement here. And most importantly: while Azealia may or may not have gotten their apology, the general issue is still unresolved. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
obsessing over grammar is so pretentious. i promise you're not smarter than anyone else here so chill. poli 22:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Would you like your name to be added to the report? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
that's so petty. smh poli 02:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • EauZenCashHaveIt, what exactly are you looking to happen? Koala15 has apologized and said that they will be more thoughtful with their conduct. I say leave it, we've given them the rope, its their choice to hang themselves with more rudeness, land back here, and ultimately be blocked, or lasso their next edits with both hands (yes, that is literally the only analogy I could think of for positive things to do with rope). What else would you propose? Azealia911 talk 19:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
@Azealia911: I am looking for a more permanent solution than an obviously insincere apology with no indication of any behavioral change. But hey, if there are no takers then I guess we both have better things to do than bark up that tree. If you are satisfied then I won't say anything, at least until something new happens. Sadly, I have a feeling I am not mistaken. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
EauZenCashHaveIt I can also see us returning here, but that's up to Koala15. If required, bring it back here and I'll be the first to recommend implications. Azealia911 talk 16:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Christ, didn't take them long, I really did think they'd be more considerate. General Ization what do you suggest doing? Azealia911 talk 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I really don't know. I know I spent more time than I could really afford to trying to explain to them why this is a problem on their Talk page and here, and what mostly comes back is from the editor is I didn't hear that. I really think it's a competence issue. General Ization Talk 18:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Definitely seems like the case, considering their edits aren't specific to one or one set of pages, perhaps a short term block would be appropriate. Azealia911 talk 19:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, i make mistakes like everyone else, Jeez, i didn't realize my every edit would be under a microscope. Its also strange that you have my talk page watchlisted. Koala15 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Everyone whose edits cause them to be brought to this page will find their subsequent edits to be "under a microscope" for some period of time, especially while the case is unresolved. Most at least make an effort to not engage in the same behaviors during that time. And it's not strange at all – your Talk page was placed on my watch list when you and I discussed the matter above. General Ization Talk 21:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It was my bad, i didn't know what the statute of limitations was on page a split discussion that had no responses. I realized it was a mistake after i did it. I will refrain from making edits like that in the future. I go on Wikipedia for fun, and i'm not here to start trouble or anything like that. I'm gonna try to stay out of things like this and mind my own business. Koala15 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Since the template was just placed this month (and says so within the template as any reader sees it), you might reasonably have assumed it had not expired; if you were unsure, you could click the Discuss link and ask. Your "No need for a discussion" comment linked above shows either a lack of understanding or contempt for editing processes here, not confusion over an expiration date. General Ization Talk 21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Since Koala15 has decided to play possum, I am asking the patrolling admins to make the appropriate decision here. This discussion cannot simply vanish as stale. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely seeing Koala15's edits as problematic after going through the diffs. No specific action has been proposed yet, but there may be some lingering hope Koala can improve. My first thought was to just close this with the closer stating that if this kind of issue happens again, that would expedite a block by linking back to that decision. A short term block could be used instead of essentially a warning, but both would take a WP:ROPE approach. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Kingofaces43 EauZenCashHaveIt, I'd be more lenient to go with a short-block, maybe as short as two weeks. Earlier on this post, I urged nothing to happen, giving Koala15 the rope, and within two days they were removing merger notices and playing the old apologetic "I'll never do it again" card, when it had been discussed with them before. I'm not sure how many times Koala15 expects us to take their fake apologies before doing anything. The block may be the wake-up call they need to understand their attitude and actions won't be at all tolerated. Azealia911 talk 17:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Azealia911. In fairness, Koala15 has in fact seemed to "stay out of things like this and mind [their] own business" (as they put it above) for the past week or so, but without a real understanding by Koala15 of why their (past) behavior is a problem, all it will take is one editor to object to/revert one of their edits (rightly or wrongly) and I expect we'll be right back here again. I haven't heard or seen anything here that makes me think that understanding exists as yet. General Ization Talk 20:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My experience with Koala15 at Penguins of Madagascar was similar to User:Tokyogirl79's [38] in February. This wasn't a controversial topic or sensitive BLP. The article's about a movie that features talking commando penguins. After some edits to it I later added a tag regarding prose issues and a thousand-word quotefarm plus explained the tag on the Talk page. Koala reverts with a derisory summary. I restore days later due to the encyclopedic text and non-free content concerns and post on his talkpage: Koala responds dismissively and immediately undoes my edit as vandalism. Only after multiple other editors become involved does he finally visit the Talk page.

He engages in IDHT--continuing to say he doesn't see the problem ("as far as I know this is how the majority of reception sections are written") and asking for suggestions on to how to fix it--despite multiple editors having already provided them, edit-wars over the tag, plus adds quoteboxes making the quotefarm even more glaring. We assume good faith and spend time explaining. Only later to discover it's all happened before. – (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed short-term block for Koala15[edit]

I'll repeat a comment I made above, earlier in this post, I urged nothing to happen to Koala15, giving them the "rope", and within two days they were removing merger notices and playing the old apologetic "I'll never do it again" card, when the same issue had been discussed with them before. I'm not sure how many times Koala15 expects us to take their fake apologies before doing anything. A block may be the wake-up call they need to understand their attitude and actions won't be at all tolerated. The amount of said block can be determined by whoever closes the post.

Pinging all past contributors who may not keep track of the post: EauZenCashHaveIt, General Ization, Callmemirela, Ricky81682, Kingofaces43, Politoed89, and most importantly Koala15.

  • Support as proposer – recommending a 2-4 week block. Azealia911 talk 01:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Striking my support, may sound odd considering I'm the proposer. I've decided to give Koala15 one last chance, their recent behavior has seemed less aggressive and more open to discussion. Weather that lasts is up to them, but I firmly believe they'll reduce their negativity on the site for the foreseeable future. But this isn't an oppose, I'm staying neutral, I think comments from both sides are equally valid. Azealia911 talk 22:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per preceding thread. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 01:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per proposer's comments (thanks) and my comments above. General Ization Talk 01:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see why you guys are so against giving me another chance to redeem myself. I admit I made a few mistakes, but I don't think we should overlook all of the good work I have done on here in the past few years. I genuinely promise to have a better attitude when communicating with other editors. I look forward to working with you all again in a positive way. Koala15 (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
No one's against your having, or denying you, a chance to redeem yourself. If we were, we would be proposing an indefinite block (which none of us think is appropriate at this time). You will hopefully redeem yourself in any case. But it's precisely because you're thinking of this matter as so trivial that a block is appropriate. Many editors who produce good edits but cannot collaborate constructively with other editors have been blocked before you and many will be blocked after you. Assuming our proposal is implemented, please spend at least some of the time actually reading the many Wikipedia policies and guidelines we have tried over several weeks to get you to consider carefully. General Ization Talk 02:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why a block is necessary, I'm not gonna learn anything that i already haven't. I am gonna make a change in my behavior on here from this day on. And if you catch me breaking any rules, than block me. Take me at my word on this one. Koala15 (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
To me, this attitude right here is the epitome of your problem. You don't get to tell us what is necessary and what is not necessary. You can ask, you can argue your case, or anything else that is genuinely collaborative. You are still trying to take the lead and dictate the outcome. This is why the block is proposed. Azealia911, General Ization and others - I am not sure how else I can put it. @Chillum: this should address your concern. Nothing has changed. Literally, nothing. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I have no preference on a short term block either way. It's clear that this editor will be back to editing in awhile even if they were blocked, so the the important thing for this conversation is to show that they are sitting on their last chance per WP:ROPE if the issue comes up again. Sometimes ANI closures aren't clear on this, so as long as that point gets across, I'm content with just closing this as such. A block will demonstrate that as much as a well-worded close (and may be warranted given the continued behavior that popped up, but I'm not digging further into this to evaluate that), so I'm fine either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The block would not be preventative at this point in my opinion. If anyone can explain how it would be preventative I will gladly reconsider. Chillum 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
My hope is that it will give the editor some (enforced) time, if they are so inclined, to actually learn how to be a better and more collaborative editor, rather than just editing in a vacuum. A "time out" if you will. We've been hearing a lot of I didn't hear that from Koala15, and my personal opinion is that it's because they won't stop editing long enough to actually read policies and guidelines and learn how to and why they should avoid this kind of issue. If they were not so inclined, then indeed all it would do is give them a reason to remember that incivility and disruptive editing have consequences. General Ization Talk 03:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Chillum, it sounds more a punitive than a preventive block. Also, while Koala certainly had been sometimes rude, most of the differences above just document talk page discussions, but not the actual "incidents", or at least not the whole picture, so it is hard to judge who is really innocent here. Eg, it was linked at least three times (if I have not missed some other links) this talk page discussion as a proof of Koala's problematic behavior, yet it all started by an editor boldly redirecting a Koala's article a few hours after it had been created and then edit warring with Koala to have it redirected without any community discussion. The dispute eventually ended in an AfD, where the article was kept with no votes for deletion outside the nominator. The same with the Ted 2 incident, where the opener of this ANI discussion just showed some incompetence (he, not Koala), first battling to add a bizarre and non-standard "Elsewhere in the United States" in the infobox-date of release [39], then, after being explained why he was wrong, still trying to remove the premiere date with a poor rationale [40]. Rudeness is not excusable, and Koala should be more collaborative and use the edit summaries to immediately explain his actions and not to attack other editors, but the context is important, and so far the "incidents" do not rise to a level requiring a block IMO. Cavarrone 07:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: it's a shame that the devil's advocate sometimes wears an admin's hat. In their opposing statement, Cavarrone seems to have turned the wheel around and accused me, Koala15's victim, of incompetence, having completely ignored a discussion which I cited earlier. There is a considerable difference between sheer unprovoked rudeness and a stern reaction to sheer unprovoked rudeness, but apparently, to them the two are one and the same. This doesn't look very neutral to me, but I will be more than happy to be proven wrong. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral, as stated in my intial comment above. Whilst I do believe Koala15 has good editing-related intentions, discussion-wise is a mess. I do believe that they are aware of the issue of civility and so on. They are being watched and if any further comments that are deemed uncivil, inappropriate, and so on, they will be reported once more and consequently blocked as they were given chances. And I will take their above comment "If I break the rules, block me." (not exact) seriously. I expect them to learn their mistakes and choose their words carefully instead of being rude and uncalled for. I choose to believe they will stop edit warring and stop engaging in OWNBEHAVIOR and start discussing in good matters. And that their competence here will improve. The way they type and what they say are supporting that issue. Thank you for the ping, Eau (I really don't know your username that easily) Callmemirela {Talk} 20:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
arbitrary section break

Hi, I'm the editor who User:Callmemirela indirectly referred to above. I want to put this one to bed so we can all move on, too. Having looked into this a bit more, however, there're some additional aspects that should be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, it'll take me just a little while longer to put the details into a neat orderly manner, dot the i's and cross the t's so to speak, ready to post here. I'm pretty sure I can do so within 24hrs. – (talk) (formerly 146.'115 / 146.'207) 02:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

While we wait, or to help us/admins decide whether we should, it would be helpful to understand your relationship to the case (since you are currently an IP with only this edit in your history). Are you the editor who formerly used IP (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (see contribs)? General Ization Talk 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. (Powercut last night.) Incidentally, thank you for your application of meatball:DefendEachOther at the talkpage. Looking into this took a while (complexity and depth of the edit history among other factors) and, as we can see, a poll began in the meantime. It's preferable that reports here don't stay open for extended periods, so I can understand why EauZenC initiated it. (talk)(formerly 146.'115 / 146.'207) 03:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Did you plan to provide us with some additional insight concerning this matter, as your post above suggested? If so, please do so quickly or if not, please let us know, so that either way we can move this case toward closure. It's unfair both to the subject editor and the rest of us watching this section to leave it in limbo any longer. General Ization Talk 16:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I apologise to the community. In hindsight my 24hrs estimate was over optimistic. I misjudged the time needed wrt the large quantity of edits. Fortunately, having worked through the night, twice, things moved right along. I do intend to provide some additional material facts asap, so we can wrap this up. I'll come back here later today. Thanks. (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Seemingly the IP's 72 hour estimate was also unrealistic. Move for closure, as at this point I can't imagine what revelations they could bring to the discussion that would make it worth our waiting any longer. General Ization Talk 18:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I see now that the IP has added to the open discussion above today, though they do not offer a closing recommendation. So I again move for closure, but now because it appears all who have an interest in commenting on this matter have done so. General Ization Talk 20:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The IP's entry only reinforces the view of Koala15 as ill-faithed (not sure if this is a good antonym for good faith) and a repeat offender that has not shown any signs of real regret for their actions. As far as I see it, they are a ticking time bomb. Closure without action is precisely what they are hoping for. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 09:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

HOUNDING by Elvey[edit]

Sorry to bother you all. I cannot figure Elvey out. but he/she has taken a disliking to me and from time to time comes around behind me and argues against whatever I am trying to do. I have been putting up with it, but now he has started making a mess with a new editor who has a COI.

June 13: filed a COIN case naming me as an editor with a COI over Kaiser Permanente (where he has been hounding a disclosed representative of that company on the Talk page here and later here) and then refused twice here and here to make a case that I had a COI, or even to acknowledge that by listing my name in the posting, he had raised a concern about possible COI for me on that article. Incompetent, BATTLEGROUND behavior.

June 17: Followed me to articles he had never edited here (that one having to do with an editor working on the article about himself - so a COI issue) and here arguing against me randomly. I warned him to stop here.

July 8: Elvey went back to it here, seemingly randomly reverting my removal of content added by a blocked user, Nuklear and edit warred over that, and didn't stop until an uninvolved, chemical-savvy admin, Edgar181, explained to Elvey why Nuklear was blocked and that the content Nuklear added had an error in it anyway, and that my cleanup after Nuklear was OK with him. I gave Elvey a 2nd warning here about that.

Yesterday, a new instance. Doc James and Alexbrn and I are having a difficult but salvageable set of discussions with a new editor, ColumbiaLion212, with a disclosed COI who I advised not to edit the article directly, and who has made the newbie mistake of accusing us of a COI since we are disagreeing with him, but then Elvey showed up at ColumbiaLion's talk page and actually told ColumbiaLion that "Given the concerns you raise above (about other people's COI), I think it may be quite appropriate for you to continue to edit the article directly." This is not only incompetent and wrong but it is pure BATTLEGROUND baloney. I warned Elvey to back off here and they just came right back with more incompetent, BATTLEGROUND nonsense. I don't know if we are going to be able to get things back on track with ColumbiaLion after this bumbling.

I would like Elvey to be topic banned from discussing COI in Wikipedia (he is not competent to deal with editors with a COI as his behavior on Kaiser Permanente and ColumbiaLion's talk page show) and I would like a one way topic ban with regard to me since his HOUNDING of me is disrupting my work here and is harming WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Please impose a long cool-off block on Jytdog.

Response from Elvey[edit]

I twice responded to this editor's talk page accusations of HOUNDING: "Thank you for linking to that policy. In fact WP:HOUNDING#NOT says: '[T]racking a user's contributions for policy violations' 'is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly' '; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly.'." I ask that WP:HOUNDING#NOT be enforced. diff.

I don't even think there's a need for me to dredge up diffs showing his worst behavior because his diffs supposedly showing me at my worst actually make him look bad. But let me respond to each assertion:

1. His assertion re. June 13 seems to be a lie: He must know I never said he had a COI WRT Kaiser because we've reminded him so multiple times - the diffs Jytdog provided show me pointing this out and he's been told I did no such thing repeatedly not only by me but by others as well (diff) (admin User:SlimVirgin). To continue to spread this blatant falsehood here is blatant BATTLEGROUND obsessiveness.

2. Re June 17: Take a look at the 2 edits he's pissed off about and links to, where I told users he bullied, "You may continue to make appropriate edits directly to the article, Clockback, which the WP:COI guideline definitely allows, but discourages." and, "Way to follow WP:DR, be constructive and civil, SageRad." Were they good edits? I think so. Was this hounding? I already responded to that accusation on my talk page (excerpt above). That bullying is a violation of WP:BULLY policy, which Jytdog has been repeatedly chastised for, including by at least one highly trusted administrator entrusted to use powerful mops and broomsticks with care: User:Risker.

3. Re July 8: Look at the edit history and you'll see that his edit war accusation should BOOMERANG. He edit warred; I followed standard DR.

4. Re. "Yesterday", I was directed to review Jytdog's edits by another editor, and when I did so, I was troubled and responded appropriately, as the diffs Jytdog has provided show. Specifically, I went to User:ColumbiaLion212's talk page because User:Brianhe directed me there with this edit. So I wasn't following Jytdog there at all, let alone hounding him. And even if I had followed him there, I was pointing out that he was violating WP:NOEDIT, so WP:HOUNDING#NOT is far more applicable than WP:HOUNDING . --Elvey(tc) 00:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

5. He grossly misrepresents when he says ColumbiaLion212 "finally" disclosed working for a company that makes CES devices; User:ColumbiaLion212 did so a day after being asked - with his very next edit - his 9th edit on Wikipedia!

6. Jytdog sees what he wants to see in our CoI policy; he says here that he believes that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." is actually a "cannot". I suggest he be blocked until he is no longer delusional about what the CoI policy actually is, because he has disclosed, and demonstrated that it is his intent to attempt to enforce a nonexistent policy.--Elvey(tc) 03:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As you usual Elvey makes a garble of things. In my interactions with editors who declare a COI, I never say "cannot" and you will not find any diffs where I did. Editors with a COI are strongly discouraged, and the dif he points to shows that I understand that very well. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
6b. Sorry but here you are telling the respectable subject of a BLP that the COI policy does not allow him to directly edit his BLP. Re your comment about #6: I provided a diff, in which he indeed says "cannot" (without the quotes). And the rest of diff does show him expressing the opinion that I described. If there's a more clear and concise way to express that Jytdog says here that he believes that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." is actually a "cannot", I'm all ears. I note that you have not responded regarding #1, 2, 3, 4 or 5! --Elvey(tc) 05:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not responding to you point by point because most of what you write is incoherent. Others will be able to see that. Jytdog (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
That's one way to dodge scrutiny. Snowded says my writing is perfectly coherent, so no he was not able to see that. Based on that, I would ask that any interaction ban apply to Jytdog, rather than be one-way on me. Jytdog is saying I should be banned because of the behavior defended in #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and yet Jytdog refuses to discuss it. That's not reasonable or fair. I've launched a solid defense of 1-6. Yet Jytdog demands I self-impose a ban for the behavior addressed in 1-6. --Elvey(tc) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
no, i have asked the community to do this. if you just agree it will save a lot of drama but you are apparently unwilling. so on we go. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I note, again, that you have not responded regarding #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6b. Snowded says my writing is perfectly coherent. You have made no specific requests for clarification. Your refusing to respond is disruptive; respond or retract your campaign, Jytdog.--Elvey(tc) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I note, yet again, that you have not responded regarding #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6b. Can someone else respond? --Elvey(tc) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


When opening this case, Jytdog notified no fewer than three admins and two other users who take his extremeist view of COI and I ask that any comments from the canvassed users be disregarded and that our policy on canvassing be enforced with the requested block. A WP:Sham consensus may be the result of such canvassing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talkcontribs) 03:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC} ) signed this additional bit of mess-making by ElveyJytdog (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware that when naming an editor in a post at ANI, you are meant to notify them? That is not canvassing. Alexbrn (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Snowded: Why did you add a canvassing template to my comment? I was not canvassed. Please strike or provide some justification. Alexbrn (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, what are you talking about? ----Snowded TALK 07:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Apologies Snowded, got my diffs in a twist: it was Elvey who added it, so - to Elvy: Why did you add a canvassing template to my comment? I was not canvassed. Please strike or provide some justification. Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
If that's not canvassing, then the rule against canvassing has a giant loophole. Pinging users surely accomplishes what other forms of canvassing accomplish. But if you and Jytdog want to defend that use of the loophole, I won't fight you. The canvassing tag has been removed. --Elvey(tc) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey of responses to proposal to sanction[edit]

  • Note: A "Community sanction proposal" has been opened away below, below the closed subsection: here -- Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:WHY ? Acroterion (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC) has been blocked with an expiry time of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Block user Elvey. The accusations in the COIN charge are vague, unsupported, and unhelpful. I have tried to follow this editor's diatribes without success. @Elvey: This discussion and my investigations make it appear that you are incompetent to edit here. Please correct me by providing one or more specific edits where user Jytdog has gone astray, and how you think that they have gone astray. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
After looking at Elvey's response (try following #6, for example), I reiterate my request that Elvey be blocked temporarily and in addition banned from COI topics indefinitely. Editor does not seem to be competent to have these conversations. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support COI topic ban I haven't seen WP:COIN recently, but an example of clueless COI enthusiasm is here. If there are other similar examples a topic ban is required because blundering around like that could tip the balance for some editors and make them retire. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ugh. Normally I'd be quite supportive of attempts to root out COI, but the discussion that Elvey has initiated with regards to Doc James and Jytdog that have been linked to here have an unpleasant whiff of McCarthyism about them. It's not serious enough to warrant a topic ban yet in my view, but at the same time it's neither helpful or appropriate to have self-appointed COI cops wandering around demanding to know if someone is or has been a member of the COI Party. It very well could turn into a topic ban or other sanctions unless Elvey moderates their approach in the future, and that would be unfortunate. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Lankiveil to be clear, the reason I asked for the topic ban from COI is Elvey's incompetent interference in ongoing COI management efforts, as with ColumbiaLion212 (which was especially bad), and his interactions with the declared conflicted editor at KaiserPermanente where he abused the Talk page with soapboxing accusations. As you can see Elvey is only pushing harder here; he does not appear to be corrigible. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Lankiveil - Re. "self-appointed COI cops wandering around demanding to know if someone is or has [a COI]" - Are you not aware that Jytdog has been going around, bullying a great many users, demanding to know if they have a COI? Need more diffs? I've already provided some. --Elvey(tc) 05:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not talking about Jytdog here, I am talking about you. Jytdog may be a sinner or a saint, but that does not excuse your own behaviour in this area, which I regard as problematic. Seeking out COI is good, asking leading questions of editors without some proof to substantiate your suspicions creates a chilling effect that is not helpful. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC).
Elvey, asking about someone's relationship is not demanding. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support COI topic ban ColumbiaLion212 had gone off the rails badly but was being managed, but then Elvey came storming to their Talk page, apparently in furtherance of some kind of feud with Jytdog, and actually encouraged them to continue their COI-tainted editing. Elvey has not responded to questions about this and show no sign of getting a clue about how bad it was, so I believe a block is necessary as a preventative measure. Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps is the same user that set up! Wasn't me. --Elvey(tc) 03:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support one-way interaction ban between Elvey and Jytdog, and COI topic ban for Elvey. His arguments here make it pretty plain that he is engaging in motivated reasoning and that this has led him to a view of COI which leads to his making - ahem - unhelpful comments. I think six months should be sufficient. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While Jytdog is annoyed with the other editor (who, AFAICT, made no accusations of COI about Jytdog per se), the behaviour does not, IMO, rise to the level where sanctions are called for at all. The tendency to ask for sanctions when there is a reasonable disagreement is all too common on Wikipedia at this point. I note Snowded's reasoning below. Collect (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't often agree with Collect ;-) but in this case I do. I suggest both editors reflect a little and try and find a way to see value in the others comments before we move to sanctions. ----Snowded TALK 12:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - IMHO, seeking sanctions on another editor is the wrong way to go. But, if both individuals can't get along? then a 2-way IBAN would be best for them. GoodDay (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
To those opposing. This is about Elvey's behavior. Elvey is hounding me, not vice versa. And in the course of Elvey's hounding, Elvey inserted himself into a discussion with a new editor with a COI that was already going off the rails, and pushed it over a cliff. It is the damage to other editors and to the overall effort to manage COI in WP that led me here. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The best route here for you, would be to ignore Elvey. If Elvey were to follow you around, while you're ignoring him/her? then he/she would be viewed as harrassing you. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I do - I don't go fight about every harassing edit Elvey makes. But when Elvey inserts him/herself into a discussion as they did with ColumbiaLion and as they did at KaiserPermanente, they make a mess of things that cannot be ignored. Their incompetent actions on COI issues are what I am really after here. I want the one-way ban because that is what apparently drove these bumbling "interventions", and they are already fixed on me and this posting will only make that worse. Jytdog (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Claiming you've never followed me around is hogwash. The new editor hasn't been pushed off the rails; he's been scared off by Jytdog. Hasn't been back. WP:BITE, WP:BULLY etc, in action. You chased him off like a good guard dog. --Elvey(tc) 17:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I have never followed you around and you have zero diffs to prove that. More nonsense. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support either a COI topic ban of Elvey per Johnuniq and/or a one-way interaction ban of Elvey regarding Jytdog per Guy. I think that the discussion has gotten considerably off-track, but I also think that the ways in which it has gotten off-track support the appropriateness of some restrictions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
If it is one or the other, I would choose topic banning from COI, as that is the most damaging to the community.Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
We know you'd like that, but we're trying to determine what's equitable and practical, not what gives the complainant what he most wants.  :-/  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish, if I've misrepresented policy, I'd really like to know how, because I don't want to do that. The only way they've been able to suggest I've misrepresented policy has been to misrepresent what I've said, and then reach false conclusions based on false evidence - which your 'per Guy' suggests has worked. Guy grossly misrepresented my positions and then accused me of having those bad opinions, and refused to address the misrepresentations. What the hell is OK about that? If I've pointed out a true policy that you don't want what you see as the wrong people to know about, I've, reluctantly, offered to stop doing so under the terms below, at #Proposal. Please consider endorsing it. --Elvey(tc) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Since you specifically asked me to reply, I will. I've read it, and I agree with Guy. I don't see the problem as being about misrepresenting policy, but as exhausting the community's patience with the way you communicate with other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Just several days ago User:GregJackP and User:Minor4th said here that Jytdog should be banned from COI areas. User:Viriditas chimed in, "Jytdog seem to disrupt every article where the word "Monsanto" appears, have you considered voluntarily withdrawing from any and all Monsanto-related topics?" --Elvey(tc) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Risker recently said of Jytdog, "I worry a great deal about the really shoddy way we treat the subjects of our biographical material." I do too. Right after the shoddy treatment Jytdog gave Clockback, a subject of our biographical material, and NEVER APOLOGIZED FOR, I responded with factually correct information, which no one is disputing, but some here nevertheless want to ban me for. What the hell kind of respect for the subjects of BLP is that? --Elvey(tc) 02:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't drag me into this - I'm not saying anything about Jytdog, one way or another. We resolved our issue. GregJackP Boomer! 04:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
"Someone had a concern" isn't very helpful. I'd like to hear from those four editors or have specific pointers to the discussions of what they think the alleged issues with Jytdog are. Never mind, I found it. Jytdog having any COI-patrolling and civility issues of his own would not magically make Elvey's actions okey-dokey, but we may be looking at a mutual interaction ban, even a mutual topic ban or other action; Upate:I don't see a mutual issue. ANI is not a forum for one side to "win" with quicker and craftier argumentation or a bigger enourage. I'm not convinced a long topic ban is needed here, though, for anyone. If an editor has WP:COMPETENCE problems (which Elvey clearly does with regard to at least COI, CIVIL, and CANVASS interpretation), this is generally resolved with experience, which they cannot gain if barred from the area in which they need to develop better competence. If there's an interaction ban, set a time limit, like 6 months. Long-term ones are too easily gamed, are onerous, and usually don't serve any purpose but cementing a dispute forever instead of letting it naturally come to a "why were we even fighting?'" WP:DGAF realization, and become by-gones. Permanent topic bans are rarely useful except with regard to actual soapboxing POV-pushers, or "great wrongs" battlegrounders, and just serve to create martyrs-in-their-own-minds among editors who mean well but are "differently clued" at the moment. I do agree that the COIN filing by Elvey of vague, unsupported-aspersion casting should not go unaddressed, probably with a 3-month COI topic ban, regardless of other matters and outcomes.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Updated. 05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks SMcCandlish I was recently brought to Arbcom (case was dismissed) and at the same time to ANI (no action) over my COI activities. Elvey is having a field day quoting stuff from those events. I took a week off from dealing with COI issues to get feedback as advised at Arbcom and got some good feedback, which I've been reflecting on; I still have still not fully gone back to my former levels of COI work as I am still considering some things. Elvey keeps quoting stuff from those stale (and older) cases as though it is hot news.
The problem with Elvey's involvement in COI matters is that he is "intervening" in ongoing interactions with new editors who have or may have a COI (which are often delicate and require respect and diplomacy) and writing frankly incompetent things. Sometimes harassing the conflicted editors, and sometimes harassing me and encouraging bad behavior by the conflicted editor. There is no sense to it. This is really bad with new editors, especially, who are trying to learn how WP works, under pressure from their COI.
Anyway, I recognize that the community will do as it will. But working on live COI issues is not a training ground. Nothing will prevent Elvey from reading COI actions and getting their head on straight, and asking for an indef to be lifted when they can show they understand things better. But I need to stop responding to things here - have written too much already. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Understood. I'm interested in due diligence. Not every dogpile indicates consensus, but often bandwagon mentality, and every argument has at least two sides. Just because ArbCom or ANI previously didn't act on something doesn't mean it's not relevant, since patterns emerge over time. But I have no interest in fishing for one with regard to you; I just asked for clarification of what complaints others had raised (and it was the BITE one that caught my eye, not a COI one, but I treat all claims of wiki-wrongdoing with skepticism).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Reviewed Risker's and related material, saw GregJackP's disavowal of a current dispute, and don't see a major issue. The two arbs who made the point to you that COI and paid editing are more distinct that you seemed to think at that time, probably got that point across (that was much earlier in the month), and I don't see evidence they didn't. Absent a showing of really recent issues in this regard, or of newbie-biting that's also recent, I'm satisfied there's no boomerang of any kind here, but hope the message was absorbed, to get COI/PAID policy understanding in synch with the community's if you're going to be helping new editors who have conflicts of interest.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Recommendation: Elvey should be subject to a one-way interaction-ban from Jytdog, and a topic-ban from COI-related discussions and processes, for 3-6 months (concurrent) in both cases; long enough to learn these ropes and re-examine his approach. More than 1 year would be counterproductive and patently punitive at this stage. I'm particularly concerned about the aggressive nature of Elvey's approach to all this, especially the aspersion casting at WP:COIN, which can, as someone else said, "tip the balance" and drive incoming editors away. Because of the BLP connection, we have to be especially careful in this area. The sarcastic, lecturing tone of Elvey's responses here is not a good sign. WP:COMMONSENSE escape valve: Elvey should be able to report what he is sure is a glaringly obvious, unmistakable COI problem, to an admin, who could determine whether it required further investigation.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What is our CoI policy actually?[edit]

Jytdog sees what he wants to see in our CoI policy; he says here that he believes that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." "is actually a cannot". I suggest he be blocked until he is no longer delusional about what the CoI policy actually is, because he has disclosed, and demonstrated that it is his intent to attempt to enforce a nonexistent policy.

Jytdog was ***roundly critized by two longtime arbitrators for his extreme interpretations of our CoI policy and treatment of User:Snowded - none other than User:Risker, who is sick of him and User:Newyorkbrad.

The diff above shows that:

Risker told Jytdog, "The ToU doesn't say what you think it says." at 10:02 am, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7)

User:Snowded told Jytdog his "absolutist interpretation of what is a guideline not policy does not help." I wish Jytdog would listen or be given some quiet time to think about it.

Risker told Jytdog, "Conflict of interest is not the same thing as paid editing. If you cannot understand that, you need to stop working in this area. Paid editing is things like Elance or other SEO organizations who specifically write for pay, or the PR department of a company. Conflict of interest is not the same thing. Again, if you insist that the two things are identical, which is exactly what you were doing in the edit I reverted, then you need to stop working in this area, because you misunderstand the basic premise." at 12:51 pm, 14 June 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen.

User:Newyorkbrad told Jytdog: "Let me see if I can help a bit here, because there is a widespread tendency to interpret the COI issue and related guidelines in a simplistic way, which is increasingly unhelpful for everyone. I'm a partner in a law firm. The firm is not notable enough for an Wikipedia article, but suppose I were at a larger firm and we had one. If I were to edit the article about my law firm, I would have a "conflict of interest" (the significance of which could be minor or major depending on the nature of the edits). However, I would not be a "paid editor," because my firm pays me to practice law, not to edit Wikipedia. Is everyone in agreement so far?" at 11:10 am, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen.

But Risker doesn't expect Jytdog to listen; I see a need for admin action is proven by this comment and driven home by Jytdog's actions leading up to this ANI dispute: "Thank you for your illustration, NYB. I am afraid, however, that it falls on deaf ears (referring to Jytdog's ears) for those who imagine themselves pure as the driven snow." at 12:56 pm, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen.

"Jytdog I strongly suggest stepping away from COI issues until you have taken on board the community's concerns (expressed well by Risker) regarding your editing in the area, if you don't then I would not be surprised to see a topic ban proposed at AN/I." -User:Thryduulf at 3:33 am, 12 July 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen or be given some quiet time to think about it, or made to heed this. Said topic ban is hereby proposed - probably where Jytdog got the idea to propose the same ban for me!

--Elvey(tc) 03:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Within the range of views that exist within WP -- which range from very strong opposition to editors with a COI even being part of the community, to opposition to dealing with COI at all and just focusing on content -- I have a moderate interpretation of COI - and above all a view centered on talking with people about what we all care about - namely good content. Additionally, we don't have a COI policy at all. We have a COI guideline. Elvey's post from its header on, is an incoherent ramble, cherry picked from various discussions, and a demonstration of what I mean about their lack of competence to discuss these things. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Elvey would you please add difs to your quotes above? I checked Risker's contribs and they made no comment at 12:56 pm, 13 June 2015. And, by the way, I took my time out as suggested at the Arbcom case that was declined with no action, and got some very helpful feedback. Jytdog (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I've put a few asterisks next to a diff that provides what you requested, Jytdog. (And times are UTC−7.) Here it is again, since you're having trouble finding it:

Jytdog was ***roundly critized by two longtime arbitrators for his extreme interpretations of our CoI policy and treatment of User:Snowded - none other than User:Risker, who is sick of him and User:Newyorkbrad.--Elvey(tc) 06:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The harder you twist, the worse you look. The "sick of him" is especially ugly, as what Risker was sick of what Atsme and I going back and forth. What would be useful would be if you would promise to stop following me around, and stay away from COI issues, which you are making a mess of. Jytdog (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
No, Jytdog, that wasn't it at all. It was about you not me, and it's time for you to seriously self-analyze because your behavior is extremely problematic. Risker stated: "Enough, Jytdog; stop haranguing people. We're talking about half a dozen links, half of which are on pages that have already gone through community review and were deemed to be reasonable additions to the page. I don't accept this sort of thing on my talk page. You are not, under any circumstances, entitled to this level of personal information about anybody on Wikipedia, conflict of interest or no. Risker (talk) 1:23 pm, 6 July 2015, Monday (22 days ago) (UTC−5)" [41] And with regards to you telling other editors to stop following you around - you need to self-analyze in that department, too. Atsme📞📧 06:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


OK, if there's a consensus that I need to

  1. stop informing users who are told not to edit articles because they have a COI the truth - that the COI policy guideline only discourages users with a COI from editing but does not forbid it and
  2. Stop informing users that if it applies to them, they must comply with the ToU clauses requiring disclosure of FCoI, then I will stop doing so.

If you think I should to stop doing that, or shouldn't, please indicate that below. But please also explain WHY I should or shouldn't stop doing so (optional). --Elvey(tc) 06:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have already indicated it above. I can tell you from long personal experience of handling emails at OTRS, and as an admin for nearly ten years now, that your advice to these users is profoundly unhelpful and the most likely outcome of their following your advice is that they will end up blocked or banned. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, so Guy is on record saying that users (this user at least) must not inform users who are told not to edit articles because they have a COI the truth - that the COI guideline only discourages users with a COI from editing but does not forbid it and users (this user at least) must not inform users that if it applies to them, they must comply with the ToU clauses requiring disclosure of FCoI. I hear you when you say that this true advice is nonetheless profoundly unhelpful. Anyone else agree? User:Jytdog? Say so here and I'll stop. --Elvey(tc) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
That is mostly incorrect and incoherent, Elvey. I don't tell people not to edit articles; I ask them not to.
And there are lots of perspectives in the community about how the ToU applies to editors with a COI. Some interpret the ToU as applying only narrowly to say freelancers who are literally paid to edit or create WP articles, and would not apply the ToU to a company employee writing about their company of their own volition. Others interpret the application of the ToU more broadly. Also, the ToU only requires disclosure - it says nothing about editing WP articles. Your discussion is all confused, and you are trying to draw lines through that stew. It can't be done. So I cannot affirm or deny what you write.
I will say that your emphasizing what people with a COI can do (which is not clear in WP) instead of what they should do (which is clearly described in the COI guideline), is a destructive thing.
And what is profoundly unhelpful is your fiercely bringing your confused ideas and your beef with me (whatever that is) into ongoing discussions with editors who have or may have a COI. What I have asked for, is for you to say away from me, and stay out of COI issues. Will you agree to do those two things? Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I expect your behavior won't change, despite what Risker, Newyorkbrad and a dozen other folks have told you, so yes, I propose we avoid each other. I've offered the proposal in this section as a solution. Clearly there's lots of feedback for both of us here and on the huge thread on Risker's talk page on how we could improve our approach to COI issues. I intend to change my behavior accordingly, and you have said that you will too. Progress, I dare say? --Elvey(tc) 17:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
No progress. Your ideas still appear to be as confused as they were before and you have not acknowledged once here that you have made a hash of things in your pursuit of me. And again - you are following me around; if you stop doing that and let go, you will not find me in front of you anymore. I don't want to interact with you; the fixation is yours. And nothing new has been to said to me here about COI, nor have I said anything new. Everything you have brought here about me is stale and dealt with already. Please just agree to stay away from me and from COI issues. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from sort of involved editor[edit]

Interesting. I agree with Jytdog that Elvey is cherry picking (although he is not incoherent) and I am also strongly of the opinion that Jytdog has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. However I don't think Jytog has a moderate interpretation of COI. He has an assertive/bureaucratic approach to COI not a conversational one and acts (not just in my case) as if the guideline is policy. In the incident which gave rise to the above an article about a framework I created was subject to attack by a commercial rival. After a couple of rounds I (recognising my involvement) took the matter the Administrators Notice Board and an independent admin gave the offending editor an 'only warning' and the issue appeared resolved. Jytdog then arrived and the situation escalated for some time with multiple notices, postings, warnings and the like. In effect a guideline was acted on as if it was policy.

Based on that experience and monitoring other COI notices by Jytog and others, I've been meaning to write up a suggested guideline for the COI notice board when I get time. But given this has been brought up I think there are a few points that it would be useful to discuss:

  1. Any editor getting involved in issuing a COI notice needs to make a very clear distinction between a 'paid' editor and one who has an interest in a page. There is a radical difference between getting the odd lecture or consultancy fee and being employed to directly edit Wikipedia.
  2. The COI notices used tend to take a all editors with any COI however remote are all sinners' approach which can have a chilling effect. We could do with two different notices: One for those paid and the other for those with some interest. In fact templating should be discouraged in the latter case
  3. It is clear that in respect of an academic framework the creator of that framework is also a subject matter expert. Any notice should make that clear. Asserting that an editor in this situation should not edit the article (per Jytdog) is not policy and should not be asserted as such
  4. In general any editor taking a COI monitoring role should exercise care not to (i) inflame a conflict and (ii) not to come across as a bureaucratic enforcement agent. In this case Jytdog could have acknowledged that I had not taken part in an edit war, despite the posting of a false statement, but had brought in a neutral admin pretty quickly. I asked him if he thought I had made any edits against policy and got no reply. I'm an experienced enough editor not to have taken offence but I can think of a few academic colleagues, not familiar with some the 'guideline bureaucracy culture' in some parts of Wikipedia might have taken it differently.

So regardless of the cherry picking and/or Jytdog's accusation of incoherent rambling (not helpful) there is an issue for the community here. ----Snowded TALK 06:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion belongs at WPT:COIN or WPT:COI not here. The issue is the editor's conduct towards each other, not the minutia of what the technical grounds of a policy are or are not. And we have a policy that no one really follows and there's little support for, then it's time for the policy to reflect reality not the other way around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
And at some stage I will move a more elaborate version of it there, but the comment was relevant in so far as it reflects a wider problem that undiscriminating COI enforcement can create. As to your comments on policy and reality, the solution to that is not the current COI practice which needs more development - then it might be possible for it to become policy. ----Snowded TALK 07:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Snowded Thanks for your remarks! The policy issues that came into play in our interaction were WP:NLT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:BLPCOI (BLP applies to talk pages too) all related to your real world disputes with the other editor, that the two of you carried into WP. I have only run across a few (maybe three) situations where two editors, each with such clear COIs of their own, also were in conflict in the RW and carried that into WP. That is not a common situation - a double COI in a way (your own, and the conflict with the other editor, and the same for the other editor) - and my interactions with editors with potential or already-declared conflicts generally do not get near so intense; those three policy issues generally don't come into them. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you just further illustrate the point I was trying to make Jytdog. There was a RW conflict, what you failed to realise was that I had responded to the wikipedia conflict by pulling in a neutral admin to avoid escalation. You then arrived and created the conditions that allowed an unnecessary conflict to escalate. My points above about handling different types of COI was meant to try and prevent that sort of thing. It was made worse by your subsequent attempt (the Elvey extracts above) to challenge my right to even talk about the issue. Fortunately you were overruled by two former arbcom members. You continue to see COI as black and white rather than understanding the difference between paid editing and legitimate interest even subject matter expertise. Until you engage with the issue of the manner of your interactions you are going to end up in more conflicts. I can see that Elvey's behaviour is problematic, but so is yours. ----Snowded TALK 12:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Snowded, this is where COI issues get so difficult - even now you still seem unclear on your own COI. You have academic claims of ownership of the concept, you founded a company based on the concept and serve as CSO of that company and make money lecturing about it etc (direct financial interests) and you have an external conflict with another editor who has a competing company. If only the first were at play, our interactions would have been very, very different. As I wrote above, having two editors in conflict here in WP each with their own COIs and in RW conflicts with each other is rare, and you still don't seem to recognize how locked-in to that conflict you were. Also, I never challenged your right to talk about it - I thought you should disclose that you had a COI in articles you write about, when you posted at WT:COI. Risker disagreed with how I expressed that. Also, my views on COI are laid out on my Userpage and what you will find there, is very far from black and white. Finally, I highly value subject matter expertise in WP, in line with the wider WP community. Our very valuable essay on WP:EXPERT welcomes experts, and warns experts not to use WP as a platform to promote their own ideas and publications. That is how I treat experts as well, when that is the only issue. Look at my interactions with User:Gjboyle on their talk page, for example. The picture you are painting of me is not accurate. It is very much shaped by our difficult interaction which I have acknowledged I could have handled better. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I fully understand the exact nature of my interest in that article and the nature of the conflict. I go out of my way never to do a primary edit on either of the two articles I am associated with so the idea I am using wikipedia as a platform to promote my ideas is a nonsense. I have a framework which has revived multiple awards and citations therefore I have an interest in that article. I didn't found a company based on that concept, its one framework and our main focus is software. You've been told that but you don't listen. The fact that you refuse to see any different between that and a paid editor remains problematic. The fact that your response to any editor who disagrees with you on something is to tell them they don't understand their own position when you have at best surface knowledge is a problem. What you fail to see is that your attitude and method of engagement is a PART of the problem. So whatever your intentions you are creating problems. In the case it question it was your intervention that caused the conflict and you still can't see that. Now this is probably not going anywhere so having made the point I will leave it. I hope when I bring proposals on this to the COI notice board we can find a way to work together ----Snowded TALK 14:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Snowded. I did take a break from COI work per the advice at arbcom, and I did get valuable feedback on my talk page. I have heard, that I can come across too stridently. I have heard that. And we will probably continue to disagree about what happened at Cynefin article; I do acknowledge that I got too harsh there and was part of the problem; that is why I apologized. And as I wrote at Risker's page, there is a difference between paid editing and other forms of COI. Paid editing is a subset of COI which in turn is a subset of advocacy, and it is advocacy that shows up in bad WP content. The ToU apply only to paid editing. So please don't misrepresent me. I also ask you to reconsider your !vote above. Whatever you think about me, Elvey's behavior has been very out of line. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
(Belated requests: Jytdog, stop attacking Snowded here. It's derailing the discussion. Snowded, don't feel the need to defend yourself here.) Jytdog says above, "I have heard, that I can come across too stridently. I have heard that." I am happy to hear that. However this diff and the interactions Snowded points to suggest the behavior hasn't improved. That recent threatening of a new user with an indefinite ban like that appears to be calculated to maximize Chilling Effects. That's why I got involved. But apparently, consensus is building (as shown by the support votes here) that those chilling effects are just dandy and I'm not to interfere. --Elvey(tc) 17:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
He isn't attacking we have a difference of opinion. I seriously suggest you just back off for a bit. At the moment a few of us think that this should just be left and there is no need for an interaction ban or a topic ban. I still think that but if you get into a Battleground mentality some sort of restriction will be needed. Per my suggestion on your talk page I think you should just stop for a bit and ping me or another editor if you something is wrong and we can look at it. ----Snowded TALK 18:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ban from all COI-related discussions for Elvey. This is an issue of WP:CIVIL and WP:OUTING policy not COI. Elvey doesn't care about the COI policy, and just seems to use the COI policy as an excuse to lord it over people that have identified themselves in some way. If the dispute is about WP:COI policy, then the discussion belongs as that talk page not at ANI (or at WPT:COIN). Arguments about policy here aren't going to go anywhere. Here, we can discuss your individual ability to respond to potential COI issues and how in particular you act with each person you have concerns about. The problem is Elvey seems to use potential COI issues as an excuse to attack people. If you can't be civil with potential issues, then you'll be stopped to prevent extra work for the rest of us. This comment is less about COI issue and is based someone using their ability to know a person's identity to make a snide off-topic uncivil remark. There was no discussion about drug pricing, not even something that the representative brought up, just an excuse for Elvey for start a fight. This discussion is basically the same as WP:OUTING people to win fights. Frankly, Elvey is getting close to WP:OUTING issues and I think an outright indefinite block may be needed if the editor insists on just hunting around for fights. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue User:Snowded raised and you seem to want to pretend doesn't exist, Ricky, is that of Jytdog's uncivil behavior toward me, Snowded and many others. Don't try to hand wave it away as off topic for ANI. Holy shit! There are 113 mentions of Jytdog's name on this page, and only half of them are in this ("HOUNDING by Elvey") section. Jytdog seems to live here.--Elvey(tc) 07:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Snowded, I extracted the relevant comments from a single conversation. If that's cherry picking, then I picked cherries.

Yes, he acts as if it's policy that an editor must not edit an article if they have a CoI. There is no such policy. But that's not all. There's no such guideline EITHER! There's been a HUGE push to get the COI guideline changed to say that an editor must not edit an article if they have a CoI - there have been 4 huge, formal RfC campaigns. But they didn't succeed. I voted for 'em. But it's dishonest to go around deceiving people into believing CoI says what it'd say if one of those campaigns had been successful. so I don't do it.

  1. Yes! I mistook one for the other recently, but unlike some users, I'm willing to recognize my mistakes.
  2. Yes! I recently proposed a new template just for when a FCoI disclosure notice is not adequate.
  3. Absolutely!
  4. Yes, I tried to do that when I approached DocJames, and he was entirely cordial in response (though perhaps he's infallibly cordial). I still got attacked here for doing so. Refusing to address the concerns I've raised other than to dismiss them as "incoherent" is not in accord with policy, which requires that users respond when reasonable concerns are raised.

Thanks for piping up. --Elvey(tc) 07:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not behave as though it is policy. Most people, when approached respectfully and informed about the COI guideline and its advice, are happy to comply. Which has been a really pleasant part of the doing the COI work. Even editors with a COI understand that if WP lacks integrity, the public will stop trusting it, and it will become useless for people to learn anything about whatever their external interest is. Jytdog (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I genuinely don't think you intent to behave as if it was policy, but having looked at your interactions not only in my case but others I think you come across that way. Fast templating, assertive statements without qualification; threats of ANI referral; all create that impression. Your call if you want to listen to that or not. ----Snowded TALK 12:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Snowded, I tell people I will bring them to ANI when they violate policy and I have some actual case to make here. I have not told anyone I would bring them to ANI for a COI issue per se. I never assert that someone actually has a COI unless they have already disclosed it. I do make assertions about behavior and editing that are always 100% supportable. I do ask questions. I do ask people to follow the COI guideline. I did get way too hot with you and with Atsme, for sure, for different reasons. I apologized to both of you. I did push too hard there. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
OK thanks for the acknowledgement it gives a way forward. I would suggest that saying that if someone doesn't do what you want you will take them to ANI and that you have a successful track record is probably an intervention of LAST resort. Better to explore understanding of what has happened and policy before jumping to the threat :-) ----Snowded TALK 14:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Your sarcasm is not helping Snowded. Elvey, I'm not particularly concerned about any incivility towards you. I'm concerned about you attacking other editors out of the blue under the justification of "good intentions" to advocate for the COI policy. Again, I look at the Kaiser talk page post and see someone who seems out to find a fight to win. Everything else falls from that. Are you capable of offering a moderate incremental discussion (namely, if you think there's a problem (a) post a discussion on the article in question; (b) bring it up at COI; or (c) at the very least communicate to the people you accuse without presuming their guilt ahead of time) or is it just "let me do what I can or else I can do nothing at all"? WP:OUTING is a policy too and I've never felt that harassing individuals to protect us from some hypothetical COI is a long-term solution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This is some new definition of 'sarcasm' is it Ricky? If you misinterpret that phrase you might well have misinterpreted others. Maybe you could help by pointing me to the diffs that indicate a possible outing? ----Snowded TALK 19:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Policy status[edit]

Elvey is right that the COI guideline is a guideline not a policy. It offers guidance for users on how to edit a subject in which they have a vested interest. He is wrong, however, to assert that ti does not have the force of policy. In fact, the COI guideline exists to help people avoid a global site ban from all WMF websites. The WMF Terms of Use say:

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use

Obviously there is scope for Elvey to wikilawyer about the precise meaning of compensation, but policies are interpreted using Clue, not weaselly lawyer speak. Anyone who edits in a way that may result in personal gain, or who edits Wikipedia on their employer's dollar (i.e. while at work) risks falling foul of this bright line rule.

The guideline has another very important purpose.

Any company or individual who edits Wikipedia with an undisclosed conflict of interest, risks substantial reputational damage. We have seen this already with the congressional editing scandal.

I wrote the boilerplate guidance to company representatives at OTRS, I also wrote the guidance to BLP subjects, and both of them make the same point: in order to protect your reputation and preserve your rights to edit, we strongly recommend that you follow the COI guidelines, which are designed to ensure transparency and facilitate engagement with the Wikipedia community to ensure rapid resolution of issues you might have with an article.

It's there for a reason. Elvey clearly does not understand that reason. Perhaps, having read this, he might. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So, in short, no, he still doesn't. I reiterate my support for a restriction. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd promise to stop asserting the foolishness you say I'm asserting, and so forth, but it would be very much like promising to stop beating my wife. You insist on grossly misrepresenting my position. What part of "I agree, users should follow the COI guidelines" do you not understand? That was and remains my stated position. Please stop mislabeling opinions that aren't mine. Shame on you for that. I'm a human being. Have you no shame?--Elvey(tc) 02:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Any vote! based on gross misrepresentations of my opinion should not be counted.--Elvey(tc) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytog, you said last month, "Risker expressed objections and I took feedback on board and have adjusted how I operate." so how have you done that. I see no change, specifically: Risker told Jytdog, "The ToU doesn't say what you think it says." at 10:02 am, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7) HOW has your understanding of what the ToU says changed?--Elvey(tc) 02:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Go to WP:COI for any further discussion. This tangent is not going anywhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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

COI needs updating or clarification[edit]

I'd recommend ya'll go to WP:COI, as it is the core of the above disagreements. GoodDay (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI is clear enough, the issue is Elvey's idiosyncratic interpretation of it. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The core of this ANI thread is Elvey's unacceptable behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
If my interpretation is idiosyncratic, why is Risker getting on Jytdog's case about his misinterpretation? GoodDay is right - WP:COI is NOT clear enough. All these arguments are very strong evidence of that. If I'm wrong for telling people the truth about what WP:COI says, then surely that's damn good evidence that WP:COI needs to change to say that Paid advocates must not engage in direct article editing. Unfortunately attempts to change it to say that have failed, and attempts to get ArbCom to help (by others; I haven't tried) have fallen flat. Right, User:Coretheapple? --Elvey(tc) 17:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, not accurate. It is not clear what Risker's current stance on me is. Risker expressed objections and I took feedback on board and have adjusted how I operate. Please stop bringing up stale issues. And your confusion and your hounding and disruptive behavior, does not mean there is a problem with the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:COI should be put up for WP:MFD. Writing for Wikipedia is analogous to how scientists contribute to review articles, you must base everything on reliable sources, you cannot do original research. Your peers will check if what you write is up to standards. Now, in some less reliable discipines like e.g. medical science, you do have a problem with COI, authors are required to declare them in articles. But Wikipedia is much more like a hard science discipline like physics than a softer science like medicine. Count Iblis (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
"WP:COI should be put up for WP:MFD." Poppycock. If anything it should be stiffened and made policy. BMK (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Which would mean that anonymous editing would have to end, editors would have to submit their CV's the WMF as part of a formal application to become editor here. Admins would have access to the submitted documents to check if the editors are sticking to the COI policy. Count Iblis (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there's no correlation between "stiffening COI" and IP editing having to end, that's pretty much a straw man, nor do any of the other dire results you predict follow in any logical way from the premise - it's all pretty much hyperbole, innit?. However I will say frankly that the project would be much better off if IP editing had been ended many years ago, since its downside far out weighs its upside, and it's mostly still here for political/philosophical reasons that have no relevance to the reality of life in the trenches. BMK (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Personally I would end IP editing as well for similar reasons. It means people can too readily hide an interest. But it is also the case that in many articles enforcement of the COI as interpreted by most of its enthusiasts would mean that subject matter experts were confined to requesting changes to articles from patrolling COI bureaucrats which would be equally disruptive. Banning ALL paid editing, restricting University projects to drafts that would then be reviewed would all be more helpful activities. Key is to stop the one size fits all COI approach currently being practiced and advocated. ----Snowded TALK 05:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Community sanction proposal - Community Patience Exhausted by Elvey[edit]

Current results 14:2 14:3* 15:3* in favor of the proposal. We have had ~48 hrs and sufficient participation and supermajority. This is ripe for uninvolved administrator close and enaction. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


Elvey has exhausted the patience of the community and is topic banned from COI, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed to the community in six months.
  • Support as proposer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The discussion above shows six supports for a topic ban of various durations (Johnuniq + Alexbrn + Guy (JzG) + Ricky81682 + Tryptofish + SMcCandlish) and two opposes (Snowded + GoodDay). Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • More lies misrepresentation. (So what else is new?) Collect voted oppose too. With my !vote, it's 4:6. Way to use dirty campaign tricks, Johnuniq. Too bad there's no voting fraud hotline to call. --Elvey(tc) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • My apologies for the accidental omission of Collect who opposed sanctions above (and below). The omission of Jytdog and Elvey was intentional as it did not seem useful to include the two protagonists. I listed the names specifically so others could check. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, but for it to properly stick absent community or arbcom sanctions we really need a formal proposal. Admins can't just say "I ban you", the community can... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It is time to move on. If Elvey won't drop the stick on their own perhaps we should encourage them.--Adam in MO Talk 11:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban per my comments above - my view is strengthened, in fact, because Elvey has shown no undertanding of why his intervention was so bad, and has instead mounted a belligerent defence of himself in which it seems only others are held to be at fault. Alexbrn (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support After reading through all of this I see no other alternative. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, per what I said above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose Any vote! based on gross misrepresentations of my opinion should not be counted. I shouldn't be banned for informing users of what WP:CoI says, which what this is really about. That's the behavior this is intended to prevent. --Elvey(tc) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as the OP. Elvey's behavior is only getting more disruptive as this thread continues. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Draconian measures simply do not work, and the evidence that they are needed in the case at hand is weak. If the stick is being dropped, let it stay on the ground. Collect (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't see anything Draconian about a 6-month ban from a single noticeboard. Nor do I see a dropping of the stick with respect to the added comments about "dirty campaign tricks". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
      • What am I supposed to do? I'm supposed to be OK with the misrepresentation of the vote, the misrepresentation of my views, the double jeopardy, etc? I have to be OK with those things or I'm not dropping the stick? Seriously? You would be totally OK with it if a vote to ban you was mis-counted against you, your views were misrepresented, and when you asked that they be presented accurately, your request was blown off? Sorry, but I'm a human being. I have feelings. Despite all the misrepresentation, I haven't cursed anyone out. I don't see you accepting my request for someone work with me. --Elvey(tc) 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Tryptofish to be clear, the proposal is a topic ban from "COI, broadly construed" - so not just the COIN noticeboard.Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's right. But, as is becoming ever-increasingly clear, it is far from Draconian, in context. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

For the record, all the votes above were made before Johnuniq's false summary of the vote was noted or corrected. Also, there was just a !vote on this; which shows a 6:4 result. Holding another one because there was no consensus because User:Collect, User:Snowded User:GoodDay and User:Elvey opposed is unfair and a policy violation.--Elvey(tc) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to note that I modified Elvey's formatting to make this section more manageable, but Elvey's reference to votes above refers to votes dated prior to 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC), so anything added subsequently to that time is after the response to the summary. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agreed to drop the stick, and have done so. I did:

  1. stop informing users who are told not to edit articles because they have a COI the truth - that the COI policy guideline only discourages users with a COI from editing but does not forbid it and
  2. Stop informing users that if it applies to them, they must comply with the ToU clauses requiring disclosure of FCoI.

The quality of the reasoning in the !vote so far is interesting. There isn't any. Proposals must be !votes. So I'd appreciate a succinct description from anyone voting support of what I've supposedly done wrong that doesn't (unlike much of what's come so far) grossly misrepresent what I've done, or ignore my defenses, or throw out [[WP: links without explanation and evidence. You want to ban me cuz I "exhausted the patience of the community"? What am I supposed to learn from that? Cuz right now, what I'm hearing is that the policies and guidelines be damnd; you can respect them and still get banned. Anyone willing to work with me to understand what I've done wrong, please say so here. Someone I can run some edits by before making them could work well. Johnuniq provided a reason for his !vote. (It was based on blatantly false evidence, yes, but at least he offered a non-circular reason, which no one else has.)

I hadn't read of any of Jytdogs promises to change his behavior regarding COI topics, and so I regret how I responded when I saw him misrepresenting policy again. --Elvey(tc) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support This User talk:Johnuniq#Deliberately introducing incorrect information into an ANI discussion is not dropping the stick and reinforces the concerns expressed throughout this thread.MarnetteD|Talk 23:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • What am I supposed to do? I'm supposed to be OK with the misrepresentation of the vote, the misrepresentation of my views, the double jeopardy, etc? I have to be OK with those things or I'm not dropping the stick? Seriously? You would be totally OK with it if a vote to ban you was mis-counted against you, your views were misrepresented, and when you asked that they be presented accurately, your request was blown off? Sorry, but I'm a human being. I have feelings. Despite all the misrepresentation, I haven't cursed anyone out. --Elvey(tc) 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Try not to yourself blocked entirely? That's why dropping the stick is about. There's more to harassment and disruption than cursing people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I asked what to do, not what to not do. I'm supposed to be OK with the misrepresentation of the vote, the misrepresentation of my views, the double jeopardy, etc? I have to be OK with those things or I'm not dropping the stick? You didn't answer that question. Please do. And see section below--Elvey(tc) 00:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments above. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a ban on all COI-related commentary not just the board, as I said above. The antics go way beyond disruption at the noticeboard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • For the record, I see that as a !vote about #6, because that's what you refer to, and hence a !vote in favor of Jytdog misrepresenting WP:CoI and against me pointing out what it actually is. I already agreed to stop doing that. So you're apparently voting for punitive measures. --Elvey(tc) 00:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
      • No, I'm voting that based on your inability to conduct yourself when there are potential COI issues. Your false dichotomy routine of either I support your antics or I support Jytdog's views on COI policy don't work on me. Let the closer determine how my vote goes, not your personal opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ban as stated by Ricky81682 and per MarnetteD. Having read through this, really quite lengthy, thread, it's obvious that Elvey just doesn't know when to stop. The explosion at Johnuniq for an easy to make miscount and the subsequent histrionics at GWH's talk page is evidence enough that Elvey needs to take a step back, whether it be voluntary or imposed. Blackmane (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed. I have, i think, read the whole of this, and followed it down several rabbit holes, and i cannot see any further editing by Elvey on the topic of COI ending well until he takes the time to understand all that he has been told. Honestly, i feel he's lucky to be getting off this lightly, as some of his actions (to my mind) clearly reach extremely poor levels and he's been flirting with a longer-term block. Cheers, LindsayHello 09:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support- I don't really see any alternative at this point. This user simply won't drop the stick on his own and also seems to have suffered a near-fatal overdose of IDHT. Reyk YO! 10:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: I see all kinds of red flags in Elvey's combative, "everyone else is at fault" mentality here; even after a warning it took a block to force them to stop disrupting this thread with their repetitive wikilawyering about vote process. Elvey's counter-proposed solution is more "you guys are wrong but I'll go along with it" rather than owning that they are the one that is wrong, as many users above have strained to explain. None of that points to a user who will drop the stick, so I fully support a topic ban from the subject of COI which they don't understand/refuse to accept. Furthermore, clear evidence has been presented that Elvey followed Jytdog to several articles expressly to WP:HOUND them, so I support the suggested one-way interaction ban as well. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. My patience is certainly exhausted, thanks to WP:IDHT here in addition to issues already noted above. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose but with qualification. I can't see any real progress here and while I think there are wider issues around COI I can see that Elvey is his/her own worse enemy. If Elvey will accept a voluntary withdrawal from direct editing but with the right to raise concerns with a third party editor for review then that might work. If that is not OK then I would support a three month topic ban ----Snowded TALK 21:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly there are broader issues here with regard to Elvey becoming needlessly combative and retreating into IDHT stances in any area where their behaviour has come into question, but what concerns me most are the original (and to my mind, substantiated) claims of hounding which set the discussion off in the first place. I'm sure plenty of people can relate to Elvey's no-love-lost disposition towards pharmaceutical reps, but Wikipedia is not meant to be a tool for editor's personal political crusades. These comments were clearly off-topic, hostile, and in no way involved with or relevant to the improvement of the project. I echo the sentiments of Ricky81682 and others that Elvey's has used COI and other policy principles as cover to harass or otherwise adopt needlessly adversarial and disruptive behaviours with regard to other editors on issues to which said policies do not really apply. And given their resistance to accepting a clear consensus of their fellow editors here that this and other of their behaviours are inappropriate, I think we can trust they will not re-examine their behaviour with regard to the relevant policies of their own accord, so they ought to be removed from the areas in which they cannot conform to community expectations. Frankly, I'd have proposed an indefinite TBAN with a chance to appeal after a year, or even a block, but we can hope the current measure will suffice. Snow let's rap 08:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Vote results[edit]

Proposal evaluations must not be mere !vote counts, but rather argument evaluations. So I asked for a succinct description from anyone voting support of what I've supposedly done wrong that doesn't (unlike much of what's come so far) grossly misrepresent what I've done, or ignore my defenses, or throw out [[WP: links without explanation and evidence. You want to ban me just the same, do so based on something I can learn from. Cuz right now, what I'm hearing is that the policies and guidelines be damned; you can respect them and still get banned. Anyone willing to work with me to understand what I've done wrong, please say so here. Someone I can run some edits by before making them could work well. Johnuniq provided such a reason for his !vote. (It was based on blatantly false evidence, yes, but at least he offered a non-circular reason, which no one else has.)

I might as well shut up now and take my beating or retire after some shady user closes this double jeopardy !vote, and not count the votes of User:Snowded or User: GoodDay, or make note of the changes I agreed to. I've said enough. Not going to change any minds no matter how valid my defence. --Elvey(tc) 00:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Simple question which you will sidestep I'm sure but how is this in any way useful in terms of fighting COI on Wikipedia? It looks like nothing more than you figuring out someone's COI and then using it to attack the entity you want to attack. You aren't Perry Masoning anyone there, just going for a cheap shot. Your goal seems to be finding problems with editors (COI being the convenient tool of the moment but civility is always a backup) so that you can lord it over people which is more destructive than any COI issues we could ever have. It's a grudge mentality that's the problem not your personal beliefs about policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, somewhere in the middle of User talk:Elvey (Elvey refactored the page but these are the relevant edits) is a response to this. Even though this was brought up at the start of this I think, the response there reiterates my concern that Elvey treats COI issues as a tool to take advantage of, which is far from our purposes. We are not WikiNews and we are not looking for another Edward R. Murrow. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Elvey blocked for 31 hrs for ongoing disruption of this ANI discussion[edit]

I warned Elvey on his talk page ( [42] ) to stop disrupting the ANI discussion regarding his sanction as he had been. He wall-of-texted my talk page in response (acceptable) and continued here (not acceptable). I have blocked him for 31 hrs. I am concerned about a wider NOTHERE question after this string of behavior. I am not doing anything more than the 31 hr block, reporting that here, and noting my wider concern. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We're at a WP:ROPE crossroads here. Let's see where this goes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


Update - two of them, both at Snowded's page:

  • Where's Elvey? He declared here that he saw no more point in continuing to discuss things here and took up Snowded's offer to review COI matters about which he has concerns.
  • The effort to continue HOUNDING me has continued, now by proxy, for pete's sake, here also at Snowded's talk page (there is no COI stuff at Crop desiccation; Elvey had just followed me there in his hounding). There is no dropping of the stick.Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
and so, after I pointed out this further effort to hound me, Elvey deleted that thread (including others' comments), with an edit note that misrepresents why he went to that page and what the follow up was all about, which is stirring up stale, settled stuff on that page.Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing:[edit]

S/he shows single purpose editing, trying to add their ideas wherever s/he sees fit, but sometimes seems to be disruption for the sake of disruption (a way of wasting my time), like here. Repeats continually the need for references but does not add them, like here, or startling claims. They removed fully valid verification when they did not like it. Despite their eventual participation in discussion, shows no consensus building, and it is plagued with accusatory and incoherent language, sticking to their point and failing to listen to the arguments provided by other editors.
The pages affected have been protected by bot, but as it happens that has established the IP's reverted last version in a number of articles while they were being discussed on the talk page, which appears to me a kind of reward for disruption, since protection affects all editors alike. The latest IP editor will feel free to act again on August 3, when the ban to edit those articles is lifted. I request a clear indefinite block on and, if possible, its sockpuppets, to avoid further disruption to the WP. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(Remarks) I think that it is Iñaki who has an agenda and adds Basque origins (such in the case of Banu Qasi which I reverted) without references. By the way, I am not the IP. The IP's reversions were correct. --Maragm (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No references?
Basque kingdom of Navarre;
  • Possessing the Land: Aragon's Expansion Into Islam's Ebro Frontier Under Alfonso the Battler:1104-1134, by Clay Stalls, page 12.[43]
  • The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe, by Wendy Davies, Paul Fouracre, Cambridge University Press, page 97.[44]
  • World Monarchies and Dynasties, by John Middleton, page 95.[45]
  • Spain: An Oxford Archaeological Guide, by Roger Collins, page 31.[46]
Inigo Arista a Basque;
  • Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of Al-Andalus, by Hugh Kennedy, page 61.[47]
  • R.L. Trask, The History of Basque, page 14, "In about 824 a certain Inigo Arista in turn otherthrew the last trappings of Frankish hegemony and founded the tiny Kingdom of Pamplona. Inigo, like most of the population of Navarre was a Basque."[48]
  • A History of Medieval Spain, by Joseph F. O'Callaghan, page 107.[49]
  • Conquerors, Brides, and Concubines, by Simon Barton, page 26.[50]
  • The Encyclopaedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Volume 25, page 541.[51]
According to this source, Basque was the "lingua navarorrum", but not used in a written or official capacity;
  • Basque Sociolinguistics: Language, Society, and Culture, by Estibaliz Amorrortu, page 14.[52]
Maybe the IP and Maragm should do a better job of researching, instead of making accusations based on their own personal opinions. I will stick with the facts I have listed above. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Listen, IP (or should I say Maragm?), I did not bring the issue here about references, whatever you have add them on the right place and the right statement, refuting the main statement, that the king was a Basque, period. The problem is as follows, not only did Kansas Bear add loads of references on the talk page, but I added myself one fully valid inline citation and you replaced it gratuitously. You are wasting my time and that of other good editors big time, contribute what you need to contribute, and do it as smooth as possible. You engaged in blatant vandalism in Corruption in Navarre, adding an incongruous explanation line, since you removed loads of content you did not like. I demand a rapid executive measure, I do not have time to engage in a long discussion that will last days, since that is the disruptive editor's aim, to cause frustration. I demand an executive measure over an IP tracking disruptively my edits, non-responsive to anything, and not collaborating. Maybe the vandalism resource is the right place, the IP has been warned by now. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The only thing was to add this remark on the talk page of the Banu Qasi article agreeing with the IP's reversion. I can assure you I am not the IP and if you have any doubts go to a checkuser. --Maragm (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I find terribly shameful this way of ¿reasoning? consisting of accusing others of being the same person, in order to disguise the lack of true reasons about the content of the disputed articles.

If anybody want an administrator to check my connection data to verify that I am not another user different than me, please, go on. I do not have anything to hide. The truth is this conflict is, as Maragm said, that the user Iñaki LL has an obvious strategy of imposing slanted labels and biased or false claims focused on the consideration of Navarre as a "Basque" territory. Sometimes he does it by imposing a statement without any references. For example in the article 1833 Territorial Division of Spain, in which he is obsessed with impossing the biased expression "Basque Districts" (regarding Navarre as one of them) in spite of the fact that there is no academic usage of it (as he knows perfectly, because he has been unable to give any reference). Sometimes he does by adding politically slanted labels to historical figures and trying to support that with references of books published 50 years ago or whose verification can't be done by internet. For example in the case of Iñigo Arista the vast majority of the Navarrese historians agree about the absence of evidences about the filiation of Íñigo Arista, and significantly (as I remarked in the Talk Page of the article by giving the due reference) the Gran Enciclopedia Navarra (a well known and prestigious source of information comparable to the British Encyclopaedia whose content is accessible on line) states this fact, and tens of references of books and scientific papers (much more recent that the given by Iñaki LL) regard the Kingdom of Navarre as Navarrese/European/Hispanic kingdom and not as a "Basque Kingdom", moreover no king of Navarre entitle himself "king of Basques", never). In the case of the article Corruption in Navarre everybody can realize by reading only a few lines that the writing is clearly biased and is utterly aimed to convince that a particular political party is "corrupt" by regarding irrationally as "corruption" several events that they have nothing to do with corruption like a problem with a catering company (!). (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Your effort to add references, Kansas, is highly appreciated, no matter what the actual target issue is. As for Maragm, I did not report for sock-puppetry, although there are at least 3 different IPs with strings pulled by the same master. You speak like, your accusatory style lacking in detail is just as coarse and incongruous as that of the IP, well, you do not let me many chances (WP:DUCK). You intervened here just about 20 minutes after I posted the report template on's page, you claimed you had reverted me in article Banu Qasi, well, a simple check of the diffs tells it all here and here (helloooo). By the way, I made clear my views on this issue in the Talk:Banu Qasi, but both Maragm and her (her?) alter ego have shown a total inability to engage in consensus and have kept pushing ("it is utterly illegitimate stating that the Banu Qasi were 'Basque'", it seems that for the IP it is about a moral issue...). I won't dwell on content issues or incongruous talking, as attempted by in the last intervention above ("books published 50 years ago", don't make me laugh, you were attempting to justify your position with an 800 AD propagandistic reference!) since this is about someone throwing out of the window the WP guidelines and policies all in a row, as well as WP:HOUND. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
You say: "...your accusatory style lacking in detail is just as coarse and incongruous..:". I have not accused anyone of anything. And yes, you're right, I did not revert in the Banu Qasi article and just added a remark and a source, sorry for the despiste. Lorenzo Jiménez has written not just the article I mentioned but a book, recently published on the Banu Qasi which I don't have with me because I'm on vacation, but I have many other sources that I use to reference articles and none mention the supposed Basque origin of the Banu Qasi. And as far as I remember, I have not intervened in any of the other articles you mentioned, just the Banu Qasi and I always log in with my nick and I never edit under an IP, so stop making the accusation that I am that IP with whom I just happened to agree on the Banu Qasi issue and added a reference. Agur ba. --Maragm (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
As I explained on my talk page, I stick to evidence shown in all editors' records, you Maragm engaged yourself in the dispute. Instead of adding accuracy and detailed evidence, you have come to say that I want to add Basque origins and "agenda" and stuff, nothing said on's irregular behaviour. In fact, if you get down to detail, you will read that I may agree that it is not certain that Cassius was Basque (nor that he was Visigoth), but all the same... In fact, I did not add that information myself originaly. not only added its own rejection of just about anything Basque, but added generic information on the religion of the Banu Qasi lineage ("Christian", Syrian Christian perhaps??? Did not the article mention that they were muwallads?, sic), and other ambiguous information (Pyrenean...), all without references. Well, no wonder, since the IP's drive is to cause disruption and frustration. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
You'd better use all the time that you're spending in making false accusations, in providing references about those inexistent "Basque districts" (until now you have been utterly unable to do), in showing the references supporting that a problem with a catering company is "corruption" (you have been also unable to) or in explaining the reason why the Gran Enciclopedia Navarra (the most important on line source of information about Navarre) is not a valid source of information for Wikipedia.The truth about Iñigo Arista is almost the same about the Banu Qasi. The filiation of this historical figure is unknown (that is what Gran Enciclopedia Navarra confirms). There is no notice about his birth (date and place). The only medieval source of information about the lineage Arista states that the familiar origins of Iñigo Arista were in the French Central Pyrenees (Bigorra). But even that is not enough in order to state that Iñigo Arista was bigorran, cause this only source of information is dated two centuries later, and so the only certainty about this matter is that his origin remain unknown (as the proper Wikipedia article explains). Trying to report to different administrators or in different days (as you do each time that an administrator decline to validate your desire of imposition of unreferenced content or introduction of biased labels), or trying to undermine the credibility of a user by sprinkling accusations of being the same person (as you are doing in order to disguise your lack of reasons about the true content of the dispute or your argumentative impotence against Maragm) are just additional evidences of the questionable aims of your behaviour. Please, don´t confuse knowledgement with political opinions. There are many things in the world and many aspects of the reality that don´t match with my preferences, but I have a minimum of honesty in order to not to try to impose them on knowledgement. Think again, please. (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
And, obviously, I carry on being the same IP user, now identified and not with because my device works with dynamic IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, I must agree with the IP. The artice on Íñigo Arista is protected now and contains your version, again, A Basque origin, as you had erroneously claimed on the Banu Qasi. Yes, you definitely have an agenda and it is you behavor that is irregular. Now go to a checkuser to confirm if I and the IP are the same person. I guess you can't take any criticism and lash out when contradicted, accusing anybody who disagrees with being a sockpuppet or whatever. --Maragm (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
O, this is funny, so you were "over and out", and here you come again, Maragm, with personal sweeping accusations, well done for your contribution to the WP! Listen, if you are on holidays as you said, and you feel you got involved inadvertently, get a break and chill out, instead of adding fire as you are doing now. Again, you, like the IP, are not sticking to evidence but ad hominem sweeping arguments, and you are talking yourself out.
As I said, there is not talk on content, I accept whatever provided by the references (let's move on... even the "Gran" Enciclopedia, a whitewashing resource sponsored and managed by the anti-Basque, now outgoing, sectarian government of Navarre), over. That is just a diversion of the disruptive editing, POV pushing, WP:HOUND, removal of content and references and a conspicuous do-as-I-say attitude. My work on the WP is my best support, and everything is there, so I have no worries. Sorry, I have to say, what worries me is the absence of the administrator, this is a straightforward case as regards WP guidelines and policies.— Preceding Iñaki LL comment added by Iñaki LL (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Labelling the Gran Enciclopedia Navarra as a "whitewashing resource sponsored and managed by the anti-Basque sectarian government of Navarre" is a major evidence about that your behaviour in Wikipedia is not related with any sincere desire of adding knowledgement to this project. Take notice: The Gran Enciclopedia Navarra is a prestigious academic work published for the first time in 1990 (when the government that you label "anti-Basque" it was not even in power). (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
As for the IP, o, at last a speck of honesty. It is funny that you say I switch administrators, well I have not. I used once and you were temporarily blocked for disruptive editing and vandalism. In contrast, despite being an experienced WP editor if your knowledge of the WP is anything to go by, you avoid warnings and blocks behind different IPs, so that they can not be held against you, but well, now we know at least that there is master behind a number of IPs. Bye Iñaki LL (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
First, Maragm and I were "the same person". Now, behind us is an evil "master". What is the next that you are going to try in order to disguise that you are unable to explain why a problem with a catering company is corruption and to give references about the usage of those inexistent "Basque districts"?? (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I won't comment on the manipulative rhetoric above. The same POV-pushing, the-worse-the-better Battleground mentality. I add a link to Talk:Navarre, as added by Kansas below for further clues. Iñaki LL (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Fixed link to the relevant article in previous comment: Talk Kingdom of Navarre (it was added below by Kansas anyway). Iñaki LL (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Amazing that so much can be placed on the Enciclopedia Navarra when it makes no mention of Inigo's ethnicity! And yet, in contrast, the IP can categorically ignore sources he does not like! IF any of the sources I have posted on the Talk:Kingdom of Navarre page are "biased" then the IP needs to "put up or shut up" and take those sources to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard!
Also, just where is the Basque article in the Gran Enciclopedia Navarra? Link? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic's WP:TE at Talk:Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation‎ [edit]

I call to your attention what I believe to be prima facie violations of WP:TE#One who ignores or refuses to answer ... by Xenophrenic at Talk:Ward_Churchill_academic_misconduct_investigation. Examples of these WP:TE violations:

1) In response to: "Justify including in the article information from a source that the source believes is absurd or manifestly untrue." You have not answered the question. How do you justify you [sic.] edit?" Xenophrenic continues to not address the issue of "absurd or manifestly untrue".

2) There are a number of good-faith questions that I have asked that Xenophrenic has simply ignored; see the talk page. If you'd like I'll list them; let me know if you'd like me to do so. Deicas (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Observation from an uninvolved editor. I noticed that Xenophrenic responded to several issues that you raised.
  • First, if you are going to ask a question, do so. That involves an interrogatory, not a declarative sentence.
  • Second, your statements seem to be directive, as in "Justify," "hereinbelow provide," etc.
  • Third, you are not entitled to an answer.
  • Fourth, this appears to be WP:WIKILAWYERING.
  • Finally, you may want to work on your communication style. GregJackP Boomer! 22:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
User:GregJackP: just above you assert "Third, you are not entitled to an answer." How do you reconcile this assertion with the Wikipedia policy described in WP:TE#One who ignores or refuses to answer ...?
Deicas (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:TE is not a policy, it is an essay. You are not entitled to an answer. No one elected you wikigod, nor is there any policy that states you are entitled to an answer. GregJackP Boomer! 00:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
User:GregJackP: I call to your attention, from WP:TE, "Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors.". Note, above, "How do you justify you [sic.] edit?". How do you explain the failure of Xenophrenic to answer this question, which lies at the crux of the disputed edit, without seeing a violation of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith obligation?
Deicas (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
User:GregJackP: with regard to your comments above "Fourth, this appears to be WP:WIKILAWYERING" and "No one elected you wikigod". Would you please either strike these comments out or justify your violation of your Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith obligation?
Deicas (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:TE is an essay. It is not a rule, nor a policy, nor a guideline. It is what someone thinks. No more, no less.
The cites you are making above are perfect examples of wikilawyering. After you requested I strike, I looked at your edit history, and since 2004 in your 450 edits, you have been repeatedly warned about wikilawyering. It's a pattern of behavior, and you are exhibiting it here, again. Please stop doing so.
In any event, you are not entitled to an answer from Xenophrenic, nor to a further answer from me. GregJackP Boomer! 01:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
User:GregJackP: With regard to your "WP:TE is an essay. It is not a rule, nor a policy, nor a guideline", above: in retrospect I should have cited WP:DR which *is* policy. Specificity: "To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page". I have difficulty reconciling this policy with your statement above: "... you are not entitled to an answer from Xenophrenic ..."? Would you please expand on your reasoning?
Deicas (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Nope. GregJackP Boomer! 05:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be a routine content dispute, acerbated by: (a) a very minor edit war or slightly aggressive BRD-ing, and (b) some difficulty reconciling communications styles between Xenophrenic, who describes themselves as "shy" about talk page comments, and Deicas, who is fairly voluminous, pointed, and slightly odd in their talk page discussion style. All in good faith no doubt, each of us has our unique voice, it just looks like people need a little extra effort to try to communicate. It's only going to become a behavior issue if people make it one, otherwise that's what talk pages are for. Although perhaps a content issue there are some significant BLP and NPOV policy issues here because we have a prominent professor who claimed (falsely it appears) to be Native American and who was fired for academic misconduct, promoting or making up untrue but widely believed historical claims that American military committed acts of genocide by spreading small pox blankets among indigenous villages. The professor is still alive and still has defenders, so this topic can get quite heated. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Even the above statement can raise discussion. I'm no fan of the wannabe, but I would state that he was "promoting or making up untrue using unsupported, but widely believed historical claims. . . ." There are some others who have published along the same lines, and it is a matter of faith among the tribes (see Denzin). I don't think it is an ANI issue. GregJackP Boomer! 07:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's the weirdness of Wikipedia's PC policies, rule #1 about fight club history is that you can't discuss fight club history. Some person, rightly upset over historical events that could justifiably be called a genocide, starts making stuff up including that he is a descendent of the victims. Meanwhile, we editors have to tiptoe around the facts because of obscure policies that affect even our ability to discuss policy amongst ourselves. So we cannot describe people as frauds or impostors, even in the rather interesting space of — what do they call this now? — trans-racialism. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I agree with you that he is a fraud who took an honorary membership and went way too far with it. The problem is that there was genocide of the American Indian, but since that was one of his research areas, any proposal or position that he ever advocated is immediately attacked without ever going to the actual merits of the argument. GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Xenophrenic has repeatedly included information in the article deriving from Guenter Lewy's writing (ie. [53]) that Lewy describes as non-creditable (coming from a source that "manifestly does not suggest that the U.S. Army distributed infected blankets"). So I ask User:Xenophrenic why he's including information from Lewy that Lewy believes is not creditable. And I get no explanation. And I ask variations of the question. And spend more time. And I get no explanation. If I had a putative explanation for including non-creditable information then the content dispute is addressable. Absent an explanation then there is no content inclusion reason to discuss. Hence, I view this as a behavioural question. If as, Wikidemon suggests, this should be viewed as a NPOV issue then I'll happily agree.
Deicas (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Asked and answered above. GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Another way, resolving this issue as a content dispute, would be for user:Xenophrenic to provide a citation to Stiffarm and Lane for the claim that Lewy finds so objectionable. Then the portion of the article under dispute would look something like: "Stiffarm and Lane assert X [citation to Stiffarm and Lane]. Lewy views X as not plausible because ... [citation to Lewy]".
Deicas (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
That's content, not behavior. GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it is content, not behavior, but it may be a way to end the current dispute. Isn't that what we're striving for?
Deicas (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic just removed a portion of text with citations [[54]] providing as the reason for the removal "(continued removal of Lewy assertion pending Talk resolution, as half of it was left in the article.)". The issue in dispute on the talk page is one, of multiple, uses of one of the deleted citations? How is this not disruptive editing? Deicas (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Would someone *please* persuade User:Xenophrenic to stop his disruptive editing? Please?
Deicas (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in a proposal that, if accepted, would resolve the behavior issue, close this AN/I, and roll the dispute back to a content dispute?

Deicas (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Stalled AN/I: User:Xenophrenic's WP:TE at Talk:Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation[edit]

Would an uninvolved administrator(s) please look at User:Xenophrenic's WP:TE at Talk:Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation? This AN/I seems to be making no progress. Note that the article on which the disputed behaviour is occurring is flagged as "The subject of this article is controversial". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talkcontribs) 06:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not quite a stall but things seem to be gong in the wrong direction. Not a full scale edit war, but both editors in question are now at about 2RR in the last 24 hours or so. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I second User:Wikidemon's suggestion to "Please keep discussion in one place". I suggest that the disputed article section be rolled-back to the start of this dispute and protected until this AN/I is resolved.
Deicas (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I noted that Deicas reverted Xenophrenic's edits to his preferred version, Xenophrenic answered Deicas's question on the talk page,([55], noting that Wikidemon was participating in discussions) and then Deicas refused to further discuss the content issue until the ANI was resolved ([56], because Xenophrenic did not "comply" with the demand of Deicas), which is, in my view, disruptive on the part of Deicas. ANI is for behavior problems, not content disputes. Either this should go back to the article talk page, or we should WP:BOOMERANG Deicas for his bad faith in resolving the content dispute. This seems to clearly be an example of WP:WIKILAWYERING, which he has been warned for on multiple occasions. [57], [58], where he was topic-banned from the Paul Krugman article for similar behavior. GregJackP Boomer! 09:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
As User:GregJackP has allowed editing of the article section to occur concurrently with resolution of this AN/I the situation has become very confusing and the BRD cycle is not being performed.
User:GregJackP: You you assert [[59]] "Xenophrenic answered Deicas's question on the talk page,([[60]]". I've asked a number of questions: which *specific* question do you believe Xenophrenic meaningfully answered? What text from Xenophrenic talk page edit do you believe is the meaning answer? Deicas (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
User:GregJackP: I observe that you have, yet again accused[[61]] me of WP:WIKILAWYERING. You've done this before and said that my citing of Wikipedia policy was an act of WP:WIKILAWYERING and refused further clarification. Would you please cite the policy or guideline that deprecates the citing of policy or guidelines? Your accusation is also contrary to theWP:WIKILAWYERING essay:
Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their opponent is a wiki-lawyer. This is not a good faith tactic and does not foster a collegial consensus-seeking atmosphere. Therefore, any accusation of wikilawyering should include a brief explanation justifying use of the term.
Deicas (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
User:GregJackP: You say I "*refused* to further discuss the content issue until the AN/I was resolved" this is not true. I engaged in wishful thinking that this dispute could be resolved in an orderly manner in a single location. So much for that wish. You accuse me of making a "demand". All I've done propose solutions that have been ignored. Deicas (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I also note the "the phrase 'You are wikilawyering' is an insult" and you also accuse me of "bad faith in resolving the content dispute". BAD FAITH? I'm just trying to persuade User:Xenophrenic to abide by the BRD cycle, thus avoiding the current chaos, and to meaningfully respond to questions about his edits and reversions [citations of my requests available on request]. How are these actions evidence of bad faith? Deicas (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
[User:GregJackP]: I've asked you a number of meaningful questions above. I hope that you won't again reply "In any event, you are not entitled to ... a further answer from me. "
Deicas (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This edit is an example of WP:WIKILAWYERING. I also linked to places where you have been warned about it in the past, and noted that you were topic-banned from the Paul Krugman article. Those diffs and links are called evidence, at least in the wiki-sense. Keep up this nonsense and I'll propose another topic-ban. Your call. GregJackP Boomer! 12:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


This is very obviously not a new user, and has pitched into a number of disputes such as over an infobox on Rod Steiger. The WP:DUCK is quacking, but does anyone know the duck man is? Guy (Help!) 14:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Might this be associated with the above discussion on the same talk page? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Could possibly just be coincidental -- he was only involved in the Steiger infobox RfC because he had added an infobox to the article earlier that day [62] (which was in fact different from the infobox which had been there before and had been removed [63]). Although, honestly, why he would create an infobox for Steiger out of the blue is a bit odd; but he could have seen the discussion and decided to make a better one. What other disputes are you seeing that he has been in? Softlavender (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spaghetti07205.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a surprising overlap on some fairly obscure articles previously edited by User:Eric Corbett: [64]. I'm not for a moment suggesting that this account is related to Eric, but it may be an editor who has had some prior interaction with him. Yunshui  15:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The last blocked out editor that had overlap with him was a sock of User:Mattisse (User:EChastain). That is one place I would start to look. Dennis Brown - 15:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a case of stalking after EC's edits. Those are really obscure articles! I share some interests with Eric, and I've never been to any of them. Definitely someone with a history. This is an interesting edit summary: [65] - I wonder who the "we" - which they immediately deny - [66] is supposed to be... ScrpIronIV 15:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
In case it needs to be said then I'll say it: Spaghetti07205 has absolutely nothing to do with me. Eric Corbett 15:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I filed an SPI on Spaghetti07205 this morning. The account is one month old and yet they know an awful lot about the infobox dispute. I don't like the sound of this one bit... JAGUAR  16:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Well the "we" is clearly Lukeno94 [67] [68], who already has a (now closed) ANI running right now [69] (can someone make that a permalink for when it gets archived)?. This Spaghetti character and his similars have an awful lot going on at ANI right now (these in addition to the preceding: [70], [71] [please make these permalinks]), and perhaps all of them are related and trolling. Softlavender (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note -- In light of the above, I would now render the Rod Steiger RfC null and void on the basis that it was established on the back of stalking. The current RfC should be shut down immediately. Would someone facilitate that please? CassiantoTalk 18:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Response – the "we" was a typo, as I noted in my edit summary, I meant to say "I". Spaghetti07205 (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, because the key "I" is so close to the two(!) keys "WE" on the keyboard. Funny how you also know about dummy edits after only five weeks and 250 edits. Softlavender (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's an impossible typo. More like a Freudian slip.--Atlan (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello? Can someone end this thread already? No one's commented for three days, and a CheckUser has been run and has confirmed there is no evidence I've used other accounts. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
A bot archives threads exactly three days after the last comment; now it will take three more days since you've added that post. There is actually no reason to close this with a purple box since nothing was either done or not done; the SPI is on hold rather than closed. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


I tried to explain the user that WP:MOS disfavors sandwitching text between images and the infobox. They have chosen to edit-war in Zhovkva (a town in Ukraine). Normally, I would just go to WP:3RRN, however, they also went to my talk page and left a message in Russian [72] saying that since I am Russian (which they apparently infer from my mothertongue), I may not edit articles about Ukraine and should go editing articles on Russia and Putin. I believe this requires some administrative intervention. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Subsequently, they accused me in vandalism [73]. They are writing in Russian, possibly to avoid scrutiny. I respond them in English.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Ymblanter said absolutely horrible about my editing. I think, it was some tactless on his part. What were temples remove photos from the article? Sorry for bad English. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC) I can speak Russian well.
to Ymblanter, Iryna Harpy I'm not accusing Ymblanter of vandalism. I said it looks like vandalism. but he have perverted their way to my phrase.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I said that the layout of the article after your edits looks horrible. I removed the pictures per WP:MOS, and this is the third time I am trying to explain this to you. If you do not speak English, may be you should not be editing here.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you two can agree to display the four non-infobox images in a gallery rather than deleting some of them or forcing some of them into a position that produces an awkward "river" of text. Discussion on the talk page seems called for here. Deor (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, the user has consistently demonstrated problematic behavior and inability to comply with our policies. You may want to check their talk page. Additionally, their command of English seems to be insufficient, they clearly do not understand the messages. And, for the record, I started a talk page discussion before coming here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
to Ymblanter You said absolutely horrible [74]. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you actually speak enough English to understand my comment? Do you understand what I said?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I very much doubt that the user does, Ymblanter. The editor has a history POV-pushing on Eastern Europe related articles, but doesn't seem to understand policies and guidelines when they're pointed out to him/her. Even if we are to assume good faith, their command of English is too poor to meet with the WP:COMPENTENCE needed to contribute productively hence, unfortunately, their presence here has become WP:DE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
This is exactly my impression. I refer to WP:MOS, and suddenly they say I should keep clear of the Ukrainian articles because of my bias. It is not even an overreaction, it is a clear lack of understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
to Ymblanter exactly, clear lack of understanding (100%). It is not my first conflict with you. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't we have WP:EMBASSY to facilitate communication in such cases?
  • Getting back to the original complaint, this seems like an uncollegial nationalist (pro-Ukraine, anti-Russian) who is editing English-Wikipedia incompetently and behaving uncivilly. I favor a block. Carrite (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
to Carrite Ymblanter tells some lies, I believe, if he hasn't the right to edit articles about Ukraine. Of course, he has every right to do so. But since this article is about the Ukrainian town Zhovkva, this theme known me better than him. I think, his actions in the article, when he removed the photo of the Ukrainian church and the Rome church, were not constructive. Regarding my uncollegial nationalism - you are mistaken. But I am Ukrainian, and might know something about my country some more than the citizens of other countries.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
What about: Жолква - это Россия? Город основан украинским поляком. Пожайлуйста [sic.], займитесь Россией, Путиным. Бальшое спасиба [sic.]. ? This is akin to an Austrian telling a German Wikipedian to stop editing about an Austrian village and to go back to writing about Germany and Hitler. That needs an apology, for starters. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Russian Пожалуйста transated like please in English. I only expressed a request to Ymblanter because he speaks Russian, better complements the article about Russia or president Putin, instead he had removed photos of churches from the article about Ukrainian town. Am I charged him? I thank him for his contribution and I am glad its constructive contribution to the Articles about Ukraine.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@Бучач-Львів: Please do not try to play other editors for fools. There are plenty of us who know Russian (and some of us actually know and speak Ukrainian far better than Russian). Fobbing off the remainder of your missive by pointing out your use of 'please' in the context (where it is far more likely to be read as, and intended to mean, [I'll thank you not to]) is intentionally misleading as there is nothing polite about the remainder of the message: read as a whole, it in absolutely and undeniably WP:UNCIVIL.
Furthermore, it is indicative of the WP:PERSONAL attitude you adopted virtually from the moment you began editing English language Wikipedia. Aside from the derisive manner in which you've approached Ymblanter, should I bring your Ukrainian language 'discussion' with Ezhiki to this forum and translate it precisely (that is, with the nuances thoroughly parsed) for non-Ukrainian speakers? Your attitude is arrogant and harsh towards anyone you even suspect of being Russian, and all you've managed to demonstrate to this point is that you are an unabashed bigot. Nonetheless, you persist in depicting yourself as being good faith and are unable to bring yourself to even apologise for your behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: sorry that you think that I want someone to deceive. I currently difficult to prove to you my opinion, because it is the opposite of what you still want to keep. Thank you. Sorry for my mistakes. But what you say if I initially changes in enwiki am constantly WP:PERSONAL attitude - that did not quite true. Sorry for google transl.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@Бучач-Львів: What it comes down to is the fact that you aren't assuming good faith about other long term, regular editors (in this case, we're talking about two administrators who have always been NPOV about the most contentious issues surrounding Eastern European articles). Rather than trying to WP:LISTEN, you are working on the assumption that they are POV pushers and telling them that they have no right to work on articles because they're Russian (or, in this case, you're assuming that they're Russian). They have tried to explain the policy and guideline based reasons for reverting your changes and/or modifying the content you've introduced. Interacting with other editors on a seriously misjudged assumption that they are automatically the 'enemy' because of your perception of ethnic prejudice undermines the entire project. Such an attitude is WP:BATTLEGROUND. No two editors are always going to agree on everything. Approaching any subject matter on preconceptions as to who they are and assuming an agenda is unacceptable. Any apologies should be offered to them, not to me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Бучач-Львів: Please refrain from adding Kyiv in any Kiev-related article by citing this letter before we reach any consensus. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Commenting here so that it does not get archived. The article still is in violation of WP:MOS, since the user is unable to understand what the problem is and just reverts everything.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The editor is clearly driven by nationalist agenda. As usual in such cases, big troubles are to be expected, if some rouge admin does not block the account. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ghirlandajo: What are the so-called nationalist problem is in Article Biliavyntsi, f. e.? How WP:PERSONAL? --Бучач-Львів (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


Sorted by Fut. Perf. (non-admin closure) -- Softlavender (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

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

The requested move at Talk:Bangalore#Requested move 27 July 2015 has become ludicrous as the result of obvious meat-puppetry. I recommend it be closed in an attempt to forestall further silliness. DrKiernan (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorted by FPaS, thanks! DrKiernan (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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

RfC spamming, canvasing, cross posting. User: HughD[edit]

HughD for violation of guidelines on publicizing a RfC, namely [and excessive cross-posting] and vote stacking. HughD opened a RfC to insert information into the article Americans for Prosperity.[[75]] This RfC was opened on July 9th and notifications were place in the following locations:

  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics [[76]]
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States[[77]]
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations [[78]]
  • Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers [[79]]

The initial posting may be WP:VOTESTACK because it was not posted to all the categories associated with the article and did include a category that would likely be inclined to support HughD's POV on the topic. The RfC should have also been posted in WikiProject Conservatism (a category listed with the article). The inclusion of Political activities of the Koch brothers may be seen as trying to stack the deck. HughD did not correct the failure to post the Project Conservatism noticeboard even after being warned.[[80]] - Note, warning dated July 27th

Later that day HughD added the following additional RfC notifications:

  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard [[81]]
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [[82]]
  • Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard [[83]]

Seven RfC (eight including a notice on the RfC noticeboard) seems more than sufficient.

As of July 17th HughD's proposal did not have a clear consensus for inclusion. Since that time HughD has published or bumped previous RfC 20 additional times. This includes adding new information which could be seen as biasing as well as targeting talk pages or noticeboards which he feels may be sympathetic to his POV while avoiding pages/boards that would likely oppose his view.

Postings at new locations:

  • Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) [[84]]

Bumps to original postings:

  • Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard [[85]]
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations [[86]]
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics [[87]]
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States [[88]]
  • Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers [[89]]

New postings at locations of previous postings:

  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [[90]]
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (second new post) [[91]]
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard [[92]]
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard [[93]]
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) (Original post was July 16th, 8 days prior) [[94]]
  • Talk:Citizens United v. FEC (This is a location that may find a sympathetic ear to HughD's POV thus is probably canvasing in addition to cross posting and spamming) [[95]]

Bumps after being warned of excessive posting/canvasing (Bumps/posts on July 30th or later)

  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [[96]]
  • Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard [[97]]
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations [[98]]
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics [[99]]
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States [[100]]
  • Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers [[101]]
  • Talk:Citizens United v. FEC [[102]]
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (this is actually yet another new post) [[103]]
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) [[104]]

User was warned of excessive posting/canvasing HughD was warned on his talk page prior to making the July 30th updates.[[105]] The user had been previously warned in conversation by a number of editors. [[106]], [[107]], [[108]], [[109]] Additionally Hugh has asked that others be aware of Wikipedia policies on canvassing.[[110]] Thus he is unlikely to be ignorant of the guidelines.

HughD has a history of disruptive editing on this and related topics and has 3 recent blocks (June 23rd, June 10th, April 10th). The most recent two are for edits related to this article [[111]]

This is an editor who should know better but is unwilling to work within the rules to get the changes he thinks are best. I'm posting this ANI as an outside editor who has replied to the RfC in question but has never edited on the subject.

HughD has been notified of this ANI. A notification will also be added to the article in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talkcontribs) 15:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - For additional context, folks might want to check out this other recent ANI complaint against HughD (not much came of it), and Hugh's recent AE filing against Arthur Rubin (ditto). This all relates to a broader and rather ugly dispute over the content of Americans for Prosperity that's been going on for some time. As someone who's been involved in this debate, I'll just say the same thing I said when this came up before; as disruptive as HughD's behavior may have been, the NPOV problem that he's been trying to correct is a very obvious and very real one, and he's been up against an awful lot of battleground behavior and IDHT from other editors in this dispute. Not saying that excuses any disruption he may have caused, but I do think that the conduct of parties on both sides of this dispute should be scrutinized carefully by un-involved admins. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Initial statement of reported editor All publicizing of the request for comment Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds is conformant with WP:RFC "Publicizing an RfC", WP:Discussion notices "Best practices", and WP:CANVASS.

WP:RFC reminds us that WP:CANVASS "prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased." WP:VOTESTACKING clearly prohibits selective notification based on who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view. Please note that the option of notifying WP:CONSERVATISM was discussed at article talk five days ago 27 July 2015 and following, please see. Please note that the reporting user has filed an ANI report of canvassing, but has not themselves notified WP:CONSERVATISM. Please note that no editor has notified WP:CONSERVATISM. There is no deadline. If the consensus is that notification to WP:CONSERVATISM is conformant, and an editor was willing to place the notification, I would support a reasonable extension to the RfC period to allow additional time for comments from the participants in WP:CONSERVATISM.

"Bumps" WP:Discussion notices "Best practices" states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and that "setting a time for the discussion to end" is a best practice.

WP:RFC authorizes publicizing an RfC at the "talk pages of closely related articles or policies." Political activities of the Koch brothers and Citizens United v. FEC are closely related to Americans for Prosperity, as evidenced by the "See Also" section, please see. Hugh (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note 19:24, 31 July 2015 my good colleague User:Capitalismojo, on record in the Survey section of the RfC, deleted Citizens United v. FEC from Americans_for_Prosperity#See_also. Hugh (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Kindly decline this report. An important aspect of this RfC is to solicit community-wide input regarding a local consensus regarding a local interpretation of our neutrality pillar. Your comments at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds are welcome by most of us. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Not seeing any canvasing, canvasing is by definition non neutral. What I saw was a neutrally worded message on multiple forums. I agree that this complaint needs to be dismissed. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see the canvasing links at the top of the ANI. There are two issues. The first, is that HughD has been selective in where he has posted his RfCs. The much bigger issue is spamming and cross posting. The excessive number of posts is spamming and against guidelines listed in the WP:CAN. Springee (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I am very happy to say that I support the right of HughD to post wherever and whenever he wants, just as I support the right of other editors to do so. "The solution to the problems caused by freedom of speech is more freedom of speech." This complaint should be dismissed post haste. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Any claim that the canvassing is "neutral" requires failure to understand basic English. Also, the postings should not contain the arguments for inclusion without including arguments against inclusion. Hugh's claim that reporting the RfC to WikiProject Conservatism would balance the canvassing is failed and irrelevant, unless Hugh is banned from the project and is unable to make the announcement. It's failed because the RfC has been going on with the unbalanced announcements for over two weeks, and irrelevant because it doesn't excuse Hugh's actions.
This is more appropriate on the discussion page of the RfC, but the only way the RfC could be perceived as not being hopelessly biased is for it to be closed, restarted with neutral wording, advertised ONLY to the projects, not the noticeboards or irrelevant talk pages, and the the current participants NOT specifically notified of the restart. I'd be willing to work with Hugh on neutral wording if he would agree not to make his non-neutral wording other than in the actual RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me Arthur, but I'm not seeing where Hugh made an "argument" for inclusion in any of the diffs provided above. What are you referring to specifically? Fyddlestix (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Commenting user @Arthur Rubin: WP:RFC says "one or more" and specifically authorizes notification of RfCs at noticeboards. On 9 July, after WP:NPOV was notified, you commented: "This is inappropriate WP:CANVASSing, especially since it's already been brought up on the reliable sources board, and consensus leaned against." May I respectfully ask, is it your interpretation of WP:CANVASS, that RfC notifications are limited to one and only one noticeboard? May I respectfully ask, is it your interpretation of WP:CANVASS, that an early local consensus at one venue, however weak, whichever direction, limits RfC notification at other venues? Hugh (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Commenting user @Arthur Rubin: WP:Discussion notices "Best practices" states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and that "setting a time for the discussion to end" is a best practice. On 31 July you deleted an update to the RfC notice on WP:NPOV setting a time for the discussion to end. On 31 July you deleted an update to the RfC notice on WP:ORN setting a time for the discussion to end. The RfC concerns a content issue at at Americans for Prosperity, a WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement related article. May I respectfully ask, do you believe deleting from a noticeboard, an update to an RfC notice setting an end date for a discussion of a content issue at a TPM article, was the type of edits our community had in mind when our Arbitration Committee relaxed your topic ban? Thank you for your thoughts. Hugh (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Commenting user @Arthur Rubin: on 24 July you deleted, and on 31 July you used OneClickArchiver to delete, an update to an RfC notice on WP:RSN, prior to the expiration of the RfC comment period. May I respectfully ask, do you believe deleting from a noticeboard, an RfC notice regarding a content issue at a TPM article, is in the spirit of what our community had in mind when our Arbitration Committee relaxed your topic ban? Thank you in advance for your thoughts. Hugh (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Commenting user @Arthur Rubin: WP:RFC says "one or more" and specifically authorizes notification of RfCs at the talk pages of closely related articles. On 27 July you used OneClickArchiver to delete an RfC notice regarding a content dispute at Americans for Prosperity, a WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement related article, from Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers, another, closely-related TPM article. May I respectfully ask, how in your mind do you reconcile this deletion with the spirit if not the letter of our Arbitration Committee's relaxation of your topic ban? Thank you in advance for your thoughts. Hugh (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing a canvassing or a votestacking issue. I am seeing a lot of effort to bring more outside views into a fairly obscure topic area, which is beneficial. More people being involved in the RfC should result in a more representative consensus. If some interested wikiprojects were not notified, that's easily rectified. If HughD were selectively notifying individual editors or wording the notifications in a partisan manner, then I would conclude otherwise.- MrX 18:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm honestly not well-versed in what is or isn't canvassing/campaigning, but if consensus here ends up being that this isn't a case of canvassing or votestacking by Hugh, then perhaps other editors' repeated repeated refactoring of Hugh's talk page posts to remove the RFC notices bears scrutiny: [112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125]. These editors have been very aggressive about removing Hugh's posts and have [126] accused him of edit warring for trying to restore his own talk page posts since this thread was opened. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm quite curious why Hugh posted the RFC notice multiple times on three of four related WikiProject pages (Organizations, United States, and Politics) while never posting the notice to WikiProject Conservatism. This seems like selective posting to me. When you couple this with the multiple postings to Citizens United v. FEC (the posting of the RFC notice to this page has been reverted by three different editors, and restored by Hugh four times), it looks rather odd to me. Hugh, could you explain your thinking behind not notifying WikiProject Conservatism? Perhaps if you posted the RFC notice there, it would help to clear up this matter. Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    I just notified WikiProject Conservatism. Are there any others that should be notified?- MrX 20:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    Posting to WikiProject Conservatism can be seen as canvassing. It clearly has a conservative bias while the other projects connected to the page are seemingly neutral. Even on the WikiProject Conservatism talk page, it says "please note that posting here in order to try to recruit editors with a particular political point of view is contrary to the intent of this project, and may be regarded as a violation of the WP:Canvassing guideline." The purpose of posting a notice there is to recruit people from a group with a conservative bias for input on a RFC and doesn't merely seek assistance in how to approach a discussion or seek editing help. Just because it's labeled as a project, doesn't mean it gets excused from canvassing efforts. Clearly, if there was an explicitly liberal project that Hugh posted to, while ignoring the conservative project, then these concerns would have merit.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • As an aside, should this ANI report be advertised on all the boards where the RfC was advertised? It would be helpful to get the opinion of editors who thought the announcement inappropiate but didn't know where to complain. I'm not going to do it without consensus, because it borders on spamming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    thumb|left|Yes Arthur, that sounds like a great idea!
  • - MrX 21:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Please note well in considering my good colleague's suggestion above, to further publicize this ANI filing "on all the boards where the RfC was advertised", that no editor not previously involved in the talk page of Americans for Prosperity, none of the "regulars" at any Wiki Project talk page or notice board where this RfC has been publicized, has commented regarding so-called "excessive cross-posting", let alone deleting talk page comments and notice board postings. The only editors raising issues with the publicizing of this RfC are editors on record in the Survey section of the RfC, and also on record on one particular side of the RfC question. Understand clearly this is not an ANI complaint filed by annoyed notice board or Wiki Project participants. The regulars at the notice boards and Wiki Project talk pages managed to assume good faith. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Respectfully request quick close of this ANI filing, by an administrator please, since the target page Americans for Prosperity is under active discretionary sanctions. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see any real evidence of RfC canvassing. It seems clear that when Hugh gets into a disagreement about whether something is or is not WP:SYNTH, for example, he posts an announcement to a noticeboard with a lot of editors who are familiar with that policy. That isn't canvassing. I personally ended up commenting on the RfC in question based upon seeing one of his announcements on a notice board, and my considered opinion is that what Hugh is trying to accomplish violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (some commenters agree with me on this and some disagree, which is why we have RfCs), so any alleged canvassing attempts failed in that respect. I do think that more admins should keep an eye on anything related to the Koch brothers and apply discretionary sanctions as needed. I am seeing a lot of attempts to whitewash or blackwash the Koch brothers rather than treating the topic in a neutral and encyclopedic fashion. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It's the third time the same RfC has failed to gain consensus. He's not getting the answer that he wants so he keeps trying to roll a bigger ball up a bigger hill. Heck, we even had the pre-RfC RfC for wording since it failed the previous time. Please make it stop. It's a long election season and starting the RfC dogpile on Koch brothers stuff now is just going to cause problems and entrenched positions later. --DHeyward (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Good point. A topic ban for Hugh on Koch-related articles would be too harsh. Perhaps a six-month topic ban on for Hugh on posting new Koch-related RfCs? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • DHeyward, would you please provide links for the two previous RfCs. I can't seem to find them. Thanks.- MrX 00:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A short or medium term topic ban would be an appropriate solution in this case. HughD has shown "polite hostility" towards editor who don't agree with him while praising those who do. He also has 2 recent bans related to this article. A Koch family and related topics ban would allow him to work on other projects (and he seems to contribute in many cases) while avoiding what is clearly a family he wishes to blackwash. If others feel his proposed changes are worth while they may discuss and make them.Springee (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: If Hugh had held the opposite POV, this would have been deemed canvassing and he would have been sanctioned a long time ago. The apparent bias on Wikipedia is absurd. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What HughD is avoiding discussing is the primary complaint. The rules tell editors to avoid [and excessive cross-posting]. 29 posts as of the time of this ANI and he has since done a new round of bumps. Clearly he is unhappy with the results of his RfC and is now using spamming in hopes of getting people who will agree with him rather than accepting that his view, part of a clear blackwashing attempt, didn't get consensus. If over 30 posts isn't excessive what is? Why have the rule?Springee (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Springee, thank you for your question. Excessive in this context is indiscriminate and/or disruptive, please see WP:CANVASS. May I please ask again, which notice was in your mind indiscriminate? Can you please provide an example of what you believe to be disruptive publicizing, such as perhaps a notice board administrator or project participant commenting in objection to a notice or deleting a notice? Thank you in advance for your reply to this important question highly relevant to this report. Hugh (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (uninvolved non admin) I see no violation of canvassing and the diffs presented here seem to follow the advice on WP:RFC. The number of them leaves some concern, but original posts and the bumps seem neutral and only point out the RFC is applicable to the place posted. AlbinoFerret 12:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, the number is excessive and that is a violation of the RfC posting guidelines. Given the editors other behaviors including edit warring on this topic and specifically telling others to follow the RfC rules I don't believe he should be given a pass here. I do think that his was also trying to stack votes by publishing his notices selectively (avoiding the Conservative Project page despite the fact that it is listed as a page related to this project). However, I would consider that minor were it not for the obvious excessive postings (something the guidelines clearly state should not be done).Springee (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that it was excessive, and I do not see a violation of the RFC guidelines. They would be a problem if they were not neutral. As pointed out above, not notifying the Conservative Project can be considered within the RFC guidelines as they have, by the projects own admission, a bias. AlbinoFerret 16:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
How many is excessive? His notice was neutral but his posting locations were not (though not radically off). The Conservative one should have been notified as the page in question cites it as a related project. Other pages such as Citizens United could only be seen as trying to find a favorable audience when his original postings failed to get the support he hoped for. Why post there if his intent wasn't vote stacking? I could see over looking the less that 100% clean notifications but adding to the list and reposing in old one when it was clear that things weren't going his way was a clear violation of the spamming part of the canvasing rules. Springee (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Please produce a non neutral posting location. So far all I see are wikiprojects, noticeboards and the pump. All neutral locations. In fact he has avoided a non neutral location in the Conservative wikiproject. AlbinoFerret 17:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi User:AlbinoFerret, I believe posting the RFC at Talk:Citizens United v. FEC [127] was non-neutral, as that page's connection to AFP is unclear (the page isn't wiki-linked or otherwise mentioned on the AFP page). I found it odd to not notify one of the WikiProjects (Conservatism) while choosing to notify this seemingly arbitrarily selected page (Citizens United V. FEC). I also found it troubling that Hugh continually reverted the RFC notice on that talk page after three different editors, including myself, attempted to remove it as an example of canvassing. Diffs of reverts: [128], [129], [130], [131]. The RFC was certainly in enough places, so the four reverts on a seemingly unrelated page where three editors disputed the edit seems like a case of WP:IDHT. No rationale for choosing to post on the Citizen United page was ever given on that page or the AFP page. Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Champaign Supernova, you wrote "I believe posting the RFC at Talk:Citizens United v. FEC was non-neutral, as that page's connection to AFP is unclear (the page isn't wiki-linked or otherwise mentioned on the AFP page" Citizens United v. FEC was included in the "See also" section of Americans for Prosperity, and as such was specifically authorized for publicizing at WP:RFC as a "closely related article," that is, until it was deleted yesterday. Hugh (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC) How would you characterize the non-neutral bias you claim among the participants at Talk:Citizens United v. FEC that you claim was sought out by posting an RfC notice there? Hugh (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, if your basis for posting RFC comments to pages was that the pages were included in the "See Also" section, why didn't you post to Mark Block, which is also in the "See Also" section? If you're picking and choosing which pages to post to from among similar pages (i.e., pages in the "See Also" section), it's going to look like canvassing unless you have a specific, shared rationale for why you chose the pages you did. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Respectfully request quick administrative close of this report with no action as the arguments get increasingly desperate. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Champaign Supernova, you wrote "...three different editors, including myself, attempted to remove it..." Thank you for acknowledging your role in deleting perfectly valid RfC notices, but you might have gone on to specify that the other two editors were our good colleague Arthur Rubin and a sympathetic IP. Hugh (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Yay, more dripping condescension. Helpful. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
All noticeboards associated with the article should be notified. Conversely why notify ones that are not? Why notify the Citizens United talk page? Why not notify all up front rather than casting a wider net (and again avoiding all boards associated with the article in question) when it was clear that HughD's attempt to blackwash was failing? Regardless, if it were just the location of notices I would say is was only a bit biased. It was the volume that I think is the issue. This is especially true since the volume went up after it was clear he was not getting the consensus he wanted. The canvasing guidelines make it clear that notification should be limited in number.[[132]]Springee (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
"The Conservative one should have been notified" If you believed WP:CONSERVATISM needed to be notified, why didn't you? Hugh (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Reporting user Springee, you asked "How many is excessive?" Our behavioral guideline WP:CANVASSING at "Spamming and excessive cross-posting" makes no mention of quantity, but does mention "indiscriminate" and "disruptive." If you would like to pursue an answer to your question, kindly take your question to the appropriate policy talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Reporting user Springee, you wrote "the number is excessive and that is a violation of the RfC posting guidelines." Can you please be more specific about the specific policy or guideline you are alleging was violated? WP:RFC says "one or more." If you believe WP:RFC should include a maximum number of notices, please take your concern to the policy talk page. All the venues in which this RfC was publicized are explicitly authorized at WP:RfC, such as notice boards, associated project talk pages, or closely related article talk pages. WP:Discussion notices "Best practices" states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and that "setting a time for the discussion to end" is a best practice. Our behavioural guideline WP:CANVAS defines excessive as "indiscriminate" and "disruptive." Which notice was in your mind indiscriminate? Can you please provide an example of what you believe to be disruptive publicizing, such as perhaps a notice board administrator or project participant objecting to a notice? Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
HughD, the policy in question is noted in the opening of this ANI. Springee (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
May I please ask again, which notice was in your mind indiscriminate? Can you please provide an example of what you believe to be disruptive publicizing, such as perhaps a notice board administrator or project participant objecting to a notice? Hugh (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you may ask. You can also read above. Springee (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Question for Administrator: The guidelines clearly state that excessive notifications (in number and/or location) are a type of spamming. How do we judge when the number or locations are spamming? That seems to be the heart of the issue here. HughD's posts were also not neutral in location (though how not neutral is up for debate) but I would like to start with the question of judging excess. Springee (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't need an ANI posting or an administrator to answer your question, please ask your question at WT:RFC, WT:CANVASS, or WT:Publicising discussions. I'm sure someone at one of those pages could help you with your question. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The above is an example of the bad faith behavior HughD has shown on the article talk page. The question I asked above is the core of this topic. The number of editors who have said HughD's actions in regard to this RfC means that it was handled in a disruptive way. Springee (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Reporting user Springee, a problem with excessive RfC notices sufficiently severe as to warrant an ANI filing, wouldn't you expect at least one noticeboard regular or one WikiProject participant to comment in objection to the RfC notice, or to delete the RfC notice with a terse edit summary? How about anyone that is not on record in the Survey section of the RfC in opposition to the RfC question? Hugh (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I agreed with you on the content dispute but I also think this may have been improper canvassing. This concern was raised by a large number of editors in good faith and you have stonewalled all of them. Your inability to listen and accept criticism has proven be highly disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. Can you please be more specific about the publicity-related policy or guideline which was improperly violated? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC) This concern was raised by a very few editors, all on record in the Survey section of the RfC as opposed to the RfC question, and none from noticeboards or project talk pages. Hugh (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Question for Administration As I asked above, several editors felt that the notifications for this RfC were excessive in number and placed to appeal to a more sympathetic audience when it was clear the RfC was not going in HughD's favor. What defines excessive in this case?Springee (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Reporting user @Springee:, may I ask, specifically what is the specific location where a "more sympathetic audience" was sought through an RfC notice? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully request quick close with no action. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment "Since that time HughD has published or bumped previous RfC 20 additional times." After spending the entire morning trying to wrap my brain around this ANI - this seems to be the core argument of the original poster. No matter what attempts are being made to poke holes in his original argument (Hugh is INCREDIBLE at this, I will give him that) It needs to be determined whether or not 20+ comments is excessive. WHERE he placed the comments seems irrelevant, per BeenAroundAwhile's comment above. Now, back to the ACTUAL argument at hand. How can we determine what is, and isn't excessive? What has been deemed "excessive" in the past, and why? What hasn't, and why? Either it is excessive, or it isn't, that's it. I also think user:Fyddlestix hit the nail on the head here when he said "as disruptive as HughD's behavior may have been, the NPOV problem that he's been trying to correct is a very obvious and very real one, and he's been up against an awful lot of battleground behavior and IDHT from other editors in this dispute. Not saying that excuses any disruption he may have caused, but I do think that the conduct of parties on both sides of this dispute should be scrutinized carefully by un-involved admins." We have been spinning our wheels for a month now - someone, ANYONE, please help! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
One month is the default comment period for an RFC, please see WP:RFC. The RfC will most likely close Thursday 6 August. There is no deadline and we can extend it if so desired in order to accommodate increased participation from our colleagues at WP:CONSERVATISM and others. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Comatmebro: you asked, "How can we determine what is, and isn't excessive?" Thank you for your question. We can determine what is and is not excessive by referencing policy and guideline. WP:RFC says "one or more." All the venues in which this RfC were publicized are explicitly authorized at WP:RfC, such as notice boards, associated project talk pages, or closely related article talk pages. WP:Discussion notices "Best practices" states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and that "setting a time for the discussion to end" is a best practice. Our behavioural guideline WP:CANVAS defines excessive as "indiscriminate" and "disruptive." We should expect that a necessary precondition of a problem with excessive RfC notices, sufficiently severe as to warrant an ANI filing, would involve several noticeboard regulars, WikiProject participants, or article talk page contributors, commenting in objection to the RfC notice, or deleting the RfC notice with a terse edit summary, not just those on record in opposition to the RfC question. I hope this helps answer your question. If not, may I respectfully direct you to WT:RFC, WT:CANVASS, or WT:Publicising discussions, where I'm sure someone could clarify further. Thank you again for your question. Hugh (talk)
I seriously doubt that he was looking for an answer as to how much crossposting is excessive from from the person accused of excessive crossposting. Equally likely to be ignored is the person accused of excessive crossposting requesting that the ANI case be closed with no action. Perhaps you have a slight bias when it comes to these particular questions? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
All I was looking for was a number of posts that could be deemed excessive...10 posts? 15 posts? 100 MILLION POSTS?! But, I do appreciate your clarification, Hugh. Honestly, I am so over arguing with you on all of this - might just have to buy you a beer (or a barnstar) on the 6th to celebrate AN outcome, whatever that outcome may be :). Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Kiev vs. Kyiv (again and again...)[edit]

Wrong venue. Meanwhile: The issue has already been hashed out dozens of times on Talk:Kiev, on Talk:Kiev/naming, and in five WP:RMs in as many years. Anyone who wishes to assay yet another discussion/debate/poll is welcome to try their luck at any of those venues, and submit whatever evidence they please. But it's doubtful the consensus will change, so users are warned against wasting everyone's time unless they are really certain they have a compelling case. (non-admin closure) --Softlavender (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Re-closed after relevant parties were alerted about the other editor as well, who already has an ANI running. Softlavender (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Kyiv City State Administration Letter to WMF.jpg

Recently the Kiev State Administration wrote an open letter for WMF requesting that the spelling of "Kiev" should be changed to "Kyiv". Based on this letter @EricLewan (with minimal contributions) executes the name change to Kiev Metro which I believe not yet justifiable. My point is, unless there is a consistent usage of "Kyiv" in the official documents of the US and UK governments, not even the state administration can change the usage in English Wikipedia in an attempt to influence the global application of the pro-Ukrainian spelling. I view this act as a misuse of Wikipedia and must be discouraged. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with you, but why is this thread on this page? Isn't this a matter for normal talk page processes? Even if it is a repeat, how do we handle it here? What are you proposing?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
If a change is made to standard English Wikipedia spelling, just revert it. If the changer edit-wars, direct them to the WP:BRD policy, and explain things on their talk page. If they persist in edit-warring, report them at WP:ANEW. If someone (anyone) wants to change the way English Wikipedia spells the city, they need to institute a public Move proposal. Governments or their agents cannot influence English Wikipedia articles; everything is decided here by consensus via the appropriate process. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
This will potentially affects all articles mentioning "Kiev" if the consensus favors "Kyiv" over "Kiev". What I want is to establish a revised consensus regarding the Kiev State Administration letter in question, to give editors a clear direction on how to deal with the naming dispute stemmed from this letter. I requested page protection as I foresaw an edit war but the involved admin deemed the situation disputable and rejected my request. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The admin was right to decline protection and this isn't the place to establish consensus about a name. If it becomes an issue, start a RFC on a page like Talk:Kiev. --NeilN talk to me 03:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
There have already been multiple discussions about this at Talk:Kiev. The outcome is always the same: "Kiev" is the current English COMMONNAME, so no "Kyiv". --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, this is not an ANI matter. This is a WP:RM matter. Please go there; there are processes for multiple article names as well as for single article names. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: We are still seeing what I consider to be low-level edit warring going on at Kiev Metro (most recently involving User:Бучач-Львів (see ANI thread above), so pinging Ymblanter... --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am obviously not going to block this user, since I am involved, and communicating with him is very difficult since he does not speak English and assumes bad faith. May be a move protect could be a temporary solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't looking for a block – I just wanted you to be aware. I'll keep an eye on Kiev Metro – if this persists over the next 24 hours, WP:RfPP will be my next stop... --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think I am going to re-close this, since there is already an ANI above about this other editor, and EricLewan has at least been engaging on Talk. Softlavender (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandal-like disruption, aspersions and PAs at WP:AVDUCK[edit]

Background: WP:Advocacy ducks is a relatively new essay, currently rated low impact. Unfortunately, what recently transpired was off the charts, WP:POINTY. A few editors are now attempting to make a mockery of the essay in a very disruptive, vandal-like fashion which was actually tried once before in the recent past by Quack Guru as evidenced below. The same editors adamantly opposed the essay from day one and tried to prevent it from going into mainspace. Their 3rd attempt failed but they have not dropped the stick. The most disruptive editors of recent events are:

I've grown weary of the BATTLEGROUND behavior.

The essay was created as a guide to help new editors respond properly to real (or perceived) disruptive editing by advocacy zealots. The suggested responses could actually apply to most disruptive situations. Much to my dismay, a small group of editors have misconstrued the essay and cannot/will not be convinced otherwise. They began the disruption after I initiated the current RfC because of ATG's reverts of my work. They have incorrectly interpreted the proposed statement and the essay itself as an attack on project teams which couldn't be further from the truth.

Disruption by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc aka User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc/Previous_Account_Names

Disruption by AndyTheGrump

  • ATG continues to challenge segments of the essay, and insists there is zero evidence that confirms 'project advocacy' (his terminology) exists anywhere but in my imagination. Of course, that isn't true and I've explained it to him numerous times, and even quoted Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Advice_pages, which confirms it as follows: However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope... added 15:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The following PA which he just posted in this ANI is enough to warrant an iBan and page Ban at AVDUCK to prevent him from further interaction with me and the essay he hates so much: [134] He said to me: "You are beneath contempt, and the sooner Wikipedia gets rid of you the better." Something has to be done to stop this behavior. Atsme📞📧 07:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruption by QuackGuru

Such behavior is disruptive, unwarranted, hurtful and certainly not helpful to the project. I respectfully request that an administrator review the behavior and take remedial action. Atsme📞📧 04:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously User:Atsme this is not needed at ANI. I agree some sticks need to be dropped. The Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks essay started out really bad. It is now somewhat better. User:AndyTheGrump does write a good story though :-) We are here to write a high quality encyclopedia based on high quality sources Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Sticks do need to be dropped, and this is exactly the place for it since it isn't happening organically. (I'm unsure what high quality sources have to do with this thread or the essay.) petrarchan47คุ 05:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:Advocacy ducks should be userfied as it is a misguided essay based on the idea that certain editors should be dismissed as "advocacy ducks"—anyone wanting WP:FRINGE to be followed is an advocate and is biased. Furthermore, if several editors disagree with you it's because they are part of a biased project (see the talk page RfC). Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That is a rehash of the failed deletion discussion, it was closed keep. Sadly those opposed continue to beat a dead horse. AlbinoFerret 12:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I definitely would not say that I own the essay. I would say, however, with actions like this ANI report and the heavy-handedness with which she is trying to impose her views on the talkpage, that Atsme seems to think she owns it. If anyone doesn't like my edits, please feel free to revert them. I'm just trying to improve things. If I fail, well, that's life. jps (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think your editing patterns at the essay define you quite well. You have consistently disrupted my editing beginning with your opposing views at Griffin which resulted in you proposing an RfD which also didn't fly. Atsme📞📧 15:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Atsme, would you care to explain why, having written that "If you have an opposing opinion to this essay, WP guidelines suggest that you create your own essay expressing your opposing view, and we can link to it", [135] you are now complaining that I did just that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Certainly - [136]. Atsme📞📧 17:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Generally speaking, reading something before posting a link to it is advisable. You have posted no evidence whatsoever that I am trying "to prove a point" (what point?) or that I am trying to "game the system" (How? And to what purpose?). Instead, my essay is doing exactly what a user-space essay is supposed to do. Express a personal opinion on the way Wikipedia operates. And providing useful advice. Advice on the inadvisability of tilting at windmills, and the advisability of actually providing substantive evidence when claiming evidence of wrongdoing. Advice you should follow... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Well of course - your essay is perfect and the essay I created is garbage - the world according to AndyTheGrump. Generally speaking, it's actually good to maintain confidence in one's own ability as long as it's within reason. Face-smile.svg Atsme📞📧 19:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
When I want advice on whether something is 'within reason', I'll ask someone who doesn't ask for Monty Python references to be oversighted. [137] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note - it has been pointed out to me that the apparent call for 'oversight' I link above might have been a typo, and 'checkuser' intended. If so, I'll withdraw the above remark. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Administrator attention please?

The named editors are not only causing disruption, they have now assumed WP:OWN of the essay and are removing images and attempting to change the entire perspective of the essay against what WP:Wikipedia Essays suggest. We have an ongoing RfC, a SPI and this ANI and the BF behavior continues. Please help before this escalates anymore than it has as a result of the above named tendentious editors. I am asking for an a-Ban against the named editors because they have opposed the essay from the very beginning and will not drop the stick. Their reasons for changing are clearly based in their own POV. Atsme📞📧 15:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Editors are attempting to change and improve the essay, true, but they're allowed to do that and there's nothing to indicate that they're doing it in bad faith. Opposing the essay as written does not mean that they're acting in bad faith. On the other hand, when you say to an editor Please help further by incorporating your suggestions as you envision them to be placed in the essay. You can start a new section below on the TP,[138] or revert changes with a similar edit summary,[139] you're showing classic signs of WP:OWNership. Ca2james (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
What is happening at AVDUCK is nothing short of BATTLEGROUND and you, Ca2james have come here with dirty hands. You are just as responsible for the behavior there as the other 3. In fact, it was you who tried to get the finalized copy of WP:Advocacy ducks deleted when you pretended to be a collaborative editor until you didn't get your way as evidenced here [140]. You initiated an MfD and your attempt failed, [141]. Now you have joined forces to cause disruption at the essay just like you did at Gabor B. Racz, a BLP I created that was promoted to GA. You can try to convince others that you're not on a mission to do me harm but the evidence proves otherwise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talkcontribs) 18:02, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
I nominated the essay for MfD because I wanted to be sure that the community found it acceptable, as I said here. I've dropped the issue since then and haven't sought deletion or major changes to it. Everything I do is an attempt to improve the encyclopaedia; I saw the Racz article at COIN and noticed that it had some major issues which I attempted (and continue to attempt) to fix. As I've said before, I bear no one any ill-will. Ca2james (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • comment - to further evidence the relentless disruption and targeting of my work, please note that the last edit made to Gabor B. Racz by Ca2james was July 15, 2015 [142]. I nominated it for GA today, August 3, 2015, and Ca2james quickly showed up at the article to destabilize it and prevent it from being reviewed, [143]. The hacking away of information began just as quickly, [144]. added 22:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Atsme please stop casting aspersions. I'm editing in good faith. I've hardly been editing at all over the last few weeks because I've been sick and although I'm feeling better than I was, I still feel like shit. Since the article was still undergoing a GA reassessment, I figured it wasn't worth spending my limited energy to work on it. Since I'm feeling marginally better and the GA reassessment is concluded, I started editing the article again. I honestly didn't see that you'd re-nominated it for a GA; as soon as I did see it, I left that message on the Talk page saying that I didn't think that the article was ready for a GA (and I don't think it's ready now, either). My intention was not to stop the review but to express my concerns. That's it; that's all. Ca2james (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I am asking for an iBan regarding the 3 named editors and Ca2james, and an essay ban (aBan) for all 4 of them. I see no other way to prevent them from causing me further harm and disruption of my ability to edit and improve articles on WP. I think my track record in creating/editing/promoting articles to GA and FA speak for me. I just want to edit in peace and as long as I have to contend with this troll-like behavior, I cannot do my work. Atsme📞📧 18:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

'an essay ban...for all of them'?!?!?' What the heck is this supposed to mean? That because Atsme and her (few) supporters don't like my essay, I should be banned from writing any more? This has to be the most utterly ridiculous of Atsme's endless demands that those of us who have had to deal with her have seen so far. We have had to put up with relentless battleground behaviour, endless accusations of policy violations that nobody else can see (i.e. the latest nonsense ai WP:COIN, the failed ArbCom case etc, etc...) and a complete inability to see disagreement as anything but evidence of some ridiculous grand conspiracy against her (does she really think she is that important?), but demanding that we be restrained from even expressing opinions on Wikipedia policy is going too far. I don't of course suppose that the community would for one minute sanction such draconian measures on the basis of the supposed 'evidence' she has presented so far (it should be noted that of the 130 or so people who have read my essay, the only negative comments have come from the three or four or so supporters she has who habitually follow her around), but I would ask that this obnoxious demand that her critics be silenced be taken into consideration when this thread is closed - as further evidence that she is unfit to edit Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem has surfaced - AndyTheGrump has again misconstrued what he has read. My request has nothing to do with his fantasy essay but he's trying to make it appear as though it does. My case evidence proves which editors have created the BATTLEGROUND beginning with Andy's reverts of my attempts to improve/expand the essay, his unwarranted PAs and various other nonsensical comments during the RfC and everything I've mentioned above in my initial filing. The disruption caused by AndyTheGrump, JPS, and Ca2James is out of control. Several IPs have shown up at the essay, one that appears to be a sock which resulted in a SPI [145]. That escalated into retaliation by JPS who filed the following unwarranted BLPN [146] - another example of these same editors refusing to DROPTHESTICK. Now they are trying to flood this ANI with more nonsense so that no admin wants to get involved. They are experts at gaming the system. And to think, the same 4 editors - AndyTheGrump, JPS, QuackGuru, and Ca2James - have created all of this disruption at a low-level essay, not because they care about improving the essay, but because of retaliatory motives and their refusal to respect PAGs and the suggestions set forth in WP:Wikipedia Essays. The big question is WHY? Why are they going through all this trouble over an essay I created and co-authored? It's a sad state of affairs. Atsme📞📧 20:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
What AndyTheGrump said. I believe that I am being targeted by Atsme because I disagree with some of her interpretations and behaviour and because I express my disagreement - even though I do so respectfully. Although I do oppose the essay and did nominate it for MfD, I have accepted that the essay exists and have not sought to change it. It is clear to me that Atsme only wants to work with people that agree with and support her which would be very nice for us all but when there are multiple people working together, there will always be disagreements. It's equally clear to me that it's her antagonistic behaviour when receiving even the most gentle critique, coupled with her not being willing to accept that she's not right about something, that causes disruption. Ca2james (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely untrue as evidenced by the following diff: [147] Atsme📞📧 21:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
That comment appears to have been made in relation to the second version of the essay, which was tagged for speedy deletion by me on April 14, the same day as this comment appeared. That second version was speedily-deleted for being substantially the same as the first one that was MfD'd. The current version of the AVDUCKS essay (the third version of this essay) was created on April 18. Ca2james (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Adding: speedy deletion of the second essay was endorsed at deletion review. Ca2james (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Atsme is yet again being wildly inconsistent. She states that her request for an " essay ban" against me has "nothing to do with his fantasy essay but he's trying to make it appear as though it does". Yet she started this thread with an assertion that I had "mocked the essay in his user space and linked to it on the essay's TP". She simply can't make up her mind what it is she is objecting to. So far, all that she has demonstrated concerning me is that I have written an essay she doesn't like, and that she objected to my revert of an edit which an RfC has overwhelmingly demonstrated that the community doesn't like either. Having failed to demonstrate that anything I did was remotely against Wikipedia policy, she then goes on to hold me responsible for what other people (including by the look of it one of the regular trolls who lurk around ANI) have been doing to the article. I reverted QuackGuru's addition of my personal essay to the article - and made it entirely clear to him that I wasn't happy with him doing it. I played no part in the addition of 'Monty Python' references to the article etc, and at no time have I suggested that I supported such behaviour. I don't, if only because it distracts from the core issue here - Atsme's ownership of a Wikipedia-space essay, her refusal to accept that legitimate criticism of it is justified, and her relentless battleground behaviour. She seems to be under the misapprehension that somehow the sheer quantity of vague assertions that policy has been breached by me will make up for the fact that she fails (per usual) to actually produce any verifiable evidence. This isn't a new phenomena - it is the way Atsme has operated for some considerable time, and it is the prime reason why I think Wikipedia would be better off without her. She may possibly write good articles sometimes (I haven't looked), and she clearly has talents (e.g. in TV documentary making - I watched one, and was most impressed), but she simply lacks the necessary social skills to work in a cooperative environment where disagreements are inevitable, and the resulting conflicts, escalated by her inevitable claims that she is being conspired against by anyone and everyone, are such a humongous timesink that any potential benefit we get from her presence is by far outweighed by the negatives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Not inconsistent - I included (aBan) to define to what I meant. Article bans exist but I wasn't sure if essay bans existed and I meant the single essay not all essays in WP which is why I added (aBan). Further references specify page ban. A big part of your problem is your hair trigger responses and emotional outbursts. You create the drama, not me. Move along, Andy, move along. Atsme📞📧 22:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump's response:[edit]

Ok, let's take a look at just what Atsme is accusing me of:

"ATG mocked the essay in his user space and linked to it on the essay's TP" [148]

I had written an essay (User:AndyTheGrump/Advocacy Dragons)), clearly indicated as a personal response to the Advocacy Ducks one. And added a link to it amongst the 29 'Related essays, policies, and guidelines' (including several other personal essays) at the bottom of the 'ducks' essay page. Does it 'mock' the ducks essay? If you want to read it that way, possibly. Though only to the extent that the ducks essay deserves mockery (or at least criticism) for its emphasis on seeking out 'advocacy ducks' as some sort of alien species, rather than recognising that advocacy is a complex issue (I'd argue that every Wikipedia contributor is an 'advocate' of something or another) and that apropriate responses are better centred on actual behaviour (and actual evidence) than on duck-hunting. A perspective which is at the root of much Wikipedia policy, I would have to suggest. And why the hell shouldn't I write an essay on advocacy-hunting if I want to? Wikipedia contributors are perfectly entitled to express their personal opinions regarding the way Wikipedia is run. Atsme has written a controversial essay, and added it to Wikipedia space. And she has the nerve to object to me expressing an opinion of it, in my own personal space? A double standard almost beyond belief.

As for the essay itself, I invite everyone to read it, and decide for themselves whether it is legitimate. I note that the page view statistics show that at least 99 people have viewed it so far, and that the only people who have criticised it have been Atsme and a couple of her supporters from the RfC. Supporters who seem to think that they are beyond criticism, and that they have the right to stifle dissent.

"Challenge to another editor - more battleground behavior" [149]

Utterly ridiculous. A contributor was basically asserting that edit-warring to remove the link to the essay (which incidentally I'd only ever added once) proved that there was no 'consensus' for it. Did I 'challenge the other editor'. Certainly - because he was asserting that edit-warring was the way to determine consensus. Which needless to say, it isn't...

"Reverted my edit with unwarranted PA edit summary “you don’t get to use essays as a soapbox for your personal grudges” "[150]

Given the nature of the edit, the number of times Atsme has defended the content by claiming (without ever producing the slightest bit of evidence, despite being asked to on multiple occasions) that Wikiprojects have been engaging in advocacy, I have to suggest that all the evidence points to the fact that my summary was correct. And note that this edit is over a month old. And that I told her that if she had a problem with it, she should take it to ANI (se this discussion at User Talk:BDD [151]) She didn't. Instead, she chose to start an RfC on the disputed material. Which unsurprisingly shows that the clear consensus is that unwarranted attacks on the integrity of Wikiprojects don't belong in an essay in Wikipedia space. Only now, when it becomes clear that I was right to remove the material, does she decide to raise it here. And as for the edit summary itself, Atsme had stated only a few days previously that she intended to edit the 'ducks' essay [152] - in a manner clearly intended to attack the integrity of Wikiproject medicine.

"Casting aspersions I believe it's the result of his own misapprehension of the essay and the statement I added that he kept reverting." [153]

As is self evident, I am doing nothing of the sort - Atsme wrote "Some editors who happen to be members of certain project teams are disruptive and they do tag-team and exhibit WP:OWN..." ...and yet again failed to come up with even a scintilla of evidence. Aspersions were certainly being cast. By Atsme. Yet again.

In summary, nothing Atsme has linked is evidence for anything but her own relentless battleground behaviour, her own inability to take dissent as anything except evidence as a conspiracy against her, and her complete lack of self-awareness when she accuses others of behaviour she exhibits herself by the bucketful. She is a liability to the project, and we would be a lot better off without her. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: From a post by Atsme, on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks:

"If you have an opposing opinion to this essay, WP guidelines suggest that you create your own essay expressing your opposing view, and we can link to it." [154]

AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been noticing the goings-on over this essay, and would say AtG's is an on-point analysis. Meanwhile, I am having my own time wasted by Atsme with a vexatious complaint at WP:COI/N#Potential_COI_re:_Alex_Brown, and this follows on the heels of a declined case at Arbcom, again over COI. The Arbs suggested there were issues here to be discussed at AN/I and so it may be time for the community now to examine this editor's behaviour more widely and decide whether its patience with Atsme has been exhausted and if some kind of WP:BAN should be considered. Alexbrn (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Alex, your presence here is retaliatory which is understandable but it conflicts with WP:AGF. Proposing bans, blocks, etc. simply because I filed this ANI is pretty sad. Perhaps you should be included in the above list considering your hands aren't clean based on the disruptive behavior you displayed at Gabor B. Racz along with the many unwarranted allegations and aspersions you've made against me in recent months, July 4, 2015 - edit summary: (serious problems with sourcing (/advocacy?), July 7, 2015, edit summary: "the lurking suspicion of a COI taint": and your unwarranted removal of copy-edit tags I added to a poorly written BLP. Your presence (and that of a few other editors here who won't drop the stick) is seemingly ubiquitous where I'm concerned. I just want the PAs, aspersions and disruptive behavior to stop so I can get back to creating and editing articles and improving the encyclopedia. The amount of attention that was given to a low-impact essay I created and co-authored coupled with the gang-like disruption from editors who opposed the essay from the beginning (and who have repeatedly refused to drop the stick which Doc James even noted) needs administrator attention. Please don't try to make this a kangaroo court because the focus needs to remain on the obnoxious behavior exhibited by the above named editors. You know full well it was disruptive and unambiguously pointy and carries the strong scent of tag-teaming and own. Atsme📞📧 17:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I would say that AndyTheGrump is 'casting aspersions' on this editor. His editing is disruptive, unfriendly and not cooperative. The well meaning and well done essay does not deserve such intense attack personalized against the writer of the essay. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, I find AndyTheGrump not to have been disruptive whatsoever. He has accurately and forthrightly laid out the facts. I see no personalized "attacks" at all, just a calm recitation of what has been happening. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
EKJ, would you care to expand on that in a manner that suggested that you were actually addressing the issue being discussed here, rather than using this thread as a platform for your own issues with me? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Earl King Junior is the one entirely uninvolved voice in this thread, and his comment is 100% accurate. petrarchan47คุ 19:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Uninvolved with the AVDuck essay, yes, but has had arguments with AndyTheGrump over at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) so I wouldn't characterize EKJ as uninvolved when it comes to comments on ATG. Ca2james (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If we were to dismiss the comments of every editor who has ever argued with AndyTheGrump, we wouldn't have any opposing views. Also, you and I haven't had model collaborations, and considering the fact you actually tried to get the essay deleted from namespace, your derogatory comments about me are biased and weighted. Atsme📞📧 04:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Granted alternative essays on Advocacy may be something that can be linked within an essay. But an essay that seeks to focus, not on advocacy, but on other editors work is not appropriate. When asked if diffs were really needed to be provided of his continued opposition to the essay [155] His answe was "Nope" and then a suggestion that after his reading he formed an opinion.[156] This is a clear case of failure to drop the stick as the essay has been under constant battleground mentality of those opposed to its existence, even after a deletion discussion was closed keep.[157]. The continued battleground against the essay, which doesnt have to be in complete agreement by all editors, borders on WP:POINT and WP:NOTHERE behaviour if not already crossing the line. AlbinoFerret 16:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
"a suggestion that after his reading he formed an opinion" as evidence of battleground behaviour? Do you even have the faintest clue of just how ridiculous that is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The continued opposition to the essay is battleground behaviour, even after the deletion discussion ended as keep. Once read you have continued, not to make it better, but to oppose it. Its time to drop the stick and focus in on building WP. AlbinoFerret 16:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I am entitled to my opinion of the essay. I am entitled to express my opinion of the essay. And that will remain true no matter how many times you repeat your vacuous clichés. Wikipedia is open to contributors with a diversity of opinion, and is not under the control of bureaucratic Commissioners for the Prevention of Literature. [158] If you want a website where doubleplus-ungood thoughts are suppressed, go find a Maoist cult or something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Doubtful whether Andy wants to be a Wikipedia editor in the longer term and in the short time throws around nasty things at other editors. Generally Wikipedia editors do not go to such extreme putdowns of fellow editors. I would call it out of control bad will. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Doubtful whether Andy wants to be a Wikipedia editor in the longer term?
Earl King Jr.
First edit: March 2012
Total edits: 2,997
Number of edits per day: 2.4
First edit: August 2010
Total edits: 39,043
Number of edits per day: 21.6
--Guy Macon (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Good point. And Earl King Jr.'s edits focus almost entirely on a single topic. Following are the pages where Earl King Jr. has over 100 edits:
That covers more than half the edits, and many of the others are on the same topic. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang suggestion[edit]

Might I be so bold as to suggest that perhaps Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) be topic banned from vexatious litigation at ANI, COIN, and other noticeboards? If she ends up having problems, she could contact administrators privately rather than drawing everybody into a circus of drama. As for her WP:OWN problems, well, we can see if being deprived of external squawk boxes might not allow her to settle down a bit.

jps (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Classic - I think the lady doth protest too much. An editor once summarized the Boomerang OP quite well in the following statement, [159] It should serve as a lesson to all that while some may make promises to change their behavior, they rarely ever do. Atsme📞📧 15:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the lady doth protest too much. Which is why it has been suggested that banning the lady from protesting might be a good idea. I would support a topic ban from ANI, COIN etc as a minimum response, though I'm not sure that it wouldn't merely result in moving the problem elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I do think a boomerang is in order. However, I don't think restricting her from the dramah boards will help as she already has been contacting admins privately on their Talk pages.[160][161][162]
The problem as I see it isn't that she takes things to the dramah boards but that she engages in aggressive, bullying, tit-for-tat behaviours when editors disagree with her or call her out on her behaviour. From my statement at her declined RFAR case request against Jytdog, "This is par for the course for Atsme; instead of dealing with criticism, she engages in WP:POINTy edits[163] and posts long rants (for lack of a better word) about how she is right and accuses those who disagree with her of being unwarranted,[164][165] ill-will,[166] harassment,[167] being biased,[168][169] or, as in this case, being part of a cabal.[170][171] Also of concern is her misunderstanding of edit-warring,[172] MEDRS,[173] NPOV,[174] and POV-pushing." Her bullying, antagonistic behaviour is not new. She avoided a block in 2014[175] by finding a mentor[176] but her behaviour remains unchanged since that time.
She is displaying strong WP:OWNership behaviours on this essay and addedin the text under discussion in the RfC in a revert of another editor's changes.[177] I removed the text[178] and left a note on the essay Talk page;[179] instead of responding there, Atsme inserted an extraneous character into the essay to leave an edit summary arguing with the one I left[180] and then she left the extraneous character in there. She has also displayed ownership of Gabor B. Racz where she continually reverted changes to remove promotional puffery, COPYVIOs, and inaccuracies.[181][182][183][184]
With all of these long-term issues, I think a block or ban to prevent further disruption to the encylopaedia is necessary. Ca2james (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Classic play when someone is brought to AN/I. Try and toss a boomerang. Then others can pile on edits from other articles where there is a content disagreement with those who disagree with the person who is the boomerang target. Perhaps this tactic needs an essay. AlbinoFerret 17:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Seeing things in terms of "plays" tells of a problematic mindset on your part and fails to assume good faith. Sometimes problems are real, and Wikipedians do their best to express what they see happening. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, if you watch this board long enough and read enough of the sections you will see this done quite often. AlbinoFerret 18:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I could not agree more with AlbinoFerret. I have followed Atsme's articles and disputes for several months now. I have been absolutely staggered at her continued politeness and strength of motivation to focus on the content rather than editors, and to remain civil. This is in total contrast to some of her opposers above where it seems they can make uncivil remarks about edits or editors with apparent impunity. A boomerang is definitely not appropriate here.DrChrissy (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed you have been following, for example egging Atsme on by tittering together over the "Pricks"[185] on Wikipedia (or is that the Borg?) who you fancy yourself to be in battle against. Alexbrn (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on the edit, not the editor.DrChrissy (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Point of order. I did not post on ANI. If you think Atsme is being harassed by my response to her thread about me, then you would do well to advise her to voluntarily topic ban herself from venues where this kind of outcome may occur. jps (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@jps My ES was not directed at you.DrChrissy (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
AN/I is for examining editor behaviour, and that includes mine - and yours, DrChrissy. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Support a boomerang. I believe Atsme is fundamentally well-meaning, but s/he seems unable to let anything go on Wikipedia, ever, and seems prepared to poke and pester her opponents ad nauseam. That is a problem. Editors with such an approach have been known to ultimately be indefinitely banned from the project. (I'm thinking of a particular user, but I don't want to name them here.) I support a sanction, either a ban from Wikipedia space or a ban from vexatious litigation (which would fit the case well, but is probably impossibly vague, and would be a difficult judgment call every time) or, ultimately, a block of some length — one month, three months? This after reading through this ANI which Atsme opened 1 August, this arbitration case which Atsme opened 12 July (declined by arbcom 15 July), and this retaliatory COI noticeboard report against Alex Brown (compare the edit summary here) which Atsme opened 29 July. Look at the whole pattern: she's abusing the noticeboards and brandishing an apparently never-to-be-dropped stick. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC).
Addendum: Added after seeing this utterly irrelevant oh-yeah-what-about-you well-poisoning retort to jps just above, posted by Atsme while I was fiddling with my own post (I'm slow). It made me cross out the bit about believing her to be well-meaning. I've changed my mind. Also considering this 2014 ANI: this time she has really run out of excuses for acting like a newbie. Support a three-month block. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC).
  • comment to Bishonen - what you said about me is not true. Why would I retaliate against Alex? What did he do to me? Why would you say such a thing? He wasn't even involved in my Coinoscopy. You need to retract your statements. You completely ignored my original post which provides solid evidence for the real disruption that occurred over a low-impact essay, for Pete's sake. How can you not see it? You ignored the profanity by AndyTheGrump, you ignored the fact that Doc James even said they need to drop the stick, and you focused on me while failing to tell the truth. I think your participation here is disingenuous based on your antagonistic posting of the moon template - (Casein geology barn star) - on the TP of JzG, April 12, 2015, commending him for his off-the-wall comments to me during a discussion on the TP of SlimVirgin where the essay actually originated, April 9, 2015. He responded to you with the following, April 12, 2015. It's pretty sad when admins start antagonizing editors they disagree with and then use an open discussion on the TP of another admin as justification for their foolishness. There is also your comment to me as a TP stalker when I posted to Alison for help, [186]. I never accused anyone of anything rather I asked for help, but it appears you have been stalking me for a while now, and I find that very disconcerting especially considering you've been untruthful. Atsme📞📧 02:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
If Alexbrn wasn't involved in your 'Coinoscopy', why did you name him as an involved person in your failed ArbCom case? [187] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "She seems unable to let anything go on Wikipedia, ever" - Wow. That's a pretty big statement. I checked out your claim and immediately found it false, using the Kombucha page as an example. In nearly every source about Kombucha research, it is noted that very few human trials exist. In the Lede, the Project Medicine regulars prefer to leave this fact out, and say simply that no evidence exists to support health claims. This leaves the reader with the idea that perhaps many trials have been conducted and failed to find evidence. The team (Alexbrn, Jdog) reverted my change that added this context. Ca2James reverted Atsme twice when she made the same edit. Atsme apparently did let it go, her only edit there today was to fix the prose. Atsme has been trying to help stick to the science and help deal with the intense bias and misrepresentation of evidence at Kombucha. IMO, Atsme is being trolled. For instance, I have been editing here for years, and only ran into AndytheGrump at Jimbo's page... until the essay happened. Now, any page I edit where Atmse is active, there's Andy. My topic areas haven't changed, and I don't see him at any articles that I edit if Atsme isn't there. At Kombucha, I haven't seen any evidence that he is there to help build the article, even though I have asked for help. But he is always there to bash on Atsme. That's how it appears to me, anyway. petrarchan47คุ 20:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting. So AndyTheGrump followed you to Kombucha? Are you sure about that? In my recollection it's more the other way round: Andy has been a long-time steward of that article, and you (and, coincidentally, Atsme) showed up at the same time fairly recently pushing the same line. What brought you to the Kombucha article, really? Alexbrn (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Even more interesting is that I didn't claim he followed me. I'm just reporting a strange phenomenon and I highly doubt it has nothing to do with Atsme. It is time to drop the stick, by force or otherwise. petrarchan47คุ 20:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
What 'strange phenomenon' are you referring to then? That you and Atsme have a habit of turning up at the same articles, pushing the same fringe POV, and that people object to it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
You wrote: "Atsme is being trolled. ... Now, any page I edit where Atmse is active, there's Andy." I'll leave it to other readers to decide what you meant by that. You also put "My topic areas haven't changed" - but your topic area did suddenly change to include Kombucha, at the same time as Atsme's did. Just another "strange phenomenon" ... or ... what? Alexbrn (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I have edited health articles for years, and trying to fix your "Kombucha kills people" falls right in line with my previous work. I got involved with the Cannabis articles for precisely the same reason, someone was claiming that Cannabis killed people in WP's voice, just as you were doing at Kombucha. petrarchan47คุ 20:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
What the fuck has an article I've never edited [188] got to do with this? As for Kombucha, I am of the opinion that including reliably sourced information in an encyclopaedia is generally a good idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Nothing. I was replying to Alex. petrarchan47คุ 02:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Andy, your use of profanity is uncivil. Please have some consideration for the possibility there may be children reading your comments. Atsme📞📧 23:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly - though I suspect that unsupervised children will find more interesting things to look at on Wikipedia than ANI threads. I'll refrain from making suggestions beyond pointing out that we have an article on the word, per WP:BEANS, but if you really think that 'think of the children' is a valid reason to complain about things on Wikipedia, you are probably raising the issue in the wrong place entirely... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
My first edit to the Kombucha article was in November 2013. Atsme's was in June this year, as was Petrarchan47's. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that I now run into you on various pages, but never on pages where Atsme is absent. You know as well as I that we never ran into each other before. petrarchan47คุ 20:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a user interaction tool somewhere, isn't there? From memory, I can only think of a few articles where I've interacted with Atsme at all - at the Kombucha article, at the controversial No-go area article (which I had again edited long before Atsme's involvement), and in relation to the 'ducks' essay. If there has been other significant interaction, I can't think of it offhand, though I'm prepared to accept evidence to the contrary - I have a lousy memory for names. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No Boomerang Atsme brings evidence of behavioral problems that need to be addressed by uninvolved editors/Admins. petrarchan47คุ 20:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No Ban for presenting the case at ANI. There is sufficient evidence that there is repeated bad behaviour in this case, and that means that presenting this case at ANI is not abuse.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • comment I would support a topic ban but only in principle. Atsme does have actions that do betray her and it's time for her battleground behavior to stop. This however is a case with alot of evidence to review and it does go back a few months. I don't think and I have seen that Atsme is not the sole problematic editor in this "Feud". I don't see any problem above with Andythegrump however. While I would support a topic ban of Atsme, it would be better to allow her to bring further evidence so that a few others might take part in a ban with her.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support boomerang to stop this bloody waste of time: Keep her away from ANI, COIN, and other noticeboards. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Do you you really care that little about the project that you would take such a cavalier attitude to the potential ban of one of the most productive, polite and insightful editors on here. That is shameful. If you don't want to waste our time, then vote !no (that would save us all time), or give your reasons for the !yes posting.DrChrissy (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. This can be quickly resolved with a topic ban. It is becoming a waste of time trying to improve the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • comment - I have asked for an iBan and aBan against you, AndyTheGrump, JPS, and Ca2James as it was your disruption at a low-level essay where all 4 of you refuse to WP:DROPTHESTICK that caused the disruption that brought me here. Your failure to let it go now further demonstrates the seriousness of your behavioral issues. I also hope the block records of the first 3 editors will be considered because it demonstrates a pattern of repeated BF behavior. The gang-like, troll-like activity that I evidenced in my initial post is unmistakable. Atsme📞📧 20:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose boomerang Atsme has eloquently raised legitimate concerns about the disruptive behaviour of some editors in an essay. Here at AN/I, she has raised concerns about the way she is being dealt with regarding the essay. She should in no way be punished for bringing this behaviour to AN/IDrChrissy (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Support boomerang I wrote above my reasons for supporting a boomerang but thought I'd formalise my !vote. I'd prefer to see a three-month block because her behaviour extends everywhere she edits and is not limited to the dramah boards. That said, keeping her away from initiating new reports at the dramah boards will help. Ca2james (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Atsme has done nothing to warrant a boomerang. She has simply came here seeing community consensus for what she sees as a disruptive problem. AlbinoFerret 00:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Looks like wiki-hounding from Andy. Bringing up behavioral issues concerning editors is legit. No brazen swearing should even be allowed here. Its not funny or clarifying, just bad behavior. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support boomerang, although Cwobeel does not express his reasons very elegantly, I share his sentiments. I have just wasted several hours following the various dramas leading to this ANI. All the hallmarks of 'conspiracy ducks' are displayed by the stronger defenders of this (fundamentally misconceived, from its title to its content IMO) essay. Ownership, PAs, forum shopping, demanding good faith while displaying none.Support a three-month block.Pincrete (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support boomerang. A meritless complaint from Atmse looks to me to have harrassment of AtG as its purpose. BMK (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Müdigkeit and petrarchan47. There is clearly ongoing battleground. Instead of singling out Atsme it would seem much better for neutral uninvolved admins to keep an eye on situation. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose boomerang. WP:AVDUCK, the article created by Atsme, resonates with my own experience of editing on WP. If some editors have tried to make edits to this article so as to change its general tone and intent, which is one of Atsme's allegations, then this is clearly disruptive behavior. As Atsme has rightly said those editors who have a problem with this article should write a separate article(s) expressing their disagreement with the article written by Atsme. Soham321 (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
You appear not to have read Atsm's original complaint. She has repeatedly called for sanctions against me because I wrote an essay which disagreed with hers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

I don't want to get into Atsme's issues with respect to a specific person. I might easily misinterpret her. But i do not believe she had a problem with you writing an essay disagreeing with hers as per the last few lines in this diff: diff1. Soham321 (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

REgardless of what you think, the demonstrable fact remains that in starting this thread, Atsme made it entirely clear that she objected to me writing an essay in response to hers - she started this ANI thread with an explicit statement to that effect. Which makes your rationale for opposing sanctions questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Sadly for you, saying it a bunch of times doesnt make it true. I have read what Atsme said. She said she didnt mind an opposing essay on the topic of Advocacy. But your essay isnt on the topic of advocacy, but on the editor who wrote an essay on advocacy. Its a carefully worded piece that to anyone who has been involved with the WP:AVDUCK essay can clearly see is directed at Atsme. The list of supporters of this essay of yours comprises those who have been against the essay and tried to get it deleted. AlbinoFerret 01:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
My essay isn't on advocacy, it is on the inadvisability of engaging in the sort of behaviour encouraged by the 'ducks' essay. An essay I am perfectly entitled to write. Nobody but Atsme's small band of loyal followers seems to have objected to it, or suggested that is a personal attack of any kind - and it has been read by around a hundred and fifty people. [189] Still, if you don't think it is justified, there is nothing to prevent you using the WP:MFD process to see what the community thinks of it. Until then, it is going to remain in my user space, as my personal opinion, and it is going to remain linked in the 'ducks' essay, as WP:WPESSAY makes clear is appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Nice strawman. No one has said you cant write something and keep it in your user pages. But the reason your here is the idea that your entitled to link to it in another essay. Your not, and the WP:ONUS is on you to prove you have consensus to add it. It gets removed, and one after another, editors opposed to the WP:AVDUCK essay replace the link. Its time to drop the stick. Keep your essay in users space for all I care, because large lattitude is given to pages in userspace. But leave it off of AVDUCK and stop with the disruptive behaviour. As I see it your WP:NOTHERE. AlbinoFerret 02:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Nope. Per WP:WPESSAY, my essay will remain linked in the 'duck' essay until such time as the community decides that it shouldn't be. You have no right whatsoever to exclude links to opinions just because you don't like them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thats right, its an opinion. Your opinion, and the ONUS is on you to prove it belongs. By the way I just like it isnt a good argument for inclusion. Attack pieces on the other had done seem to make the cut. AlbinoFerret 03:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The onus is actually back on you now. You saying the phrase "The onus is on you" doesn't actually put the onus on someone else. ATG has offered that his essay is a direct response to AVDUCK and therefore it should be linked as is common practice (this is my personal interpretation ATG but if you feel that it some how misrepresents you please do correct me). Your response really amounts to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Unsurprisingly it doesn't actually matter what you do not like. Consensus after all not a popularity contest. Do you have an actual substantive reason not to include a link to this essay? The onus is on you. Put up or drop the stick.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from the boards for 6 months Atsme says she wants to work on content. What she has brought to ANI and a number of editors talk pages is mostly unfounded accusations. This topic ban will help her work on content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
As you are probably aware (having been present at the discussion), Atsme was advised by the ArbCom members to bring Jytdog to AN/I for doxxing her. This suggestion is untenable at best. petrarchan47คุ 01:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • comment You and Alexbrn were the first two editors who went after the article I created, Gabor B. Racz, a GA that you immediately requested GA reassessment when the COINoscopy ensued. Your collaborative team took it over in a WP:OWN sweep and while I agree better sources were needed, the article did not need to be rewritten - it was a POV issue regarding a BLP and syntax and your POV won. Here you are now defending truly disruptive editors, most of whom are members of your Project Med team. No surprise. You also falsely accused me of copyvio on the Racz article, took a position of WP:HEAR and wouldn't drop the stick. I actually had to contact the author of the piece to prove it was public domain. I suppose your supporters will say, bravo you did the right thing, really? Being on the receiving end of your bias, I can't help but feel you are now wanting to be punitive. I was foolish enough to trust you and ask you for help in resolving the issue because of the obnoxious behavior by the above named editors. You again turned your attention to me while turning a blind eye to the true disruption and bad behavior. There is absolutely no justification for anything you've said or have recommended except extreme bias. Your response is an incredible disappointment - especially after AndyTheGrump's demeaning and unwarranted comment to me below wherein he stated, "You are beneath contempt, and the sooner Wikipedia gets rid of you the better.” You shrugged it off with more aspersions against me. I may not be the perfect editor who can sit quietly while others pound and kick me with the sticks they refuse to drop, and I have certainly responded in defense of myself as any responsible adult with integrity would be expected to do, but you defending disruptive editors while trying to make me look like the sinner goes beyond fair and reasonable. It's more than sad - it's heartbreaking because I once looked up to you despite the prior disappointments. Atsme📞📧 14:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The COPYVIO accusations were based on evidence that COPYVIOs had occurred.[190][191] The article has been delisted as a GA.[192] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca2james (talkcontribs) 20:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The copyvio accusations were based on a misinterpretation of WP:COPYVIO so I became the target because WP:CIR. Yes, the GA was delisted which is not good testament to your work considering the changes that were made to a once GA that you and the team managed to get delisted despite the original reviewer standing by his initial GA assessment - a reviewer that is no slouch when it comes to recognizing GAs and FAs. What you did was cause harm to the project to push your POV- not helpful. Drawing more attention to it now doesn't exactly shine a good light on you. Curious - your user name and Doc James user name reminds me of a license plates one would see on the James family vehicles, hypothetically speaking of course. You both hail from Canada, both use "James" in your user names, and I was wondering if there is any relationship or is it just coincidence? Atsme📞📧 20:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you actually suggesting that Doc James and I are the same editor with no evidence but that our names both have James in them and we're both from Canada? I ask that you strike this absolutely unfounded and inappropriate accusation. As for Racz, it never should have been a GA because it contained promotional language, copyvios (which you, to this day, deny), and factual inaccuracies. I was working to improve those aspects of the article, which I think does improve the encyclopaedia, but I'm well aware that it's not GA-quality at this point. Ca2james (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I never realized sentence comprehension was an issue on WP. I asked if you were related or if it was coincidence, that's all. I already know you're not the same editor because you can actually spell. Atsme📞📧 23:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes I openly admit that I cannot spell. The fact that you do not accept that copyright issues occurred is unfortunate and another reason why a topic ban would be appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Wow, Doc. It appears you've forgotten what really happened. You threatened to block me over an alleged copyvio that did not exist and refused to drop the stick.

July 13, 2015 Asked Alexbrn, Ca2james, and Doc James to Drop The Stick,
July 13, 2015 Doc James insists that I'm wrong and threatens to block me even though I was correct that it was not a copyvio.
July 13, 2015 Proof I was correct, it was not a copyvio. No apology - instead the same 3 are here now teamed up trying to get me blocked. Sad. Atsme📞📧 02:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support boomerang and a long ban from the boards, per Bishonen and others. Thomas.W talk 14:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support boomerang, per OP. (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Question Are IPs allowed to !vote on such matters?DrChrissy (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • This isn't a vote, and until such time as there is consensus for a lockdown of this page to only established user accounts, AN/I is required to suffer the little IPs to come to us. Admins will decide whether or not to weight all the points made in this morass. jps (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the information.DrChrissy (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest that AndyTheGrump and Atsme just agree to take an interaction break for a while to cool down, and this whole affair be concluded without further drama. -Darouet (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support boomerang with topic ban. Much of the community has tired of Atsme slinging out accusations of personal attacks whenever someone doesn't agree with them on content, so this might help. There is some very nebulous tendentious behavior that by definition is very hard to succinctly address at ANI, but focusing on AVDucks, etc. might be a good starting point. Atsme originally started recruiting editors to the COIDucks essay when they were on the same side of a content dispute, or were in a separate dispute with another editor. This resulted in a selection of people supporting the essays and Atsme's actions there, and many of those same editors are also opposing the boomerang here. History to be aware of for a closer. Others above have described this and WP:OWN issues at the essay where Atsme appears to take changes to the content pretty personally by how often the personal attack comments come out. This ANI posting appears to just be a continuation of that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • comment Of course you do - it's retaliation for when I exposed your BF edits and aspersions back in March when you were participating in the tag-team activity at G. Edward Griffin, [193]. Sad to think this is what ANI has become - a kangaroo court while the real offenders go free? Every editor who holds a grudge against another editor comes forward and slings mud and BS without one diff? Let's get back to the real issues here - the tendentious editing, foul language, suspected SPI activity, and total disruption of a stable essay by AndyTheDog, JPS, Quack Guru and Ca2james. Atsme📞📧 00:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The full conversation for anyone interested [194]. Nothing was "exposed" there since that's the same lashing out from you that many have become tired of in the community even after many, including myself, have tried to walk you through ways to alleviate the problem. Just various empty allegations again. I guess thanks for demonstrating the point for the proposed ban. The idea that everyone is out to get you has been disruptive at articles and elsewhere. You demonstrated that pretty distinctly by saying I'm trying to retaliate against you for something as innocuous as what you said. Multiple editors have bumped into your behavior on their own through articles or noticeboards over time, and you are mistaking that for tag-teaming, out to get you, etc. It's your behavior that's catching up with you here. Either way, I'm not interested in getting pulled into the drama further. That's simply my take on this most recent development. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support boomerang and topic ban. Atsme's comment above has proven Bishonen's point. That boomerang might hit some other users that are opining here as well. Encouraging long-term disruption contributes to the problem. Geogene (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Tagteam Dramaboarding[edit]

Check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc. It seems that @Atsme: is getting the rest of her tagteam to do her dirty work for her now. She tries to get a checkuser to come after me and then crows about it on the AVDUCK talk page. The cause is taken up by her comrade-in-arms @AlbinoFerret:. Just another fun day dealing with the alternative medicine true believers. jps (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I didnt know Atsme had tried to get a checkuser on you. But the edits on the AVDUCK page, right after you were brought here, an IP replaced one of your edits, twice, right down to the wikilinks on a relatively new and unused essay prompted me to start an investigation into whats happened. WP:SPI is the correct venue for such investigations to look into such edits.AlbinoFerret 23:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
According to logic you've used elsewhere, your claims of ignorance seems to fail the WP:DUCK test. Seems to me that you all are working as a WP:TAGTEAM. jps (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I have watched Atsme's talk page because we have worked together on the essay, but there is no tag team, I dont look at it all the time or follow her editing. I simply found it fishy on the essay and sought for an investigation into what happened. AlbinoFerret 00:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
According to WP:AVDUCK, I don't think that's a convincing argument. Do you? jps (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I too deny any involvement whatsoever in a tag team. I follow the essay and it's talkpage. I saw that Atsme had deleted an irrelevant edit and when this re-appeared, I deleted it for the same reason. I thought at the time it seemed rather unusual that an IP had made exactly the same edit as jps but I am rather naive in these matters and the very distinct possibility of sockpuppetry did not occur to me while reverting the edit.DrChrissy (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me that this is exactly what a sockpuppet of Atsme would say in order to encourage plausible deniability. Isn't that a reasonable suspicion on my part? jps (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
jps, aren't you against this specific essasy?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
An attempt to write for the enemy here so that maybe they'll see what they're doing is exactly what they're concerned everyone else is doing. The essay, for better or worse, is kept in Wikipedia space. Maybe they're on to something? I don't know. Help me out, here. jps (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Serialjoepsycho, it appears you are correct.[195] AlbinoFerret 01:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Albinoferret, aren't you for the essay?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I have edited WP:AVDUCK and !voted to have it kept. I think its useful now, especially new users, and I hope it improves over time. The essay recommends looking at your own behaviour first and not that of others. To focus on content and not to assume that the other editor is an advocate or a tag team. To me its more about useful advice than a weapon. AlbinoFerret 02:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes this is definitely tag teaming according to AVDUCK. They work together, they leave supportive messages for one another on each other's Talk page, and when one shows up the other three aren't far behind. How could one conclude any different ? </sarcasm>
Seriously, I hope this shows how disruptive it is to be falsely accused of doing something. Those who disagree with Atsme end up being falsely accused of things as a matter of course; that's part of how she rolls. It's unpleasant and it's chilling and it's disruptive and it doesn't help build an encyclopaedia. Ca2james (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This right here really seems wp:pointy. Looks like we are trying to re-litigate the AFD. jps you are actually a highly competent editor. But then why are you disrupting a stupid and useless essay? It's a terrible essay. It's probably one of the worst I've seen on wikipedia, but it's more than clear that the authors meant it seriously. Your tagging it with humor categories and posting some posting Monty python in it. Just cut the crap already and quit trolling essay. While some of this BS Atsme has brought here seems vexatious (as does the COIN case currently opened by Atsme), some of Atsme claims see a little legitimate.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

SJP, it's an opinion piece - there is no right or wrong, and we all have opinions. I created and co-authored the essay with GF collaboration even though it was a bumpy road getting it to where it is today. We didn't just roll the essay out into namespace like most essays enjoy and remain in peaceful fashion. WP:AVDUCK became the eye of a hurricane - the wind blew and feathers flew - and the storm chasers were primarily members of Project Med. You are certainly entitled to have your own opinion about it which actually helps make WP a better encyclopedia. It is what it is. Atsme📞📧 21:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
So you're saying that we should allow incompetently written essays like this because.... it helps the encyclopedia? Right. In the meantime, it is causing a headache for many editors who are doing your dirty work in trying to keep alt med articles neutral and well-sourced and your ilk seems happy to just say "cut the crap" when those of us who are in the trenches try to deal with stuff. My God. You don't think "advocacy ducks" is humorous? Fine. I'm not editwarring that. You don't think that the Monty Python reference is relevant to the scales in an essay about ducks? Fine! I'm not edit warring that. I'm seriously trying to figure out what the hell this piece is supposed to be beyond an anemic attack by true believers in alternative medicine on the status quo sourcing and NPOV standards at Wikipedia. Maybe it's supposed to be a humor piece. Maybe it's supposed to turn into something better. I don't know, but to tell me to "cut the crap" when I'm trying to figure out what to do about this mess that the admins don't seem to want to deal with themselves is a bit of having your cake and eating it too. So happy to know that you think the essay is horrible. What should we do about it? Just let it fester and be used as a weapon by the group of editors I've identified? Just give me an indication of what you think the best outcome here would be and as long as it results in a reaffirmation of the principles of sourcing and neutrality, I'll be happy to fall in line. jps (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I've seen many incompetently written essays. Beyond that this essay had an AFD opened for it, the result was to keep. The essay isn't causing any problems for anyone at alt med. Alt med had those same issues before essay and if this essay is ever deleted it will continue to to have those same issues. Do I find this essay humorous? Actually yes since so poorly written, however that is meaningless as it clear the editors meant it as serious. You don't need to take effort to delegitimize it as it does so well enough on it's own. I also feel again that you are competent and you realize they felt it was serious. Maybe you do have a point in turning it into a humor piece however just get a consensus. Beyond that cut the bullshit out. If you can't get a consensus then just move on. Cake and eat it to? Your actions legitimize this otherwise bullshit ani. You aren't the only one that needs to cut the crap however. The COIN case and the SPI are bullshit as well. I find it rather audacious that they would open an SPI primarily because their ANI isn't working. What more is that then forumshopping really? I do hope that the SPI gets reviewed for possible meat puppetry.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
@User:Serialjoepsycho. When you say "...that they would open an SPI...",(my emphasis) please would you clarify who you believe they are?DrChrissy (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho:. I understand that you think my actions of the WP:BRD sort are provocative. Please understand, however, that not everyone plays the insipid "get consensus first" game. It is possible to make edits and see if they stick. You also intimate that this essay is not causing problems for alternative medicine editing. I strongly disagree. I believe that the tacit endorsement of this group's behavior via the inclusion of this terrible essy in WP space has had direct negative effects at certain articles such as kombucha. This is a bit beyond the scope of this discussion, however, but I do find the strain of "go ahead and let them run rampant -- they won't make any progress" to be one that is shortsighted. I've seen that kind of hands-off approach go very wrong. Emboldening groups that behave poorly such as the Atsme contingent tends to be what marches us towards WP:ARB. On the other hand, I have seen success where certain groups have been shut down by effective and consistent pressure being applied in the correct direction. My point is that I think your approach is too accommodationist and liable to cause harm. I don't mind if you continue to hold that view, but you shouldn't be acting like it is somehow better than the approach I'm taking. jps (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
BRD is not a policy. You also posted an edit that completely changed the tone of the essay, an edit that can not be termed more than controversial and that has the potential to be reasonably seen as a provocation. Even your justification for it is half cocked. You don't really expect me to believe that you actually feel this is the proper use of BRD do you? If you want to use BRD great but we both know you know how to use it appropriately. Kombucha was in this same mess before this BS essay and there's really no difference now with the essay. It's the Same old crap that has been happening since the very first alt med article was posted on wikipedia.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
It is clear that Serialjoepsycho and I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc have a Battleground mentality about essays. This is a content dispute and therefore not covered by AN/I. I suggest that both editors are wasting Admins' time and should be dealt with accordingly.DrChrissy (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
If it wasn't for the battleground you wouldn't even be here now, Dr Chrissy. Content, tell me about this content dispute I'm involved in? Please provide some actual evidence. But since you can't actually provided that evidence go ahead and don't mention my name. I have addressed JPS conduct and specifically to them. The key word is conduct. It actually address a specific complaint that Atsme has made. I don't suggest but instead I point out that you are wasting Admins' and non-admins' time.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, man, it seems that you are simply not attributing my actions to good faith at all. I understand that these situations don't exactly lend themselves to magnanimity, so I don't really blame you. But, honestly, I thought the essay could use some fixing along the lines I attempted, and the essay deserves a change of tone, IMHO. I do expect you to believe that this is how I use BRD. It's not just in this essay. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Anyway, we should let this go, because it's clear to me that the behavior issues outside of my attempts to fix problems with one of the worse essays on Wikipedia are becoming apparent. jps (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed site ban for User:Quackguru[edit]


Nipping this one in the bud – no one is going to be site banning anyone while an ArbCom case is on going, regardless of the merits of the charges... (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

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

@Quackguru: I have looked at the present and previous behaviour of User:Quackguru. Quackguru has an ongoing history of blocks for disruption and uncivility. He has been topic banned once already:[196] and the continuation of uncivil behaviour(mentioned earlier in the opening post of this ANI discussion, with diffs)... I'd say Infinite site ban.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Procedural oppose QuackGuru is a party to the Electronic Cigarette Arbcom case request that looks to be accepted. Let ArbCom sort this one out. Ca2james (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close. While I love the histrionics of calling for an "infinite site ban", QG has been an asset in many areas of alt med editing. Excluding QG from Wikipedia would be a net deficit to the project. Many of the sources and citations added by QG have been among the best added to the articles and as WP:ENC comes first, I think it highly irresponsible to suggest this. I wonder whether the proposer has an ulterior motive. jps (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Providing good sources sometimes is not an excuse for continuous incivility.
  2. The community is not arbcom's slave. Also, that dispute is not the reason for this. Also, arbcom cases take their time. By banning now, we stop further disruption right now, and not weeks or months later(You could also propose to ban Quackguru from any editing except the arbcom cases he is involved in until the arbcom case is finished, if you think that we should leave the final decision to the arbcom).--Müdigkeit (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you a party to the e-cigarette arbcomm case? Would it benefit you directly if QG were removed from Wikipedia? jps (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not a party to the e-cig page, I have never edited there, but I have seen the behaviour of QuackGuru and the chronic nature of the incivility deserves the infinite site ban.DrChrissy (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you mean "indefinite". No one has ever been given an infinite site ban, to my knowledge. jps (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Do not patronise me. I know the difference between "indefinite" and "infinite". The proposal here is for an "infinite site ban". I happen to agree with that. It may not have happened before, but I think the extreme behaviour of the editor is probably deserving of the first imposition of this.DrChrissy (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
What you suggest goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, and claiming that QG is worse than any other editor ever is the kind of thing that tempts people to engage in mockery rather than reasoned discourse. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You mentioned "Providing good sources sometimes is not an excuse for continuous incivility." User:Müdigkeit, please provide specific diffs of "incivility" or withdraw you request. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Snow Oppose and Speedy Close. Good grief. WP:BMB: "Editors are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors." This is not the case with QuackGuru. QG may not be the most equitable or collaborative editor, but he serves a valuable purpose to the project and does not warrant a site ban by any means. It is not the place of this ad hoc ANI mini-subthread to enact a site ban on a longstanding good-faith editor. Softlavender (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
We have this and this, which were mentioned in the opening post already; and one case in your block log(old), as well as this. And for disruptive editing... Well, just look at your block log, as well as the rest of the diffs provided in the opening post.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposed page ban for AndyTheGrump[edit]

Andy has refused to drop the stick. He was against the essay and wanted it deleted. [197]. After the keep vote he has been disruptive as shown above. He has written an essay that attacks the writer of the WP:AVDUCK essay and her motivations for writing the essay.[198] Advocacy Dragons He has linked to this essay of his in WP:AVDUCK. He has not relented but throughout this section has presented strawen, and mischaracterised another editor].[199] I suggest an indef page ban of WP:AVDUCK for WP:NOTHERE and failure to drop the stick.AlbinoFerret 02:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me see, you are asking for a 'page ban' because I have expressed an opinion [200] about a controversial essay? Yeah, that's bound to succeed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
No, its for WP:NOTHERE and refusal to drop the stick, thanks for proving its a continuing problem. AlbinoFerret 03:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Do try to inject at least a smidgen of originality into your endless clichés - it does little to improve your case, and according to at least one expert on the subject can lead to corruption of your thought patterns: [201] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret, in what way does Andy's essay attack ANYONE, it mocks a tendency we all have sometimes to imagine the whole world is against us, its 'message' is 'cool off'. It would help your case if you stopped alternating between claiming that you and Atsme have no objections to ATG's essay then immediately objecting to it.Pincrete (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I read ATG's essay shortly after it became available. I was left in no doubt whatsoever that it was aimed directly at Atsme, given the timing and context of the discussions.DrChrissy (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


  • Support - Andy is a combative editor, refuses to drop the stick, and managed to turn this entire ANI into a BATTLEGROUND. It never ends. No one is stopping him from having his fairytale essay. It's in his user space and I even suggested he improve it and get it into namespace. Editors are weary of his battleground behavior, the relentless reverts and WP:OWN behavior, the untruths, the diversionary tactics he uses to game the system and so on. He should have dropped the stick and moved on after he created his opposing essay and linked it to AVDUCK. All he's doing now is creating more disruption. Atsme📞📧 03:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no 'untruth' in the statement that you started this ANI thread by calling for sanctions against me because "ATG mocked the essay in his user space and linked to it on the essay's TP" - with a link to my essay (Or rather to where QuackGuru had added it to the ducks essay - without my consent. Not sure why you did that). You objected to the essay. You objected to it being linked in the 'ducks' essay. As for the rest, per usual, no evidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
You're doing it again now, Andy. I did not oppose your essay. I actually suggested that you write one of your own, [202]. You did mock AVDUCK and create disruption there - that's no secret. Are you denying it, or trying to justify your disruptive behavior at my expense? There's also a link to the essay in your user space on AVDUCK. So what? I did not "object" to your user space essay as evidenced by the following diffs, [203] and here, [204] so I don't know why you continue to say I objected to your essay when it simply is not true, Andy. It looks like more of your BATTLEGROUND behavior and why we ended up here in the first place. Try taking a responsible approach and fess up to what you've done, and drop the stick. Atsme📞📧 05:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Atsme, the evidence is in plain sight at the top of this ANI thread. You called for sanctions against me because I "mocked the essay in his user space and linked to it on the essay's TP". Fact. Simple undeniable fact. In plain sight. No matter how many times you try to confuse the issue through repetitive blather, the facts are still there. As facts. For all to see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Add diffs to support your allegations, otherwise you're just casting aspersions. Atsme📞📧 03:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a rehashing of the same bullshit written above with the same lack of evidence.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment:Considering that Andy has written a rebuttal to WP:AVDUCK and has placed a link to his rebuttal in the main page of WP:AVDUCK, and considering Andy has repeatedly expressed his disagreement with the views expressed in WP:AVDUCK (this includes his vote to delete the article altogether), i would like to know from Andy why he would wish to continue editing the main page of WP:AVDUCK. As i see it, the problem in Andy editing this article in future is that Andy could inadvertently change the tone and intent of WP:AVDUCK if he continues editing this article. In fact all those who have expressed their disagreement with the views expressed in WP:AVDUCK should in my opinion refrain from editing WP:AVDUCK because of the legitimate concern that they could inadvertently change the tone and intent of the article. The efforts of those who have expressed disagreement with the views expressed in WP:AVDUCK should be directed towards doing editing on the rebuttals to this article. Soham321 (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Generally speaking, Wikipedia doesn't ban people from editing content because of their opinions. Particularly when their opinions appear to concur with both Wikipedia guidelines and the consensus of the community. I have made few edits to the 'duck' essay, and the only significant ones have involved twice reverting an edit by Atsme that the subsequent RfC has demonstrated she shouldn't have made, and of adding links to my own essay, per WP:WPESSAYS. I have no great wish to edit the ducks essay (as I have made clear, I think it should be deleted), but I think it is reasonable that I should be permitted to ensure that it doesn't become even less compatible with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and practice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Andy, the first edit I made in over a month you reverted twice without any discussion on the TP which clearly demonstrates WP:OWN behavior, [205] You falsely called it an attack on Wiki projects, and then started casting aspersions with the second revert [206]. The RfC has proven nothing because (1) there hasn't been a formal close, (2) there were only 1 or 2 oppose comments that were substantive, and (3) according to WP:Wikipedia Essays disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently from writing an article, because there's no need to agree on a single "right" version. A few days later and after much disruption by you on the TP you added an improperly formatted link to your essay [207] and then fixed it. Right after that all hell broke loose and you were right in the middle of it. Soon after I initiated the RfC, your first comment was a snarky PA against me instead of a substantive comment about how to improve the essay which I now see is never going to happen because of your fixated POV and BATTLEGROUND mentality, [208]. You kept on making snarky, baseless comments demonstrating your denial that projects don't have advocacy groups, [209] even though Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide says they exist, but you chose instead to attack me refusing to DROPTHESTICK, repeating the same nonsense over and over and over again until our heads were about to explode, [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], [215], [216]. You might also want to read the statement by SMcCandlish at the ARBCOM case [217] regarding advocacy groups. And then there's this diff wherein you state that if anyone removes your links again, you'll report them for tendentious editing, [218]. Doesn't get anymore ironic than that. Atsme📞📧 06:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
"The RfC has proven nothing because... there were only 1 or 2 oppose comments that were substantive..."? Thank you Atsme, for demonstrating the contempt in which you hold the Wikipedia community. You started an RfC, and now that it isn't going your way, you appoint yourself judge and jury, and dismiss the views of anyone who disagrees with you. You are beneath contempt, and the sooner Wikipedia gets rid of you the better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I think one would need to be very niave to not recognise that editors sometimes end up in 'camps', defending certain approaches, PoVs etc. What I find objectionable about this essay (and the attached 'dramas'), is that rather than endorsing a policy based, values based, 'cool off' approach, it invites a wholly subjective 'reds under the beds' mentality which excacerbates, rather than addresses the problem it purports to be advising about. Defenders of the essay, seem to be oblivious to the irony that - several of them - having followed each other from 'alternative medicine' through the various admin boards, are a perfect example of what they claim to be identifying.Pincrete (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The essay has been through the deletion discussion twice. "Defenders of the essay" includes the community as a whole. At this point, as Doc James notes above, it's time to drop the stick. There is nothing defensible about Andy's comments such as "You are beneath contempt, and the sooner Wikipedia gets rid of you the better." It's obvious why Atsme is having a problem with him, and an IBAN at the very least is in order. There is no justification to bash a person for writing an essay, nor to follow them around and bash them some more. If Andy feels so strongly about Atsme, he should stay away from her. It isn't Atsme who is inviting this drama; any sensible editor would have taken him to ANI sooner or later. petrarchan47คุ 01:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Somebody close this please. AndyTG is sometimes very 'direct', but there is no evidence of acting outside P & G .Pincrete (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the same thing that Atsme is asking for above but AndyTheGrump hasn't done anything outside of policies and guidelines. He's allowed to disagree with AVDUCK, to write his own essay as an opposing view, and to link to it from AVDUCK. Andy was within policies and guidelines to remove text that he thought was an attack on Wikiprojects. That Atsme believes the objections to that proposed text are not substantive doesn't change the fact that the community is also objecting to the text. Ca2james (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Please close this. It comes down to 'I don't like your opinions so I want you removed'. Yeah, no. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support an indef page ban from WP:AVDUCK. ATG has a very long history of BATTLEGROUND behaviour almost wherever he edits, including the DUCKS essay. This is an opinion piece and editors should be able to express their opinion (within WP Guidelines and policy of course) without having to fend off disruptive editing. It will not harm ATG to be banned from just one of many articles he edits, but it will send a message to him about his disruptive style.DrChrissy (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Andy is free to have, and express, whatever opinion he wants about AVDUCK, as is every other editor here. Bans shouldn't be used to protect one side in a content dispute from their opponent(s). Thomas.W talk 13:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support To accuse another editor of being beneath contempt isn't acceptable in any circumstances Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Trout the proposer for being a tendentious editor. jps (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per Pincrete. (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest that AndyTheGrump and Atsme just agree to take an interaction break for a while to cool down, and this whole affair be concluded without further drama. -Darouet (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thomas.W BMK (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thomas.W as well. However, I support interaction ban between Atsme and AndyTheGrump (suggestion by Darouet). Callmemirela {Talk} 22:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per Dr Chrissy and my own observations noted above. I would strongly support an IBAN between Andy and Atsme as well - the problem isn't confined her essay. petrarchan47คุ 22:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Insufficient evidence that it is needed or that it will solve the underlying problem. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    Doc, did you forget your comment above about them needing to drop the stick? And what about his nasty PA filled with hate when he said I was beneath contempt? You don't think he needs some time off to think about what he's done? Atsme📞📧 02:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

IP User - Edit War[edit] (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I removed Delta as a Hub in Amsterdam because I believed that its hub was in Atlanta, Georgia USA. However, an IP user removes it and says that Delta has a hub in Amsterdam.

In my opinion hub = headquarters right?

So I revert it and say that I think that hub means headquarters but again the IP user continues to argue and reverts it. So I stop, because 1 more addition and I would soon be past the 3 Revert rule.

This IP user continues to harrass me and annoy me on my talk page, giving fake vandalism warnings and saying that he will report me. His behaviour is mighty unfriendly and he refuses to disscuss it at the talk page on Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Then he deleted the dissussion I started on the talk page. He also deleted his comments on my talk page for some reason, luckily. I have our disscussion here. He also decided to cut out some of my messages, which is why some don't make sense.

Delta AMS

Please note that Delta has 10 hubs in the U.S. and 3 hubs outside the U.S. According to their website. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I know that Delta may have 13 different hubs. But on the Wikipedia, we don't really add an airline to the 'hubs' section if it is not the 1st Hub. For example, Ryanair has 2 Hubs in Dublin and Stansed, it is listed as a hub for Dublin, thanks. RMS52 (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note that Ryanair and Vueling are not "hub and spoke" carriers and therefore are not listed. (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. Please do not remove or you will be blocked for vandalism. We list airlines that have a hub operation in the infobox. Headquarters have nothing to do with hubs. Please discuss your matters at at:airports and the Delta talk page already has a discussion on AMS as a hub. (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please porvide proof that I am wrong. We will disscuss it at the airports behavior regarding that you won't give out fake vandalism warnings. RMS52 (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You already have been blocked once for harassement and bullying. AMS is a Delta hub as per Harass me one more time and I will report you! (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not harrassing you. The block was for sockpupperty too, and if you want to report me fine! But there is no reason why you should do it now. Lets take it to the talk page ok? RMS52 (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I have changed after my block, and apoligized to the user involved.

This user shows no signs of stopping so I would like the least that can be done, thanks. RMS52 (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You can go ahead and report and block me indefinitely for all I care. I am wasting my time here on Wikipedia anyways. (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you drop the stick, RMS52. Why don't you try to set up a discussion instead of bulldozering him to AN/I. A polite exchange of arguments instead of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And off course, the IP is also not without blame and should not remove a discussion attempt. The IP has to start discussing too. The Banner talk 10:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I did, on his talk page I asked if we could disscuss the matter, what did he say? No. I asked if he could stop his behaviour, same answer again... RMS52 (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Updated IP adress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This thread is really confusing because it appears that everyone isn't always signing their posts. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Multiple personal attacks by user:Harald Forkbeard that derail a RfC[edit]

re: Harald Forkbeard (talk · contribs) Talk:Mat (Russian profanity)#RfC: How much "poetic license" does a translator of primary sources have in wikipedia?

I had a disagreement about article content which was not solved by 1-1 talk. I started a RfA, during which I deliberately did not present my point of view. Several people joined and we are carrying out a meaningful, calm, nonpersonal discussion. With the exception of Forkbeard, who obvioulsy has an acute grudge against me.

Three times I warned the user that wikipedia policies forbid personal attacks, but I was derided to "blind adherence" to "obscure policies".

Normally I don't care how I am being called. I was even "Anti-Romanian antisemitic communistic vandal", I never complained, only chuckled. However in this case I think Forkbeard's multiple long diatribes about my negative personal qualities seriously derail the otherwise normal RfA discusson. Therefore I would like to ask an admin to take an action. -M.Altenmann >t 15:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

M.Altenmann >t>t has been acting in a hostile manner during the discussion on the Mat talk page. He has resisted all attempts to build consensus engaging in disruptive editing and obtuse interpretation of Wikipedia rules that only he holds to be applicable. He failed to make any meaningful contributions to the article choosing instead to clash with multiple editors and persist in his insistence on alleged rules. This position has been challenged by other editors. Instead of cooperating M.Altenmann >t continues to cause discord and disrupts others' work. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I might add that I am baffled by the allegations of personal attacks by M.Altenmann. His attitude has been unhelpful. Please review the talk page and edit history on the Mat article for details. It is clear to me that M.Altenmann has taken a very hostile position towards my translation of the original Russian text for the article. For some reason, M.Altenmann refuses to collaborate with other editors. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
False. Filing RfC is collaboration. Repeating that I am an idiot is not. -M.Altenmann >t 16:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
True. At no time did I or any other editors use personal labels you are referring to. You continue obstructing the consensus building on this Mat article. You are pushing your point of view and refuse to contribute to the article in any constructive way. This is not a personal attack, but a plain statement of fact. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Harald Forkbeard, Could you please explain the following two edits?[219][220] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
What explanation are you looking for? --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The comments you are referring to are an attempt to encourage M.Altenmann to get off the rules interpretation, and focus on coming up with a positive, tangible contribution to the article. To date, all he has done is criticize my translation without any constructive alternative being provided. This despite multiple editors explaining the situation to him, please read the talk page comments for Mat article.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
If you read the whole mess on Talk:Mat (Russian profanity), in combination with the invitation posted by M.Altenmann on Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#RfC:_How_much_.22poetic_license.22_does_a_translator_of_primary_sources_have_in_wikipedia.3F, I think the handling admins should at least consider Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot in this case. (Note that after asking for comments M.Altenmann responded on the first two comments of uninvolved editors with "<sigh> You are not addressing the concern" (to a comment by Diego) and with "You are wide off the mark" to my own first comment.) Arnoutf (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (1) Please explain how the remark "you are not addressing the concern" is shooting self in the foot. (2) Please explain how Diego was in any way offended by it and how it damaged the discussion. (3) Please also explain how this remark justifies insults I am complaining about. (4) Please explain how you proved that the comment about "wide off the mark" was wrong. (5) Please explain why you took my remarks out of context here. -M.Altenmann >t 08:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know about you, but if someone told me that my dogged insistence on rules again borders on obsession, that other editors make sensible and highly valuable contributions but mine are a bewildering array of misinterpretations on various Wikipedia rules without any constructive contribution, accused me of personal bias, and told me to refrain from editing the page and find something else to do, I would not feel particularly encouraged.
As for the implied "it's OK to behave poorly because others did so first" argument, we are responsible for our own actions, and in my opinion the above diffs show a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality rather than the claimed "encouragement".
If anyone here wishes this noticeboard to consider the actions of others, please provide specific diffs rather than asking us to "read the whole mess". --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Harald Forkbeards reactions are not very civil. But I think this should include a look at the mainspace edits (and summaries) by M.Altenmann that preceded the debate (including a response on an uninvolved editor invited to the rfc). [221][222][223][224][225] Arnoutf (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If you think that these edits somehow justify massive attacks of Forkbeard, then you have serious issues with wikipedia civility rules yourself. -M.Altenmann >t 01:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • With due respect, the comments made by M.Altenmann are not very civil either. Moreover, his actions are disruptive and relentless persistence at pushing the alleged Wikipedia rules interpretation is entirely non-constructive. He has consistently failed to offer any alternative to my good faith translation. Hence, the recommendation, made by several editors, to provide an alternative translation or, in my comments, suggestion to simply walk away. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
For the benefit of Guy Macon, who is new to this discussion, I would provide some summary of what, in my view, happened to date:
1. I provided a good faith translation, from Russian into English, of some verses cited in the Mat article.
2. Given the obscene nature of these verses, a published source of this in English is extremely unlikely.
3. For some reason, M.Altenmann has taken exception to my translations. So far, this editor has stubbornly insisted that the translations are not verifiable. This stands to reason, as I have provided the translation myself.
4. Despite repeated attempts to encourage M.Altenmann to offer alternatives that pass muster in terms capturing the highly idiomatic essence of the verses, we have nothing still. Amazingly, M.Altenmann suggested that a verbatim translation provided by Google is better than the one offered by the native bilingual speaker. Forgive me for being extremely skeptical.
5. Despite several editors encouraging a constructive path toward consensus building through expert discussion of the verses and their translations, M.Altenmann has so far limited himself to repeated interpretations of various Wikipedia rules allegedly being violated.
Conclusion: We have a translation of well sourced Russian originals offered by myself, a native speaker of both languages. I would welcome another expert translator's contribution to break the logjam and arrive at a sensible resolution that serves the best interests of Wikipedia readers.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
False; irrelevant to the complaint. A typical example of the behavior of this editor: dodging the questions. I would love to discuss linguistic issues, but not with disrespectful opponent. -M.Altenmann >t 01:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
And here is the typical response from M.Altenmann. Everything is irrelevant if it does not fit in with his particular view. Everything else is met with hostility. I have no idea what 'questions' he is talking about. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
False accusation, and example of Red herring and dodging the topic of the discussion. The "questions" were repeatedly posted in the article talk page, but answered by Forkbread with insults and claims of their superiority. I can provide diffs, of someone thinks I am a liar. -M.Altenmann >t 04:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Altenmann, it appears to me that you are equally if not more at fault in the RfC; other editors are trying to answer your question, report current Wikipedia guidelines, and establish and show consensus, and you are not only not collaborating, you are battling and objecting to nearly each helpful and good-faith comment. Wikipedia discussions, and especially RfCs, are about establishing consensus, not about hearing, or waiting for, the answer you want. You have failed to collaborate or even offer useful alternatives to the translation. In terms of personal attacks, please read Responding to personal attacks. In general, do not acknowledge or respond to perceived personal attacks (no matter what your past history is with the other person), and by all means do not make any of your own. Particularly in RfCs, ignore personal attacks and stick the points at hand that you wish to assess consensus on (if indeed that is your real objective). When a WP:CONSENSUS is reached or is obvious, then recognize that instead of fighting it. Having said all that, I suggest you withdraw this ANI before it WP:BOOMERANGs on you for lack of collaboration, typified by this edit in the RfC threatening another editor with being blocked. Softlavender (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    False accusations:
    • I am not battling anything pertinent to the RfC in question. I am merely noting which comments are answering the question of RfC and which are general comments I promised to address later, after the RfC is finished. What is more important, I am posting no objections. What is more, I deliberately did not state my opinion on the issue. If you see any statement of "battleground mentality" type, please provide a diff. Otherwise all you wrote is a yet another personal attack, poorly suited at this forum.
    • As for my threatening an editor for being blocked, this is outright ridiculous. I have no power to block. It was a fair warning to a user who calls our core policies WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NPA "obscure rules" and who typed seven pages of insults in my address. Please also notice that I did not request here to block anybody. I request the admins to act how they deem necessary.
    • Lack of collaboration is another false accusation. I can provide diffs of collaboration with people who discuss the essence of the RfC rather than my personality traits.
    • On a final note, telling me to ignore insults I find outrageous. Nevertheless I did ignore them, to a point when it became a disruption. How you want me to build a "consensus" with a person who repeatedly declares themselves an expert and for whom I am a moron who does not know languages and poetry and a nuisance stuck to "obscure rules"? -M.Altenmann >t 04:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    • re: "stick the points at hand that you wish to assess consensus on (if indeed that is your real objective)" - a yet another uncalled-for insult. That's exactly what I was doing: marking the comments which stick to the point of RfC with me making no objections. My sole objection is the way how Forkbread is smearing me in shit. -M.Altenmann >t 04:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:BOOMERANG, any time you file a complaint on a noticeboard, your behavior can and probably will be examined as well. As anyone looking at the talk page of Mat (Russian profanity) can tell, on that entire talk page you are the one being obstructive and non-cooperative, and not listening. The simple fact of the matter is that Wikipedia editors are allowed to provide translations if no suitable published or online ones are available. Attribution can be in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you object to a translation, find a better one (assuming it is reliable) and cite/link it, or suggest alternative wording and seek consensus for the alternative wording. It's that simple. Again, I recommend withdrawing this complaint, dropping the stick with the editor who made the translation, ceasing the obstructionism and obscure wikilawyering, and moving on. Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
A yet another false interpretation of what was going in the talk page.
  • Please provide diffs that demonstrate what exactly was an obstruction on my part. Otherwise please drop your boomerang and stop spreading falsehoods about my position.
  • By the way, please explain how "obscure wikilawyering", if any, is a license for numerous insults.
  • Also, since you are teaching me how to live, please explain, with diffs, where I insisted that wikipedians' translations should be disallowed.
  • And by the way, I did provide an alternative translation, in the talk page, but self-declared expert claims that his one is better. Since I was not going to start a contest whose wikipedian's penis is longer, I filed a RfC to set ground rules for this kind of discussion. I insist that there was some kind of consensus growing (I can easily prvide diffs), but the discussion was repeatedly derailed by insults from the O.P., hence this complaint here. -M.Altenmann >t 07:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang block for Altenmann[edit]

Propose boomerang block for Altenmann for disruptive editing, battleground mentality, mind games, general combativeness, and obscure pettifoggery, all on Talk:Mat (Russian profanity), from the top to the bottom. The ongoing and completely unnecessary dispute is wasting everyone's time. Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer, since even after the situation was simplified above the user still won't drop the stick or propose a solution to the translation he apparently objects to. Length of block to be determined by community consensus or reviewing admin. Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Another false accusation. Since filing this complaint I did not write a single word in Talk:Mat (Russian profanity);
      • P.S. Sorry, I was wrong; I did post [one comment]. It does start with the phrase "Sorry, you are mistaken". So you can judge my "battleground mentality" for yourself from the "primary source", so to say. -M.Altenmann >t 08:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    • and if user Forkbeard gets a free license with insults, I hereby declare that I will take this article off my watch list altogether, since it will indeed waste of my time: In my plans there are at least 159 articles to create this year. -M.Altenmann >t 08:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
So far, M.Altenmann is the only editor who has resorted to profanities, accusations, and exhibited utter disregard for other editors' opinions. The only way to reach a consensus with M.Altenmann is to agree with everything he demands. There does not appear to be room for a different opinion as long as M.Altenmann is around. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Repetition of false general accusation, see section #Evidence, please. -M.Altenmann >t 16:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Right, i have to agree with Altenmann, i am not aware of profanities at all being used, and although there was disagreement and edit-warring to start, we should see that as following from opinions strongly held. Since then Altenmann has facilitated there being a rational, polite discussion and is clearly offended (legitimately) by too-strong, too-harsh language. "Mat" itself is about being offensive, deliberately, let's not follow that tone. --doncram 04:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Altenmann clearly was genuinely disturbed by tone and wording at the Talk:Mat page, and has done nothing wrong by bringing up the matter here. I personally hate wp:ANI as it usually seems destructive of all participants, so I would have wanted to avoid this, but, seriously there is no call for hammering Altenmann. Altenmann is right to call for diffs, too, but I hope we could dispense with that too, and others than Altenmann just cool off and back away, in my opinion. I will rethink my own role in this, too. I agreed with H F's views and disagreed with A's views about the content, to start with, and said so, and acted offended myself maybe over-doing it a little. And Altenmann is NOT wrong that there should be some line, some way to discern what is acceptable translation or not, and the RFC which Altenmann helpfully started is providing guidance (i think towards consensus that we just have to create alternative translations and discuss which is better and why). --doncram 04:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Ban Lavender from this discussion[edit]

Throwing wild accusations without proof and at the same time denying the right to defend oneself against accusations is a grave violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. -M.Altenmann >t 08:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

A simple proof that Lavender's accusations are bullshit:

  • Here I readily admit that my understanding was mistaken, after an argument was given rather than generic rant that I no understand nothing. I did it without bickering, and no hard feelings, but the latter is hard to prove to those who lack basic AGF.
  • Here, folowing the admitted mistake and the suggestions made, I announced an intention to present my actual (i.e. without wikilawyering) arguments in talk page why the translation was wrong, but while I was preparing them, in 5 minutes I was reverted. While I see tag removal without addressing the concern as violation of policies, I let it go without a mum. -M.Altenmann >t 10:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

If one needs more, I can give you more. -M.Altenmann >t 10:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Evidence, please[edit]

I am getting tired of reading accusations without specific diffs demonstrating the alleged misbehavior. (for those who have provided such diffs, this comment is not for you -- instead you have my thanks.) May we have less heat and more light, please? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to read (or skim) through Talk:Mat (Russian profanity), which I posted in my proposal. It's not long, and the evidence is there from the second line, and is all conversation- (response-) linked, so it requires reading the conversations. Altenmann has posted 30 such non-collaborative posts; I am not going to link them all, and I'm not going to post only some of them. To me this is all pretty obvious; others may disagree and that's fine, that's what the poll is for. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I would second this. Guy Macon, you have all the facts you need in the Mat article history and Talk comments. Besides, there is plenty of demonstrated actions on the part of Altenmann in this discussion. Observe profanities, combativeness, and persistence to get his way, no matter what other editors suggest. Seems pretty clear to me. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
False general accusation. I always consider merits of the objection and I have no troubles with admitting mistakes whatsoever. -M.Altenmann >t 16:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
another recent example that I have no troubles with quickly reaching agreement when presented with meaningful arguments. -M.Altenmann >t 16:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The above is a good example. M.Altenmann claiming that he has no troubles with admitting mistakes is of little value to ANI, but M.Altenmann claiming that he has no troubles with admitting mistakes with a recent diff showing a specific example of him doing that transforms it from a claim to a claim with evidence to back it up. Likewise, because Softlavender and Harald Forkbeard refuse to provide diffs showing examples of the behavior that they claim occurred, the default assumption is that they can't provide diffs because what they described never happened. Certainly no Wikipedia administrator is going to sanction anyone without evidence, The English Wikipedia has 25,858,232 registered users, 118,788 active editors, and 1,346 administrators. Together we have made 783,190,837 edits, created 36,864,348 pages of all kinds and created 4,934,783 articles. Given the large number of users, pages, and edits and the small number of administrators, it is unreasonable to ask an admiistrator to go looking for evidence. You really need to post your evidence on ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The evidence has been provided, twice -- once in the proposal, and a second time at your request. Your lack of examination of the evidence is your own choice. Anyone interested in the evidence provided can click the link provided. Softlavender (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I think this case is not a very easy one. Harald Forkbeard has been impolite to M.Altenmann and has probably used stronger language than he should have. M.Altenmann (except for his edits and edit summaries of which I provided the diffs above) has been (in my view) somewhat more cunning in his edits staying just shy of specific clear violations of policies (It might constitute Wikipedia:Wikilawyering). However, much of the impolite responses of Harald Forkbeard appear to be provoked by M.Altenmann if you read through the talk on the MAT talk page, and I can even imagine that Harald Forkbeard feels himself the victim of trolling by M.Altenmann [226] (which is of course no excuse for impoliteness). While staying within the letter of many policies, M.Altenmann at no time has shown adherence to the core spirit of the Wikipedia project - i.e. collaboration to come to a best possible article - as he has not made any effort to come up with a (n alternative) translation that can carry consensus. In my view unilateral sanctions aimed at Harald Forkbeard therefore seem in any case unfair. Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • False accusation. I have already provided a diff where I clearly admitted my misunderstanding, after being present with a respectful argument. I didn't pay attencion whose comments I was answering and when, but browsing thru my diffs I noticed that I paid my respects even to User:Arnoutf's opinions, so accusations of trolling and wikilawyering are quite surprizing. -M.Altenmann >t 17:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
What is more; I checked and now see it was exactly Arnoutf blocked my intention to start a discussion about correct translation (acting upon my recognition of my misunderstanding):
  • 03:33, August 1, 2015‎ Arnoutf (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,438 bytes) (-52)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Altenmann (talk): Please dont add such templates while RfC on talk is ongoing (on your own invitation).
...and now I am blamed for not doing this. -M.Altenmann >t 17:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • re: he has not made any effort to come up with a (n alternative) translation - False accusation. An alternative translation was presented (in the talk page; without reverting in the article text), but dismissed, the argument being insults to my knowledge of languages and claims of expertic superiority, rather than comparing merits of the text. This is exactly why I temporarily discontinued the discussion in talk page and filed this complaint: I see that the discussion is being derailed by personal attacks of the O.P. -M.Altenmann >t 18:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Re "The evidence has been provided, twice", I didn't ask for what Softlavender considers to be evidence (a link to a page and a demand that the reader find the alleged evidence somewhere on the page). I asked for specific diffs showing the behavior. No diff = no evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Guy, I realize that you would prefer diffs, but I explained why diffs would be actually inappropriate here: I would be posting 30 diffs (and also 20 or so more diffs from the other participants in the discussions by way of explanation). Much easier for people to just read the page -- it's very easy to read. There is no policy that evidence must only be in individual diffs. I provided the link to the evidence; it is up to individuals reading this ANI whether they want to click the link or not. There is no need to "find the alleged evidence somewhere on the page"; the evidence is there from the very beginning, and there is nothing whatsoever unrelated on the page (the talk page was fully archived before any of the current discussions involving Altenmann were begun). This is easy to see if the link is clicked. I will provide it again here: Talk:Mat (Russian profanity). Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
You are being uncooperative -- not a good thing if you want ANI to take action against another editor. You don't have to post "30 diffs". Just pick one or two that show the behavior that you claim occurred. At this point I am completely convinced that you refuse to post any diffs because they do not exist. Feel free to prove me wrong by posting some actual evidence in the form of diffs that backs up your claims. It would seem to be an easy task to respond to one or two of M.Altenmann's "false accusation" posts with a diff or two that show that the accusation is true. The repeated refusal to do that by you (Softlavender) and Harald Forkbeard leads me to the inevitable conclusion that they probably are false accusations. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Let me just provide the diffs so that the discussion can move on:(User:Harald Forkbeard) It started like this:[227] and continued, [228] and the tone gets rough, it continues with this,escalates to this and that.
Meanwhile:(User:M.Altenmann) started with explaining policies, continued with presenting a machine translation and proposing changing that and putting it into the article. Then these comments... at least "No references - bite the bullet" isn't really nice and puts oil into the fire. It keeps being ok for some comments and then M.Altenmann asks Harald to answer his questions directly. After opening a rfc about that, these edits already threaten the user with being blocked, note that he says "[...] if you continue with your personal attacks, you will be blocked from editing for disruption" in the last diff. These edits follow, telling us that the translation isn't correct but not why, which other editors answered([229];[230];[231])This followed, with demands that the other users should answer his question in the RFC and not say anything else. Then, he states that he will ask an admin to ban Harald if he continues to do personal attacks. Then he again that the editors should do what he wanted when he opened the RFC , and because of that, Arnoutf leaves the debate.
--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


  • "No references - bite the bullet" not nice phrasing but is not an attack on opponents skills or personality. Moreover, phrased in the context of explanation of a policy about citing sources, hot being addressed personally. -M.Altenmann >t 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I admit I am not an expert in English and it occurred to me to double-check with a dictionary. And now I am highly surprised how an Earth an advice to endure an unpleasant situation is an insult. - user:Altenmann >t 03:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Threaten user with being blocked" - Not an attack. In wikipedia we don't "threaten". We warn, when a wikipedian continues an inappropriate behavior. History of wikipedia shows if I were a buddy of an admin, Forkbread would have been blocked 52 hours ago already. I did not run crybaby to admins right away, I tolerated the insults for two days. -M.Altenmann >t 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • " with demands that the other users should answer his question in the RFC and not say anything else. " - False accusation. The diff provided in one part actually says. "Sorry I was wrong" and in 2nd and 3rd part I ask not to second-guess my ulterior motives, just answer my questions. I also remark that I understand that our policies are not cast in stone. How this is interpreted to be a hostility, beats my brains out of my head. -M.Altenmann >t 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "again that the editors should do what he wanted when he opened the RFC ". False accusation. In this diff I don't demand anything at all. Moreover, I write that I will address all other questions (irrelevant to RfC) in a separate talk. -M.Altenmann >t 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • re: arnouf leaves the discussion . How is that an accusation against me? Arnouf writes: " I have given my comment on request. Do with it what you think best." - And in my previous comments I have already explained that I will do that, only later. Notice that unlike my opponents I did not respond to this like: "Arnouf accepts only what he wants to hear. He did not get what he wanted, now he slams the door". -M.Altenmann >t 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yikes to all of this. I was trying to help at Talk:Mat and am afraid I did not. I should have spoken up for Altenmann there by now, where they were getting a hard time overall yet they were following a process with integrity, IMO. Altenmann set up the RFC process which is constructive and they are accepting that, trying to follow a rational process, which probably next would be to discuss specific alternatives. I did not know what would be said in the RFC and I think it is turning out differently than what Altenmann expected or sought, also, but Altenmann and I and others should follow this process out, as A and I at least are willing to do. And, in the process, be polite. H F was "right" in my opinion that his translation should be accepted, at least for now, and that is the emerging consensus of the RFC i think. Neither H F nor Altenmann were "right" in the early back-and-forth; both were trying to force their way (as did i, i guess, too). But the edit-warring ceased and RFC process was started, and it is working, and H F could be said to be "winning" in the emerging consensus of the RFC. But mainly there is no call for the harsh language and accusations, and at this point it feels to me that Altenmann is unfairly being attacked too much.
I've said elsewhere about bullying in Wikipedia (which I think is the worst thing about Wikipedia), that if someone feels they are being bullied they probably are, and their experience is genuine, and anyone observing that should jolly well back off and avoid furthering that experience, or better yet help them out in some way. This hasn't been bullying, but the same goes for too-harsh statements being taken as offensive. That is real. I would hope everyone involved could see their way to apologizing for something, and to acknowledging that all others have had some legitimate views or whatever, too. I am sorry that I helped raise the temperature at the Talk page, myself, when I was irked at one point. But I wasn't hurt personally, and I have to respect the RFC process which was opened sensibly and which is overall fine (except for bursts of too strong stuff). I'll stop after one plea.
To Altenmann and to Harald Forkman: I don't know what your previous experience has been, but coming to ANI is usually awful IMO, and it does NOT provide reasonable interventions. Note, an ANI discussion does not have to end with a judgement one way or the can be allowed to just fade away, if all would back away and say a milder thing or two and then not say anything more. I will watch here and may well comment more here, but overall I hope we could all back away from ANI, that is probably the most important thing now, IMO. --doncram 04:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Wise wordsdoncram. It is probably best to move away from this ANI. IMO neither party is free from blame, but neither party appears to intend to damage the project either. Cooling off for a while (e.g. by agreeing not to edit the article for a week by either party) and subsequently trying to find consensus for a translation would probably be best. Arnoutf (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
That's sorry, disagreed. My purpose was asking admins to intervene. I did not ask no block anybody to get an upper hand. All I wanted is somebody with authority to explain Forkbrad that his way of carrying out the discussion is not permitted. And somehow this discussion discussion is derailed again. And I will probably be accused of "Pushing hard until I get what I want". What a hypocrisy. All what I ever wanted is for discussion is get focused on the issue at hand. -M.Altenmann >t 14:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Evidence provided, and now?[edit]

Now that I have provided lots of evidence( see here), what now? User:M.Altenmann has, in my opinion(again, see the evidence above), Ownership problems with the RFC he started, has probably heated the discussion with that unnecessary comment here and has threatened admin action, more than once(for diffs, see above), even a ban by an adminstrator in an article (without any general sanctions) once. That's not good. Also, he didn't provide any argument towards possible specific problems with the translation once. Only general accusations. User:Harald Forkbeard has, however, been quite uncivil in this discussion, (again, see my post in the above section).

My personal opinion on Harald Forkbeard is that a strong official warning regarding personal attacks and a similar warning regarding edit wars from the community might be sufficient. --Müdigkeit (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs. I am going to analyses them and post my conclusions. More later. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

re " Ownership problems" Blatantly false accusation. All what I did was I did not comment on remarks outside of the scope of the "RfC", I did not make any negative comments on any remarks made in RfC; I only remarked some comments are outside of scope so I will address them in a separate thread. Moreover, I did admit, twice, that I was wrong and this RfC influenced my position. -M.Altenmann >t 15:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


I read all this, and Talk:Mat (Russian profanity) too.

The content dispute here is pretty simple.

  • Back in March, Harald Forkbeard (a fairly new user) provided a more.. colorful original translation of 2 poems in Russian. (e.g untranslated "khuy" >> "cock"; "'cherry'" (in quotes) >> "pussy")
  • On June 27, Altenmann (who is quite experienced) tagged with CN asking "who translated"
  • July 27 Harald answered in an in-text hidden editorial comment,

and edit warring broke out at the article and a flaming war, on Talk. I want to point out that Altenmann started in way too hot on Talk with this, writing "NO. I need a third party source which published the translation...." and that from the getgo, Harald was resistant, and here put his stake in the ground; " I still like my rendition better as it captures the original Russian in spirit, not in verbatim word. The judgment call on my poetic license is just that, a matter of personal opinion." and really misses the importance of WP:CONSENSUS especially in matters of judgement, where policy isn't clear.

My view on the content dispute is that it is pretty clear per WP:NONENG that we do not need a source for a translation (a published translation is preferred if available) and that there is ambiguity in the policy over how much license the translator can take. The RfC that Altenmann later started was a great idea but by then Harald was already very antagonized and Altenmann already had let himself go.

behavior-wise - what ANI is for - they both have behaved badly. fwiw, I propose a 24 hour block for both of them per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT, with a warning to each of them to back off the issue in the RfC and to listen to the close; with a particular warning to Altenmann re WP:BITE and not to be so harsh when policy is ambiguous; and a warning to Harald to be more sensitive to WP:CONSENSUS from others when translating artfully. There was no need for all this drama. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC) (fix Altenmann ping and re-sign, sorry for the re-ping Harald Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC))

  • support as proposer (obviously) Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC) (amend to emphasize part about behavior Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC))
    • No need as I don't intend to touch this article again. The amount of effort going into this discussion far exceeds the value of contributing to the Mat article. At this rate a number of articles useful for Wikipedia readers could have been written. I am done with this article. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • False interpretation, based on a cherry-picked quotation. The full quote clearly shows that I suggested Forkbread a compromise solution: I clearly gave him an alternative: either give a reference or provide a more faithful translation. So you are saying that a suggestion of a compromise solution is an insult and an excuse for escalation of insults? - user:Altenmann >t 02:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
"NO. I need a third party source which published the translation. (Did you bother to read the wikipedia policies after all? But at least you started thinking in the right direction.) Now let me make one step further and explain what is the problem in your case, which is also an advice how to resolve the problem. Normally there is no problems with adding a literal translation, because, after all, we add information from various sources in various languages and the translation is always involved. This is not so in the case of a poetic translation, because it involves a liberal poetic interpretation and modification by a wikipedian, which is a strict no-no in wikipedia; don't even try. Therefore if you want to help the readers to understand a poem, please provide word-by-word translation, accompanied with the text in which the words are placed in the proper syntactic order. This is how it is done in works in linguistics. It is a completely different story if you provide a published translation. Such text usually has its own encyclopedic value and will not be questioned. -M.Altenmann >t 04:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC) "
    • False interpretation of the initial edit as a "minor tweak", hinting that it was not worth the fuss. I had no problems with the previous unreferenced translation for years, and not because it was an exact rendition of the Russian text. The new translation went too far beyond synonym substitution and word order. and distorted the original meaning of the poem. (Of course this does not matter to those who see it as one big obscenity no matter how you translate - a valid point of view, btw.). - user:Altenmann >t 02:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I support the proposal of minor warnings as a light reminder to remain civil at all times, minus the block; discussion has already cooled down and there's no need for preventive measures.
I also want to thank Harald Forkbeard for the effort in providing the translation. That kind of WP:BOLD contribution is exactly what we should encourage, and these petty scuffles over rule-following do more harm than good to the project. Don't be discouraged by the drama, for every article where a disagreement raises its ugly head, there a dozen more where you can contribute without finding resistance and where your contributions will remain. Diego (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
"Petty scuffles over rule-following" happens because people are different and one has to accept this, and don't use it as an excuse for personal attacks, including the phrasing "petty scuffles". I stopped what you call "petty scuffling" exactly at the moment I filed the RfC. My beloved opponents prefer to interpret this as an attempt to push my POV. And how is that it is me who is tagged with "battleground mentality"? I filed the RfC knowing perfectly well that I have no buddies around to flock in and defend. I filed it to find the correct solution, because I don't assume myself absolute expert in anything. I filed it because before any continuation of the discussion of the translation I wanted to establish which arguments will be acceptable. I agree here we meet two polar views. One is "I am an expert, and who are you?" Another is "Wikipedia has rules. You don't like my view of these rules? Let's establish common rules!" If you think this is "petty scuffling", don't take part in it, but don't spread disrespect to fellow editors. - user:Altenmann >t 02:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user had a long and troubled history on Wikipedia - began contributing in 2002, desysopped by ArbCom after self-unblocking a 3RR block (repeatedly) in 2005 [232] and later placed on an editing restriction by ArbCom which stated that "Stevertigo... is required to cite a published source for any material he adds to an article". [233] The last restriction apears still to be in force. [234] Despite this, Stevertigo has chosem to create several entirely unsourced stub artices - see Expressive power (now removed and redirected to the original topic) and Snap (military) for example. The former is probably best described as unsourced waffle, while the latter is frankly bizarre - if there is an actual topic in there, I haven't a clue what it is, but whatever it is, if it involves a "tachyonic command problem" we should probably give our readers a hint as to what that is supposed to mean. Meanwhile, in talk-page space, Steveertigo has posted another bizarre screed on Talk:Bitcoin [235] claiming (from what liittle of it that makes any sense at all) that bitcoin is run from the English "Fort Terror complex", funded by "Barack Obama, as a favor to Joseph Biden" to the extent of "58,000,000 dollars" as part of some global conspiracy involving England, along with "The Breiviks, Chalmers, and the Odierno groups each represent paramilitary wings of the Euro-forted (Nordic, British, Hispanic), Nihon-Manchu forted militas, who have worked in espionage agains the United States, with planning and involvement in diabolical terror operations abroad, around the world". And at Talk:Honour we have another example of Stevertigo's postings [236] which seems to be a request for a page move on the grounds that "The spelling belongs to the domain of language regulated by a particular government, and is therefore not a part of the Common Anglish/English/Ynglish language, which honor a greater body of people and a greater vision of government, to which the word "honor" is bound to greater ownership of the altruistic, sacrifice for the greater body of people, for the higher then the highest principle, and to the providential and not merely the prosperous. In the context of auto- olig- and mono- archic governments, the term is also loaned to the honor-ific, to the stylistic, and in a different way than in the land abundant nations, to the materialistic". The word bizarre seems inadequate.

Having become aware of Stevertigo's editing restriction, I posted a reminder of this on his talk page. [237] The response in full:

Article stubbing is not a crime, as it takes time to write a global compendium project. I understand that you may not happy there in Bristol, but if the aristos-kleptos money they pay you was worth a nickel they would have built that nice and easy to engineer walking bridge to Paris by now and have hired actual Europeans to do it, (jobs!). Rather than mooching off the Free (democratic honor, try it) people's of the world, and the work we provide, try the opposite. [238]

For the record, I don't live in Bristol. Not that it really matters. And neither am I in receipt of "aristos-kleptos money" (I should be so lucky). As personal attacks go, it is so off-the-wall as to be laughable. It is however further evidence that Stevertigo has gone from merely being a troublesome contributor to one who's sole purpose seems to be to use Wikipedia as a forum for random typing exercises and flights of fancy in the far realms of tinfoil-hat-land. Stevertigo is WP:NOTHERE. He is so far from 'here' that only the internet (which somehow seems to be able to link our universe with his) is the only connection. A connection which is self-evidently of no earthly use to Wikipedia that the only rational thing to do is to indefinitely block Stevertigo and be done with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Block He is clearly not here to build an encycolpedia. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Temporary block This sort of incomprehensible behaviour is certainly problematic. That and the violation of sanctions justifies a block. Given this users long history of contribution I would like to see a temporary block. In my experience people who engage in these sort of bizarre ideas tend to have good times and bad times. Perhaps in 6 months this user will be able to contribute constructively again. Chillum 16:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that per the arbcom ruling I have deleted the pages this user created without sources. I also moved back a back that he moved out of the way to create Expressive power. Chillum 16:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support - (portion redacted, see below Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)) Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs, plus this user is clearly editing (adding unsourced material) in contravention of an active Arbcom restriction (to source all edits). In any of these cases, the best that we can probably do for this user is to indefinitely block and give the WP:STANDARDOFFER. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I suggest you redact your medical opinions. Collect (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
      • It could relevant to treating the situation with some sensitivity rather than annoyance. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
        • No, Collect is right about this, we have a strict policy forbidding specific medical advice. It wasn't so intended, but could be so interpreted, so I have refactored. In future I would take it as good faith if you were to refactor on my behalf if I step across one of these bright-line policies. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
          • I've refactored my comment as well — no medical advice there, but no need to get into that here. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no massive number of problem edits by this (interesting) person, and a block would be far more punitive than preventative. He has posted in the past year fairly infrequently, and making a "big deal" out of the (interesting) posts is not important in the "great scheme of things." Heck, I also routinely objected to banning (grumpy) editors who have been brought to this court. If the matter is not of substantial and urgent importance, it is not worth the paper we are using here. Collect (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have extensively examined this editor's editing history over the last few years. Almost all edits to articles are unsourced, and while many of them make do not seem to be problematic, a very large proportion of them add content which at best is personal opinion, and at worst is crazy. Many of the pages created are clearly about ideas the editor has made up himself or herself. This applies not only to the strikingly bizarre conspiracy editing, but also to articles which on the face of it look more natural and plausible. For example, the article Universal Ranking System (now deleted) was completely unsourced. I have searched, and failed to find anything anywhere referring to the sort of "Universal Ranking System" described in the article. What is more, the article's second sentence says "such a ranking system would have to use...", with the word "would" clearly indicating that this is a hypothetical concept, a system which does not exist. Reading the article as a whole, it is evident that it is not about an actual ranking system, but rather about Stevertigo's personal ideas about what a universal ranking system should be. This is a relatively mild example: other parts of Stevertigo's editing are much worse, some of them totally crazy.
  • We are not dealing with an editor who has made a few unacceptable edits, and created one or two good faith but not very good articles. We are dealing with an editor who had such an extensive history of totally unacceptable editing that he or she was placed under restrictions which required sources for all article content, but who five years later is still making numerous unsourced and unreasonable edits, including creating completely unsourced articles which are totally off the top of his or her head, unrelated to anything in real life.
  • Chillum says "In my experience people who engage in these sort of bizarre ideas tend to have good times and bad times. Perhaps in 6 months this user will be able to contribute constructively again." Maybe that "tends" to be the case for "people who engage in these sort of bizarre ideas", but it does not appear to be so in this specific case. Why should we think it likely that in a few months the editor will have changed for the better, since several years have produced no such change?
  • Collect says "There is no massive number of problem edits by this (interesting) person, and a block would be far more punitive than preventative." Collect must have looked at a very different sample of Stevertigo's than I have, because I have seen a very large number of edits which at best violate the ArbCom restriction, and at worst are total nonsense.
  • The ArbCom ruling says "he may be blocked for a period of up to one week for each infraction". On the basis of that ruling, I could easily block him for many months, without further discussion. However, I don't think that would be enough. The editor has been subject to discussion in (to my knowledge) at least eleven administrators' noticeboard discussions, and at least three Arbcom cases, and has had restrictions placed on his/her editing at several of those discussions. We did not get to the stage of Arbcom placing blanket restrictions on the editor and authorising summary blocks for individual unsourced edits until the editor had been a major cause of problems. Nearly five years later, the same editor is (a) continuing to produce large numbers of unacceptable edits (b) completely ignoring the Arbcom ruling, and (c) failing or refusing to recognise that there is a problem. What is more, some of the problems are on exactly the same topics which were causes of sanctions before, such as Barack Obama related editing. Problems have been going on for at least ten years (when the editor was repeatedly blocked, and then desysopped): to expect that the problems will now fade away in a few months is unrealistic. Time for an indefinite block, and probably a site ban. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In response to your question "Why should we think it likely that in a few months the editor will have changed for the better, since several years have produced no such change". The only reason I wanted to give this user a future chance is because they have been here 13 years and was once an admin. Clearly at some point they were productive. I am assuming that they were not disruptive for the whole 13 years. Regardless I do support a block, I just think the standard offer should apply at the very least. Chillum 16:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I tangled with Stevertigo years ago over his insistence that his personal analysis was correct at the article Perfect crime (what exactly does "perfect" mean?) He was wedded to the idea that his own original research was a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. The friction between us escalated to this textbook example of disruption to make a point. Discussion such as this one in September 2009 resulted in him being blocked. Later, at a Wikipedia meetup, I talked with him in person, and he seemed a reasonable guy, but this recent spate of work proves otherwise. Support site ban. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose blocking and site ban. If there is something wrong with the content on his user page, remove it or delete it. From what I can tell, his user page statement is less of an antisemitic one and more of a Christian one. In any case, while it is certainly quite easy to dismiss Steve as "totally crazy" per the above, he's always come off to me as more of an artist engaging in intellectual performance, such as the kind you might find in the local coffee shop or an itinerant orator like Stoney Burke. As long as Steve stays away from article and talk pages, he should be okay. I would recommend that he focus on art and only on his art, as we have numerous topics that need designs, illustrations, and graphs. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
"As long as Steve stays away from article and talk pages"? But he doesn't stay away from them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Er, what? What part of "as long as" is giving you trouble? Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think that there is the slightest chance that Stevertigo would take any more notice of an 'article and talk page ban' (which would presumably also involve him not inventing bogus policies and/or guidelines as well [239]) than he has of previous restrictions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand and sympathize with your confusion. Since you've only been here since 2010, you aren't aware that this entire site was created by editors "inventing" policies and guidelines, just as Stevertigo attempted to do in the above link. His worthy and valuable experiment at creating a "Ratings and rankings system" is no different than any other editor who has proposed to create a trust metric system. The greatest threat to Wikipedia isn't from editors like Stevertigo, people who think differently and march to the beat of a different drum. The greatest threat to Wikipedia is from editors and admins who worship the crushing bureaucracy of groupthink and hive mindedness, and who through their religious devotion to policy wonkery and guideline adoration, crush any attempt at creativity and innovation. I would rather see a million Stevertigo's who seem perfectly crazy and out of their mind than one more additional administrator or rules lawyer narrowly following a policy that drives this site into obscurity. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Far out man. That's some serious shit you're smoking. Peace and Love. Don't let the Man grind you down. Give Vietnam back to the Irish... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support site ban as WP:NOTHERE and a timesink for more productive editors. Miniapolis 22:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I think everything has already been said. If he's unwilling or incapable of creating comprehensible articles, then it's probably time to remove his ability to edit. The history of disruption and ignored Arbcom sanctions makes this an easier decision. If it's all performance art, then that doesn't belong here, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per JamesBWatson, Ivanvector, MrX, and others. Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite block: I have no idea what's going on here (CIR issues, attempts at inserting fringe views, trolling, a compromised account, editing by a very young user) but it's not productive. I have seen no productive edits by the user and plenty that seem like they could be offensive in some way (e.g. is his user page anti-semitic? It might be if I understood what it was saying). Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Enough editing time and virtual ink has been wasted on Steve's absurdities.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Site ban as clearly NOTHERE, Enough time, effort and patience has been wasted on this editor!. –Davey2010Talk 19:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support site ban on the time-honored principle "enough is enough." BMK (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

request to delete inappropriate, biased, and incomplete information from Jeffrey Elman Biography[edit]

I am the subject of the article 'Jeffrey Elman Biography'. I write about a matter that was previously been dealt with on the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. It resulted in editor intervention that satisfactorily resolved the issue by removing material I believe to be contentious, defamatory, factually incorrect, and inappropriate use of Wikipedia as a way to advance a political position. The matter was dealt with by editor Lithistman on 28 September 2014, resulting in a reversion of this pate to revision 627348309 by Malerooster. The matter has been quiescent until 7 July 2015 when user Nomoskedasticity restored the problematic material. Because this is now the third time that the issue has come up, I ask for administrator intervention to restore the prior version of the bio (prior to Nomoskedasticity's edits) and to possibly freeze my bio to prevent what I feel is unjustified edit warring.

The material is the final paragraph of my biography. This paragraph implies that as Dean, I infringed the academic freedom of a faculty member. The sourcing involves two item, both of which are based on information provided by the aggrieved faculty member and without any attempt to obtain the full facts.

The facts are as follows. (I apologize for the lengthy explanation, but having been through this several times, it may be useful to describe the issue in detail.)

In 2006 I was told by the Chair of the Sociology Department at UCSD of a dispute between two faculty members, A and B. Professor A alleged fraudulent scholarship on the part of B. The matter was upsetting to the department and the Chair asked me for advice. I explained the University of California policy regarding charges of research misconduct and recommended that he advise Professor A, if he felt misconduct had occurred, to file a complain with the campus Research Integrity Officer (RIO). That was done, and a faculty committee investigated the charges. That committee concluded that there was no basis for claims of fraud or other research misconduct. The RIO informed Professor A of this and advised him that further such claims would not be viewed as reasonable scholarly debate but might be considered defamatory. Professor A did not appeal or argue with this decision.

Two years later, I was told by the Chair that Professor A had continued to allege fraud and that Professor B complained about what he felt were defamatory comments, and was considering leaving the university. I consulted with our Executive Vice Chancellor and legal staff, who advised me to send a letter to Professor A letting him know that continuing to make charges that a faculty committee had already found to be without basis could result in legal action and university sanction. I conveyed this to Professor A in the 2009 letter referred to in the paragraph introduced by Nomoskedasticity. I did not personally threaten Professor A with any sanctions. Indeed, as Dean I have no power to implement such sanctions. The most I can do is warn faculty of risks they may be incurring.

Professor A was upset and took the matter to a subcommittee of the Academic Senate. This subcommittee has the charge with considering university policies on academic freedom but does not investigate specific cases. However, the 3 person committee decided—with no formal investigation—that the university and I had in fact violated Professor A’s rights. The committee presented a summary to this effect to the Academic Senate but without giving any details. The Senate agreed that if true, the behavior described in the subcommittee’s resolution was of concern. I was not named in this resolution.

The local newspaper (San Diego Union Tribute) was called about the matter (I assume by Professor A or a member of the subcommittee) and provided with the committee's perspective. I was not contacted or offered any opportunity to provide any information. That article is in fact the only sourcing that might be considered factual and unbiased, although as I said, it was quickly written with no attempt to gather information from me, Professor B or his Chair, or anyone else.

To this point, there was no formal investigation. Professor A subsequently initiated a formal grievance with another subcommittee of the Academic Senate.This is the one committee that is empowered to carry out such investigations and to make recommendations to the Chancellor regarding their findings. Two charges were filed. The subcommittee held extensive hearings over the course of several months. The subcommittee rejected the first grievance as not having any merit. After this decision, in June 2014, Professor B then retracted the second grievance and indicated the matter was closed. Nothing else has happened since.

These are the facts of the matter. The paragraph in my biography obviously presents a very different picture of what happened and makes no mention of the outcome, leaving readers with the impression that I probably violated the rights of a faculty member and was censured by the Academic Senate. Neither of these things has happened.

When this material was first introduced, I objected to its inclusion on the basis of most of what I have explained above. After extensive discussion, the matter was resolved on 28 September 2014 when Lhistman removed the material, reverting to an earlier version of the bio prior to its inclusion.

The matter was at rest for a year and a half, when Nomoskedasticity reintroduced it on 7 July 2015.

The inclusion of this paragraph has not been without consequence for me. I have been told that my candidacy for at least two university presidencies was derailed because of worries regarding the appearance of bad behavior on my part. It was told explicitly that the issue was not necessarily whether I had been guilty of bad behavior, but simply because of possible negative reactions from the appearance of impropriety on my part.

Thus, I ask that this material once again be removed. It is biased in a way that I have reason to believe reflects a political agenda, omits critical information (some of which may be confidential and cannot be placed on a public Wikipedia page), and is damaging to my reputation. At this point, I am concerned that this entry not turn into a ping-pong match in which the entry is used as a forum for an academic political discussion. So I also ask that freezing the bio be considered as an option to prevent edit warring. Kk1892 (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The material is clearly a "contentious claim about a living person" and one based on a "single source". Pending finding a strong corroborating reliable source, I deleted the claims. Collect (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Someone apparently cannot count to two. It is based on two sources, including a peer-reviewed academic journal. Professor Elman's real beef is with that journal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I have noted this source at WP:RS/N -- and note your claim that since the person has not requested a retraction of the book review (how would you know this?) therefore the claims must be true about a threat letter. Alas, I demur on your position, and consider a book review in a learned journal to be competent only for the normal use and ambit of the journal, and not for claims of fact about a third party. ("Someone apparently cannot count to two" is a tad snarky, IMO) Collect (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The Contemporary Sociology article is a book review of Richard Biernacki’s book and any statements in it can be deemed as the reviewer's opinion and not a reliable source about the event in question. The last paragraph as it reads now is very one sided. Froggerlaura ribbit 19:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Articles in that journal are peer reviewed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
It's still a "peer-reviewed" essay that begins with this: "Richard Biernacki’s book has been controversial since before its publication. As has already been widely discussed on the blogs (emphasis mine), Jeff Elman, the dean of Social Sciences at the University of California, San Diego sent Biernacki a letter in June of 2009 ordering him not to publish his manuscript or present findings from it at professional conferences." (Dylan Riley. Back to Weber! Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews September 2014 43: 627-629). The author states he got the information from a blog, still not a reliable source even if it has been published in a peer reviewed journal as it is an opinion piece. Froggerlaura ribbit 19:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The scientific journal is indeed a book review. Interestingly we learn from that article that prof Biernacki is a methodologist (and professor A in the argument above) and is an involved party in the dispute. There has recently been a lot of discussion about the use of scientific methodology in the social sciences (especially in sociology and psychology). While there is (in my professional view) a lot of room for improvement in social science methodology, not following golden standards as decided by methodologists is not necessarily scientific misconduct (if only because following these standards is in practice often impossible). The discussions between researchers adhering to strict methodological standards, at the risk of not being able to investigate important phenomena, versus researchers being more liberal in methods at the risk of overinterpreting such phenomena can be incredibly vitriolic, and (although I do not have all the facts here) that seems to have been the case here.
Prof Elman was not even involved in the content of the dispute, but as dean had the task to try to control the dispute. Perhaps his letter to prof A was not the best possible solution, but we all make mistakes and this seems to be a fairly minor one. Thus I do not think this single incident justifies the largest paragraph of his whole career summary. While maybe it does fullfil WP:RS, I think putting attention to this minor incident appears to be against WP:UNDUE. Also note that in biographies (especially of living people) we have agreed to be exceptionally cautious in making claims (per WP:BLP) and the challenged section tends to go against the spirit of that policy. Arnoutf (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the previous discussion at BLPN, if anyone would like to review it. This seems like a pretty straightforward question of whether there are enough and reliable enough sources to justify having that content in the article - hopefully it goes without saying that we shouldn't be giving the article subject's unpublished, self-reported version of events much credence. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

While it is true that Wikipedia should not kowtow to demands from the article subject, it also goes without saying that care should also be taken in what sources are used to prove a point instead of spreading third-hand hearsay. Prof Elman's views are probably unpublished and unreported because there are confidentially agreements in place at the university, so the event is always likely to be one sided with the unbound party constantly crying foul and having the "true, since it's published" side of the story. Froggerlaura ribbit 20:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, that's why I said it's a question of what reliable sources support. But "third-hand heresay" isn't really an accurate description of how the available sources treat this either. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe an author that states he got his information from a blog (even if published in a well-regarded, apparently peer-reviewed scientific journal) would qualify as third-hand information, and personally if I had reviewed this article would have asked to have that statement removed or at least provide an RS before acceptance for publication. Froggerlaura ribbit 18:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Is any of this encyclopedically significant enough to belong in the article at all? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, it seems more an issue of undue attention to a relatively minor incident than one of reliable sources. Arnoutf (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I was just asking the same question as Brad over on the RSN thread. [240] The sourcing seems sparse for a 'controversy'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I would have thought that it's a matter for discussion at the article talk page, or perhaps BLPN (where it has previously been discussed). Usually when there's a content dispute it's pretty clear there's no call for discussion at ANI. Anyway, since the question has been posed, it's not something that is sourced to just one reference. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Elman here. The reason for raising this issue on ANI is that in fact, the matter was discussed previously on BLPM and the result of that discussion was that the material was removed until reinstated earlier this month by another user. With regards to the sourcing, the two sources are extremely weak. The SD U-T article was based on incomplete information with no attempt to contact me to provide my explanation or a fuller accounting of the facts. The Contemporary Sociology article is based on that source plus input from the aggrieved faculty member, again with no attempt to provide information about the fuller context, etc. The article reports a vote of a small number of faculty who were operating with incomplete information (there are approx. 1000 UCSD faculty; about 70 attended this meeting and were not given any details about the incident). When an official investigation was later carried out by the Academic Senate's committee that is empowered to investigate such things, they dealt with two grievances. The first was found to be without substance, and the professor who submitted them then withdrew the second grievance. To a large extent, the details are confidential, which places me in the difficult situation of only being able to say these things without the ability to verify them without public sources. That said, the matter is at the very least contentious, the Wikipedia entry has been damaging to my reputation, and I would argue, it is a relatively minor incident in my career. It is not clear why, particularly given the resolution of the issue, it belongs in the bio. Nor is it clear why, having been removed by an editor last year, it has suddenly resurfaced. Kk1892 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Fyddlestix has now provided a wider range of sources at RSN. One of them [241], an article in CHE, no less, says that the newspaper did attempt to contact Elman but Elman did not respond to request for comment. The newspaper itself says this [242]. I find it unsurprising that claims above based on personal "knowledge" work out to be contradicted by published sources. Again, however, I think the discussion here would work better at BLPN, or perhaps RSN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I can understand why Mr Elman came here (since the previous BLPN thread got archived w/o him seeing the changes he wanted), but ANI really isn't the proper place for this discussion. BLPN is the obvious choice, although the thread at RSN already has considerable participation, perhaps we can all just agree to discuss this there (in one spot?) Fyddlestix (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

IP hopper NOTHERE[edit]

User: made a lot of white space edits. These were reverted by User:Arthur Rubin. User: has reinstated a few. Personally I don't think they are revert-worthy. I have left a note for the latter IP, requesting they stop. I would suggest that if they continue suitable temporary blocks be used. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC).

108 is almost certainly the "Michigan Kid", and 68 is probably the Michigan Kid. Perhaps the "Kid" needs an WP:LTA page? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe so. If we have access to the community memory on these LTAs we can look at crafting a response. I already have a filter in mind, if this is an ongoing problem, give me lots of data on an LTA page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

Addition of false claims of privileges on my talk page by User:Randomstuff207_w[edit]

The aforementioned user modified the text of the subst-ed welcome template on my talk page to add a claim that I was an administrator, even though that is clearly untrue. [243] I reverted the edit and warned the user with the warning template for modifying others' talk page comments, as that warning most closely matched the user's actions. The user then created a new section on my talk page and repeated the claim, denying that the original edit was made, along with a barnstar below it. [244] Note: the addition of the text "your a loser" that was recently removed does not appear to be made by the same user, and therefore may be ignored.MopSeeker FoxThree! 23:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any admin action is necessary, it seems they were just confused about the deletion of their page and your revert. Dustin V. S. left them a message explaining that you aren't an admin and they shouldn't alter other user's comments/pages. Sam Walton (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Jake Speight[edit]

User unblocked after legal threat was retracted. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

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

User:XVXI appears to identify as Jake Speight. Has removed details of his conviction and said "This page has been edited from facts and is 100% correct. The details from the conviction which is now spent EchetusXe's keeps editing this page and is doing so with any actual facts if this page is changed again we are going to seek legal advice". Seeking advice here. Thanks.--EchetusXe 10:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This is probably more a matter for WP:BLPN at this stage, but I see no harm in having the referenced content about his criminal conviction remain in the article. I'll also remind the user about WP:NLT. GiantSnowman 10:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I have blocked the account in question for continuing to make veiled threats, which followed this earlier legal threat and came after my warning for NLT. As a side note many thanks to @Collect: for tidying up the wording of the section in question. GiantSnowman 13:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Update: Huon has since unblocked the user. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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

User:The Spartan 003[edit]

Blocked for 24 hours, and instructed on the problematic nature of their edits, by Nyttend (non-admin closure) -- Softlavender (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Hello. For over a month, this user has been repeatedly breaching WP:OR (and, of course, Wikipedia:VNT) on various articles.

The first two cases are closed (or however you call it), I'm just telling you about them so that you realize how this guy behaves.

1. He was inserting the claim that voiced uvular stop (a consonant that is very rare among world's languages) exists in Algerian / Tunisian Arabic. After repeatedly asking for sources (in multiple edit summaries, in many articles - the full list is here), I finally asked him on his talk page to provide a source. He didn't. Soon after I removed all of the OR mention of voiced uvular stop in Arabic, be it phonemic or allophonic.

2. He then deleted] a chunk of the sourced content of Qoph. His argument? "Those are lies! Qaf and Fa don't have Maghrebi forms, they are standard (at least in Algeria)." I reverted it, saying "reverting the removal of sourced content". He then reverted me, saying "I was born and raised in Algeria and i've NEVER seen any Qaf with this version." I then reverted] his edit, and said "Mate, you're removing a section which contains four sources. You should launch a debate on the talk page before removing this."

3. Now it's Berber Arabic alphabet.

  • He first ([245], [246]) replaced the text with original research.
  • I reverted his edit.
  • He then changed the text, so that it said something else than the sources.
  • As that is pure vandalism, I naturally reverted his edit
  • He reverted ([247], [248]) and removed one of the sources. The article still says something else than the used source! Therefore, it needs to be reverted to this version. Peter238 (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours, and I've thrown in a detailed explanation. He has no usertalkspace edits, and in fact, no edits outside of mainspace except for this, when the talk page got moved because he moved an article. Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

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

User:William D. Money[edit]

OK, I'm reporting this one now. William D. Money has engaged in edit warring (as well, as implicit personal attacks, while maintaining a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude) in effort to maintain a WP:PEACOCK and non-NPOV language at the article Skip Bayless (where the editor has now been reverted by three different editors, including Admin Jenks24). I don't think the extent of this editor's silliness can be grasped without viewing this little gem at Jenks24's Talk page.

I'd ask for page protection, but really in this case I think a block is in order to get across that this kind of behavior is not acceptable. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Links I found regarding this(sadly they are missing above):
Last edit showed that the user is very inexperienced (asks where the talk page is)
Possibly emotionally close to the subject, as seen in that text wall comment
Reinserting Peacock and NPOV terms, indeed.
and again

... and so on. It seems that this editor doesn't understand what Wikipedia is or how it works. I've left a message on the talk page.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a topic ban. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
That's too early. His last edits not only show that this user is quite inexperienced in some fields(not finding the talk page and such, but also show that we might be able to convince him why he is wrong.--Müdigkeit (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


This is a content dispute and does not belong on this board.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

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

I published my first three posts on this topic to Wikipedia about a week ago. It was quickly removed and--despite maintaining a NPOV--it was also removed twice today for spurious reasons, apparently due to ideological biases. I provided lengthy explanations for my three posts, yet the editors removing my post have not provided any detailed reasoning for the posts' removal.

I am notifying StAnselm of this notification, the editor who most recently decided to undo my post today. Other editors undoing one or more of my three posts are MrX, AnomieBot and Roscelese. I will also notify them if this is appropriate (whatever is best: I wish to avoid continuing to have my posts collectively and repeatedly undone).

Please see the talk page [[249]]. (I sent the same explanation to the talk pages of Roscelese, for the Intro, and AnomieBot, for the Sodom and Gomorrah subtitle).

Please note: This is frustrating. For 30 years, I have been an ordained minister. My approach is scholarly. Indeed, I have written nine articles on this topic since 2003. Instead of ideology, my hope is that the pertinence and credibility of ideas will be respected on Wikipedia.

I believe both the traditional and modern viewpoints should be well represented--and am willing to resolve this in a manner respecting both.

Quoflector (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Diffs please? Your very long comments on the talk page never seems to have been removed [250]. Nor do I see any evidence of you posting to the talk page a week ago. If you are referring to the article, you shouldn't be making posts to the article proper. If you want to make changes to the article, you should be discussing it on the talk page, preferably with shorter posts.

Since this is a contentious articlesubject matter, you really should be discussing any contentious changes before making them. If you can't come to an agreement on what, if any, changes to make to the article then it's a WP:content dispute that should be resolved via some suitable means of WP:dispute resolution and shouldn't be here on ANI.

BTW, you should notify any editor you name here, as the big orange box says when you edit this page and the red text says in the header of this page before you edit.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. You also should give people time to respond, particularly when making such lengthy posts. At the time of my response above, it had been less than 3 hours since your first post to the talk page [251]. It's completely unrealistic to expect people to respond in such a short time, wikipedia is an international volunteer effort. Even 24 hours is way too short a time to expect a response, particularly on something like this which isn't urgent. So there's even less reason to bring this to ANI, or to try and force your changes in to the article. Yet you do have a response from before you posted here which you haven't replied to. (If you intended to leave a reply, something seems to have gone wrong since you only managed to sign the page.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
P.P.S. I noticed you did leave some earlier comments on your own talk page and other editor talk pages. Do understand if you want to discuss changes to an article, you should discuss it on the article talk page. Very occasionally some discussion may be held at a suitable noticeboard (which ANI, this board never is). However, discussing changes to an article on someone's talk page, including yours, often means it either won't be seen or may be ignored or at least won't be a fruitful discussion because it will lack wider participation. Nil Einne (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Blatantly partisan skewing[edit]

An editor, User:Cwobeel, is going around to the articles of GOP presidential candidates, and removing the fact that they are presidential candidates from the lead paragraphs. This is not just contrary to WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. It is blatantly partisan skewing, as this editor does not bother with the BLPs of the five major Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton. I have had my disagreements with User:MrX, but not even he has openly advocated removing a presidential candidacy from the lead paragraph of a BLP. Frankly, I am not sure what to do here. There is an ongoing RFC at the Rick Perry article on this subject, but Cwobeel just plows ahead at other GOP articles (see his contributions). I have no idea what to do. Am I supposed to start an RFC at every single GOP presidential candidate BLP? Is it an NPOV violation to apply a double-standard to the BLPs of candidates whom you don't like? I should note that all of the Democratic candidate BLPs (including Clinton's) mention the candidacy in the lead paragraph, and then provide a bit more detail at the end of the lead. But Cwobeel is opposing mentioning the candidacy only once in the lead, in the opening paragraph of a BLP of a GOP presidential candidate. Is it best to just let this editor run rampant, or spend all my time putting together multiple RFCs that will undoubtedly go on for weeks while the user gets his way?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Non-US editors, please note that "GOP" is the Republican Party, one of the two major US political parties. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant After cwobeel's edits, I am still seeing mention of candidacy in the ledes (typically in the last paragraph). could you confirm your allegation is correct? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he wants it out of the lead paragraphs, and put only at the end of the lead. That's contrary to WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. Every Democratic presidential candidate has candidacy-related info both in the lead paragraph and at the end of the lead. I suggested (for now) that GOP candidates get worse treatment than Democrats, by only having this info in the lead paragraphs but not at the end-of-lead, and yet even that is not worse enough for Cwobeel.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide us with a link to this discussion between you and Cwobeel? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
As I said, the primary discussion is in the RFC at the Perry talk page, here, where he indicated that discussing it is a "waste of time".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
That seems to be a discussion about the Perry article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The issue is identical at all these articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
So you haven't actually discussed this with Cwobeel except in relation to the Perry article? What exactly are you asking to be done here? This seems to be a content dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
He has already said that discussion about this is a "waste of time", as I indicated above, and he has ignored my edit summaries reverting him at other articles. I am asking that you block him for blatantly partisan editing that violates clear policies about npov and WP:OPENPARAGRAPH and consensus. Not that I have much hope you will do so. If you don't, how about telling me what the [] I'm supposed to do, hmmm?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm in no position to block anyone - I'm not an admin. As for consensus, where is it? The RfC at the Perry article has only been running for a couple of days, and could go either way - and only applies to that article anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, I meant "you" plural. Were you asking me what you as an individual editor should do about Cwobeel? If so, I suppose the answer is that you really can't do much of anything as a non-admin, to anyone. As far as I know, there is no one at Wikipedia who has taken the position that presidential candidate ought to be removed from the lead paragraph and buried at the end, except Cwobeel. Does that sound like consensus to you, Andy? (In any event, even if Cwobeel were part of a mob doing this, I don't suppose ANI would be helpless.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────*I don't want to jump to conclusions here but a quick glance does suggest that this is borderline disruptive editing as it is being done in a rather pushy way and without consensus. I will refrain from opining on motives, though the fact this seems to be directed at Republicans does seem odd. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not entirely convinced that even it were done for some nefarious purpose it would actually achieve anything. I assume that for most of these individuals, their potential candidacy is well known anyway - and whether this appears in the first paragraph of the lede or the third isn't going to make much difference is it? Am I missing something significant here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the policies I mentioned, the practical effects are many. People who are looking for info about the presidential candidate will expect to see it in the first paragraph, and if they don't then many will assume they came to the wrong place or quickly run out of patience. Moreover, the first paragraph of the lead is often presented as a search result, or as a summary by many search engines and phone makers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: I suppose you may have overlooked the fact that Anythingyouwant made pushy changes on a number of BLPs a couple of days ago. Neither Anythingyouwant nor Cwobeel are being disruptive in making these edits; they're merely being bold and editing these article as they believe best. The difference is that Anythingyouwant accuses other editors of partisan editing, typically doesn't respect BRD, and continues to edit in his preferred versions even during on ongoing RfC. I suggest that Anythingyouwant be patient and avail himself of the dispute resolution process.- MrX 03:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
"People who are looking for info about the presidential candidate will expect to see it in the first paragraph, and if they don't then many will assume they came to the wrong place or quickly run out of patience." No they won't. ("That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." — Christopher Hitchens.) Writegeist (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Then I dismiss your comment without evidence, Writegeist. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Evidence. ―Mandruss  04:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Much of a do about nothing. These politicians are notable on their own right, their candidacy being a recent event. Thus, mentioning their candidacy in the lead in chronological order is more appropriate. Look at it another way, many of these candidates in a few months they will likely no longer run, at which point mentioning their candidacy in the opening paragraph will be most awkward. These articles are encyclopedic articles about these politicians, and do not need to be slanted to recent events. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

As for the "blatantly partisan skewing", what is that all about? Anythingyouwant may need a reminder to WP:AGF and stop seeing shadows where there are none. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

All I have to say is that it's interesting that these articles, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Lincoln Chafee, Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, all have a mention of their presidential run in the first paragraph. Hmmmm. Onel5969 TT me 04:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Then fix them. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
...and do the same for Jeb Bush while you are at it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. All candidates have their lede in chronological order, regardless of party. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Consistency is good. Onel5969 TT me 04:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a welcome development. I still don't think it's compliant with policy about lead paragraphs, and am skeptical that the lead editors at the Hillary Clinton and other articles will accept it. We'll see. I also don't think any of these leads are now chronological, if you include the present lead paragraphs, nor are they supposed to be. Thanks everyone for listening.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have not looked but have all these articles and editors that frequent these pages tagged with arbcom American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions notices? If these articles or frequent editors to said pages are still engaging in any edit warring or POV pushing, then reminders are needed.--MONGO 04:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Does anyone want to propose that to WP:OPENPARAGRAPH at the MOS? It can be as simple as adding "or lead paragraph(s) in chronological order" to the end of the sentence that starts "The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held ..." or separately (e.g. "For persons with a series of notable position(s) or role(s) but who are currently is or seeking a new role or position (e.g. an actor in an upcoming television show or movie or a politician seeking a new office), their position(s) or role(s) should be listed in chronological order with the most current role of position being seeked listed at the end of the lead section."? That should reduce this dispute in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that is needed. We already have WP:RECENTISM to guide us, and US politician are running for office all the time. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption by Buzzbuzzwili[edit]

User blocked for 24 hours by Ricky81682. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Buzzbuzzwili has been changing the descriptions of the point of view of political parties all over the world. You can see this in his contribs. The editing pattern matches that of indeffed User:TheRealSingapore. [253], [254], [255], [256]. The changes are made without mentioning any source or reason. My report [257] at the vandalism noticeboard was declined [258], with the admin saying that the edits are "not vandalism." I'm not sure if I agree with that or not. What possible justification can there by for continually changing the points of view of parties all over the world, without providing any reason? Are we to believe that this user has some kind of worldwide expertise in this area? It sure looks like the two users are the same person. But Buzzbuzzwili predates TheRealSingapore. MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for repeated inclusion of unsourced content. The burden is on the editor to provide reliable sources about their political positions. If you think the editors are related, file a report at WP:SPI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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

This looks like yet another puppet of serially disruptive puppeteer Greekboy12345er6, and I have submitted an SPI. RolandR (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I submitted an SPI here [259]. I suppose it is in the nature of SPIs that part of the job is to figure out which are really the same investigation and to combine them. MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful childishness stroke trolling[edit]

I'm somewhat displeased about some of the responses from a group of editors following my question here

In particular, Baseball bugs and a few others. I mean, how does telling me to watch childrens cartoons and calling me a gobshite and a scumbag really help me out. What happened to the 5 pillars?

No one on the desk seems to care about this wanton, outright abuse directed for no particular reason. So can I ask for some admin intervention here. Preferably from an admin who could at least be a bit impartial, please.

-- (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe the comments were in jest, considering that "gobshite" would hardly be the sort of word that someone with a "posh accent" would use. Also, Bugs Bunny could hardly be said to have a posh accent.Blackmane (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as one who went to a school more than a thousand years old, I have no idea why you would want to change this. Unless you are Brian Sewell. Even the Queen laughs at his accent. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • We generally allow some humor within the tone of responses to the reference desk but it should not be at the expense of the questioner which I think these were. Fortunately, at one the other IP offered an appropriate response with a link to a google search. Would the computing desk be better than the language desk? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • (Non-administrator observation) To be fair... I, too, was under the impression the request was a joke and had myself a quiet little snigger... Kleuske (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the implication that I was calling the OP vulgar names. And I was sincere in advising the OP to study how someone talks and see if they can imitate the style. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Persistent IP hopping vandal[edit]

A serial, IP hopping vandal has been vandalising Wikipedia for several years. They mostly attack pages by adding un-related information about the Children's tv show, Teenage Fairytale Dropouts. However, they have been known to add false, unsourced and/or incorrect information as well. Examples of their abusive behaviour include the following:

  1. Addition of unrelated material about "Teenage Fairytale Dropouts": [260], [261], [262], [263]
  2. Replacing existing content with unsourced and/or dubious material: [264], [265], [266]
  3. Disruptive editing: [267], [268]
  4. Vandalism: [269], [270], [271], [272]
  5. Persistence of negative behaviour: On February 24, 2015, the vandal made the following edits: [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279] to the article, So Fresh: The Hits of Winter 2012. In the end, semi-protection was the only way of stopping their disruptive behaviour: [280].
  6. Complete disregard of multiple warnings and/or blocks: [281], [282], [283], [284], [285]

I've been tracking them for a number of months now, during which their abusive behaviour has not changed despite repeated warnings from numerous users and bots (i.e. they never reply or post comments on talk pages). The pages they target are always needing to be protected but once the protection expires, they simply resume their abusive behaviour. Administrators I've talked to have recommended range blocks and edit filters but I don't think anyone has actually tried this yet.

Please intervene as soon as possible. I've compiled a list of their known addresses here.

Also, I understand that indefinite blocks are rare but in this case I am adamant that it is 100% warranted given the severe nature of this vandal's actions. JayJ47 (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) Thank you for this report. It is clear that they are vandals and this could be delt with at ANI, but may be better off at SPI due to the nature of this report. TheMagikCow (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"Vanished user" continuing to edit from the same account[edit]

User blocked, and close requested. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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

A user with a long history of edit-warring and unsourced edits, was granted courtesy vanishing, and renamed VanishedUser sdu9aya9f56465 on 15 June 2015, but is continuing to edit in the same areas from the same account, even though the relevant guideline clearly states that courtesy vanishing is to be used only "... when a user in good standing decides not to return, and for whatever reason wishes to make their contributions harder to find or to remove their association with their edits ...", and that "vanishing is a last resort and should only be used when you wish to stop editing forever and also to hide as many of your past associations as possible". The same guideline also says "If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed", so could someone please take a look at this? Thomas.W talk 11:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the user and left a message setting out their options. WJBscribe (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. This can be closed now. Thomas.W talk 19:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Mislabelling edits as vandalism and unfounded accusations.[edit]


User blocked for 1 week for the proverbial "laundry list" (e.g. personal attacks, harassment, disruptive editing, and edit warring) by Swarm. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Chrononem has, as of late, been engaging in mud-slinging of editors, such as Muboshgu and myself, despite warnings and the common sense not to do so, and to assume good faith. Additionally, Chrononem has also mislabelled good-faith edits by myself, Muboshgu, and Calidum as vandalism — despite said edits not being vandalism.

For example:

For an editor's edits to be mislabelled as vandalism and further more – to be accused of meat-puppetry, especially with no evidence – is deeply offensive to those whom have always tried to do the right thing. More to the point, these baseless accusations are completely uncivil and were not made in good-faith. Regards, —MelbourneStartalk 13:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Beside of this, his edits at Margaret Sanger give me great concern as it looks to me that he is not improving the article but making it less neutral. The Banner talk 13:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
MelbourneStar is upset since his collusion with several similarly non-neutral characters (Evidenced above by his near simultaneous collusion with the Banner) led me to point him out as a potential meatpuppeteer. While this as a rather blatent example ofpointiness I welcome any review of my activities as long as MelboutneStar is simmilarly reviewed. Chrononem  13:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Collusion? that's new. Thank you for vallidating my above concerns about you and accusing others. Like I have provided diffs for your behaviour, I suggest you provide diffs for your baseless accusations. —MelbourneStartalk 13:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not new, and like I've told you before, if you don't want people to point out your obvious infractions it's best not to make obvious infractions. I pointed out the suspicious level of collusion you've just exibited with the Banner above. A review of your edit history will provide many more. Chrononem  13:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Any admin that reviews this might be well served by reviewing The Banner's edit history on Margaret Sanger. His repeated violation of that page's 1RR went unreported up till now due to me and other neutral editors assuming good faith. Never say that I can't admit to being wrong. Chrononem  13:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
You haven't been able to specifically point out any infractions on my part (because there isn't any) against policy, hence why I have initiated this discussion here in regards to your infractions which are well documented. —MelbourneStartalk 13:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
My complaints against you are easy to see and a cursory glance at your edit history will reveal more. As a rule I don't resort to pointy reports to get my way. Since I'm not making any reports I'm not going to invest editing time hunting through your search history. You, on the other hand, can do what you want. You can only dig yourself deeper for when someone else reports you. Chrononem  14:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This message only goes further in demonstrating Chrononem's lack of good faith and civilty, by accusing me of something without anything to back it up — just like their false accusations against other editors, as shown above. —MelbourneStartalk 14:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Chrononem has now violated WP:3RR (four edits total) to reinsert his/her continued opinion that I'm some shill for the Clinton campaign at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Which is funny, since if the primaries were today, I would probably be voting for someone else. I strive to maintain NPOV, V, RS, etc. on any page, Democrat or Republican. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Blocked for one week. Swarm 16:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Rather interesting to be accused of "collusion" with an editor that I do not know at all. And the complaints about 1RR-violations on the article Margaret Sanger are also interesting, as he was had far more violations as I had. He used a lot of words and accusation but in fact no arguments for his changes. The Banner talk 21:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Checklinks making changes outside of its scope[edit]

I and and other users have found the Checklinks to be executing changes outside of intended scope, as seen for instance here. The tool is intended to purely check whether the links in an article and to allow us to add archived links to links which turn out to be dead. In reality, it also changes table formatting. Now I have no problem with someone making a tool or bot to replace deprecated markup like align= in tables but that is not the intend of this link repairing tool. Moreover not all the coding changes it has been programmed are good. For instance in the edit I referred to, every instance of data-sort-value=".." to data-sort- value="..", for no good reason, messing it up and rendering it non functional. I feel that any change of formatting should be removed from this tools functionality and it should only check and "repair" links. This has been raised many times over the years with Dispenser, who created and maintains this tool, (as seen here, here and here) but they either declined to respond or responded that the changes were fine because they replaced deprecated markup and in any case decline to make any change to the tool. And it turns out Dispenser's Reflinks has the same behavior. Tvx1 16:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

How to respond to anonymous socks writing on your talk page[edit]

OP has been advised and has requested closure of this thread. Swarm 20:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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

In my talk page, [286], an anonymous IP, who is possibly a sock, has been expressing his/her frustration about editing on WP. The IP was asking me to start socking after witnessing the behavior of some senior editors towards me.I have tried to discourage them from socking, and encouraged them to engage in more constructive behavior. Bishonen insisted on removing both the IP's comments from my talk page and also my comments in which i was encouraging the IP to engage in constructive, and not destructive behavior diff1. I reverted Bishonen's deletion with the following edit summary: you are welcome to delete the IP editor's edit, but my edit is completely legitimate. I am asking them to stop socking and behave in a constructive way. To which Bishonen reverted my revert with the following edit summary: Soham, it looks like you're being purposely difficult. I reproached you once for putting back the blocked IP's post. If you do it a third time, you'll be blocked for disruption. (Although this time she let my response to the IP remain on my talk page.) Bishonen also left a note on my talk page saying she would block me if i reverted her reverts on my talk page.

I seek a third opinion on how to deal with anonymous socks; on whether Bishonen is correct to not only delete the IP's edits from my talk page, but also my edits discouraging the IP from socking and encouraging them to engage in constructive behavior; and Bishonen's threat that she would block me if i reverted her deletions on my talk page. Soham321 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a very "selective" description of what has happened. The material added by the IP, deleted by Bishonen and restored by you was a detailed instruction, a manual, for how to avoid scrutiny and continue to edit contentious areas in violation of a topic ban. Not just an IP expressing frustration. And in case someone here doesn't know Soham321 is currently topic banned from all articles relating to India, broadly construed; a 6 month ban placed by Bishonen because of tendentious editing. Thomas.W talk 17:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

The topic ban is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion as is the fact that in 2013 Bishonen was falsely accusing me of socking using an IP address (a claim she later retracted). Let us focus for now on the issue i have placed in this thread. With respect to the IP's comments that Thomas is referring to, the things the IP was mentioning (like posting from a cyber cafe) are known to everyone--there was nothing secretive about what he/she was telling me. Since the IP had posted the edit on my talk page, and then deleted it, i placed it back on my talk page because i wanted to respond to it and convince him that socking is not a good idea and he/she should instead be engaging in constructive behavior. (The IP probably thought that by placing my edit on my talk page and then deleting it his advice to me would be hush hush.) At any rate, does my action really justify threats to block me? Soham321 (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The actions and motives of any editor who files a report at WP:ANI are also scrutinized, which makes information about what kind of material that was posted on your talk page, that you are currently under discretionary sanctions, and that the topic ban was imposed by Bishonen, the admin whose actions you're complaining about, highly relevant. Thomas.W talk 17:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not making any complaints about Bishonen. I am simply asking for a third opinion. I myself want to know about the policy of how to deal with IP editors, who are probably socking themselves, who show up on your talk page and advise you to start socking. Should they be ignored completely, and their edits deleted; or should they be persuaded and advised to give up socking and engage in constructive behavior? And if an editor chooses the latter option, is an Admin justified to give threats to block the editor? Soham321 (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
You have already been given advice - WP:DENY - which you must have seen because you reverted the edit that contained the link in its summary. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Sitush, WP:DENY is a user essay; it is not an official WP guideline. I should have the right to disagree with the views expressed in the user essay. Soham321 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The ban is not irrelevant. You were blocked recently for 'violating your ban' with this comment. The IP was obviously suggesting that you did the right thing in defending that user from 'bullying' and that while you shouldn't sock, it would be smarter to leave comments like that anonymously in order to avoid a block over something so minor. They themselves removed the comment initially and you should not have restored it to begin with. Bishonen was not in the wrong by removing it after you restored it and is arguably justified by WP:TPO as well. She suggests that this is a blocked user and that WP:DENY applies, and if she knows this for a fact, that even further vindicates her. However I will note that she did not mention this in the block or rev deletion logs. Regardless, agree that the removal was appropriate as was the block. However I think the severity of the comment has been greatly overstated by all; the comment was inappropriate but fairly harmless and that this cause was not even worth Bishonen getting involved in, but then again that's her perogative. Certainly nothing here merits any second-guessing apart from you restoring the comment to begin with. Swarm 17:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Soham321, I didn't say DENY was policy. One of your "problems" is a tendency to wikilawyer when you don't really know what you're talking about. Like WP:BRD, DENY is a widely-accepted, widely-invoked essay - it's not some oddball thing and you should probably treat it as a de facto guideline at least. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WP:DENY is indeed just advice - but very useful and sensible advice. You can, of course, choose to ignore it or to disagree with it, but there's then little point in coming here looking for different advice. As for your three questions: (i) you deal with disruptive socks by not enabling them and it is ridiculous to think that you can simply persuade them to become constructive; (ii) Bishonen would be correct to delete from any page the instructions on how to avoid scrutiny when socking, no matter how well-known you contend them to be; and (iii) you need to realise that when you make an edit, you take responsibility for that edit. So when you restored the socking instructions, you were posting those instructions and I wouldn't be surprised if you were blocked for doing so after being warned. Now you can cheerfully dispute this fifth opinion, just like you disputed the third and fourth ones above, but I ought to warn you that you run the risk of eventually exhausting the community's patience here. Your call. --RexxS (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to point out (as a non-administrator) that User:Soham321 is in general extremely sensitive about his written words on talk pages: he has repeatedly gone to what other editors consider unreasonable lengths to keep the "purity" of discussions: there was at least one ANI case and repeated conflicts, in some cases with experienced editors having to self-revert what could be considered very routine and minor edits on talk pages regarding spacing, indenting and the like due to strenuous and vocal opposition from Soham321 even when they specifically notified him they were fixing an obvious issue. (edit conflict) (four of them) Here is a sample discussion between Soham and Abecedare. Ogress smash! 18:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

My objection to my edits on the Adi Shankara talk page moved from one section to another, and my edits in response to a particular edit being placed by another editor as being a response to some other edit (thus making it impossible to follow what was going on in the talk page) is completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed in this thread. Similarly, the question of indentation is also completely irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion. I actually have now received the advise i wanted from Swarm so i would request someone to close this thread now. Soham321 (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you got the response you wanted, but I disagree fundamentally that your touchiness about talk pages is irrelevant to this ANI proceeding about talk page user comment editing. Ogress smash! 18:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

You are entitled to your opinion. Let us agree to disagree. Soham321 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Swarm, you say "She suggests that this is a blocked user and that WP:DENY applies, and if she knows this for a fact, that even further vindicates her. However I will note that she did not mention this in the block or rev deletion logs." I should try to clear that up. There were two IP's that posted on Soham's page today: first 2600:1000:b100:3fc8:d5c0:49ff:53a1:80a4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), then 2600:1000:b018:9567:7db4:d585:ee04:1d42I (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The first, which I'll call IP1, I blocked and revdel'd as a troll; I didn't mention anything about socking or block evasion in the block or revdel logs, because I had no good reason to make those accusations. (I think it highly likely IP1 was a sock, but that's not something for the logs.) My comments about socking, previous block, and block evasion were made wrt the second IP, IP2, such as here. I have assumed per WP:DUCK that IP2 is the same individual as the then blocked IP1 , and therefore I call IP2 a block-evading sock. I actually never bothered to block IP2; I checked the range and it was too big, so, meh. I'm afraid I've made it sound more complicated than it really is. Short version: the logs refer to IP1, and it's IP2 that is a block-evading sock. Bishonen | talk 19:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC). Adding PS: Instead of blocking IP2, I offered Soham semiprotection of his page,[287] so he wouldn't have to deal with this disruptive anon further. But he hasn't replied, so I left it. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Ah, thanks for clearing that up, it makes perfect sense. I didn't even realize there were two different IPs. :P Anyway, Soham seems satisfied by my third opinion so I'll go ahead and close this. Swarm 20:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Unhelpful IP edits[edit]

User is constantly edit-warring and adding unhelpful edits to articles. S/he seems to think no one else can edit certain articles, even if the other person is clearly trying to improve it. Please consider a warning or blocking this user. --TBM10 (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok I apologise for some of my actions, but the things I mostly disagreed on was the fact you was removing a large amount of information that was kept in the route boxes the route boxes have always showing their combinations but your removing a large proportion of it thats what I'm not happy about, and I am not showing every iteration of the timetable because I'm only showing some iterations but there's nothing wrong with that, after all this is normal wikipedia so the pages and route boxes are ment to show more information, its not simple wikipedia, also on Witham station why did you chose a photo from 1979, can we chose the more up to date photo from 2013 please? -- (User talk: 22:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Routeboxes, June 2015 - same problem, different people. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Range block for long-term vandal using numerous IPs?[edit]

Over the past 5-6 so weeks, there has been an incredibly persistent vandal targeting tropical cyclone articles. The user is always under the base IP of "187.198" and purposefully adds false information despite countless warnings...generally in the form of changing wind speeds. I'm wondering if a range block is possible for this person since they seem quite intent on adding false info. WP:Range was vague on what would prompt a range block so I figured asking couldn't hurt.

List of IPs (that I'm aware of) and the dates they were used:

Thanks in advance for your help. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)