Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Hmarskiy II

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

---

• Hmarskiy II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 1. Malicious editing with a long past history of outright vandalism to the article of Bad Boys Blue - a musical group - the ongoing activity spanning several years now; 2. Most recently, the user copies and pastes my own editing/restoring remarks at the end of his persistent reverts, and continues to insert controversial and unsubstantiated information into the article, despite being advised not to on numerous occasions; 3. The user may be a paid member with a conflict of interests, as the his past edits attest to persistent inclusion of promotional material into the band's wiki page; 4. MOST IMPORTANTLY: this is a former anon user who created a userid with the sheer purpose to circumvent the protected status of the page in order to continue his disruptive editing. Please intervene. Lionscitygl (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lionscitygl: Please notify the user in question on their talk page using {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=User:Hmarskiy II}}. Thank you! -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That was attempted long ago. Intervention is requested. Lionscitygl (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Before I placed the notice on their talk page, the only other content of the talk page was a welcome. No deleted notices either. Nothing on the talk page of the article in question. As well, the accusation that the account was created for the purpose of circumventing the protection, just look at the earliest contributions of Hmarskiy II. They are from 2010, hardly a recent issue. And, after the protection was lowered, their edits to the article did not start until a few months later. I do not see any current attempt to contact the editor at all, except in edit summaries, which is not acceptable.

I just found this AIV report on Hmarskiy II. Please have patience, though, from my knowledge of AIV, it will be turned down quickly.

All and all, this just seems to be a content dispute mixed with ownership issues. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Orduin, thank you for looking into the this. Prior to alerting you of the matter, I've had an ample of opportunity to familiarize myself with the contributions from the said user. So, let's be clear on that. Also, please re-read what the word "recent" refers to in the context. With all the due respect, if you have multiple individuals/accounts trying to push absolutely the same controversial line of thrust both in style and presentation (which alludes to their "possible" association), are you honestly going to be expected to address every single one of them... anew? After all, one does not have to begin editing right away after a certain implementation took place on the page... especially if its "predecessor" was working in the exact same venue. And if I didn't follow certain wiki guidelines - no such oversight was intended on my part. Lionscitygl (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Look at your fix other people's edits (not just mine) without argument - an impression that you are a real vandal. 2. My information is confirmed by the source to which you deliberately do not pay attention. 3. All sources that you're not interested perceived as advertising. 4. Where argument that I am a former customer? Empty words and no more. Hmarskiy II (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm really expected to address the above... creativity, but I will do so this time as a matter of courtesy - something that I do not expect reciprocity on. 1. I think this isn't the first time I've been accused of being "a real vandal" for dealing with a member of that pack. Defense by means of aggression is not the newest invention these days... 2. That is exactly the point of it: "the source", as in conflict of interest. 3. No, not all, but it is heavy on advertising nevertheless. 4. It's a great day today. Sure. Lionscitygl (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we have some more opinions on this please? -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I would suggest formal warnings be issued, most likely for edit warring. Then, if offenses continue, blocks may be properly issued. Any other ideas here? -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Orduin, while you're waiting, looks like somebody does not waste their time on that page. Since he is back to his usual ploy, I'll revert it this time, but unless some measures are taken, this circus is likely to continue on. And that's exactly why I requested assistance - to intervene in this flaccid idiocy. Lionscitygl (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Facepalm I forgot to check the sources he cited in the changes.... They are completely unacceptable. I will add a long term vandalism warning to their talkpage, as this has been going on for awhile. -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's OK, Orduin. :) Glad you did check them, as that was the whole point. So, by all means, thanks. Lionscitygl (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lionscitygl: If you see further disruptive behavior from this editor (and please be sure the edits constitute as vandalism; this counts, this does not), notify someone through this thread, or report to WP:AIV. If you report to AIV, please be sure to note the final warning that was given. Thank you -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Orduin, thank you once again for all your input. I'll keep you posted if the issue persists. Btw, I hope you notice that he absolutely has no interest in participating in this discussion with you other than taking direct pot shots at me... all while still being hell bent at pushing his promotional "directives". Kind of ironic... yet expected. Lionscitygl (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lionscitygl: Idiocy is when one person writes incorrect information without sources, but he prevents other edit calling it vandalism. Lionscitygl, where your sources that confirm the disputed information? Why did you add information without sources and defend it? Hmarskiy II (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI, you just confirmed yet again that you a parrot by parroting after me, as you did with my previous post (e.g. idiocy) and as you were doing in your edit summaries of your reverts, and by parroting after your predecessors by using identically baseless distortions. Not only that, more importantly, you just admitted to having a conflict of interest in the article of topic. You see, you just reiterated verbatim the same accusations that were voiced by the members of the said cohort at the time the page went into protection, about 5 years ago or so. However, you intentionally fail to mention that most of my edits to the article were also among the removed material... and remain off of the article! Mine are off, not yours. Yet, evidently, it was not enough to the likes of you. Though I could, to this day I have not reinserted any of "my information" back in the article where it rightfully belongs, whereas someone like yourself is tirelessly trying to incrementally alter the page to a certain "correct" interpretation which is... nothing more than a mere promotion. Lionscitygl (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Requesting a block of TheRedPenOfDoom

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

---

I am requesting a permanent block of TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has been making several disruptive edits on the Philip Benedict page, deleting whole sections on several occasions (example 1, example 2) for specious reasons. He has deleted without adding tags, and in several cases without even going to the talk page. This section is sourced from prize winning university press history books, independent university websites, and an article.RefHistory (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree — no dog in this fight as I've never heard of this professor before or participated in his article/discussion. However, those two edits of TheRedPenOfDoom's edits seem fine to me and in fact, correct! The section removed about how people go to Europe every summer just to get a chance to attend the university's seminars was puffery plain and simply. It would be puffery on the article about that university; it's just plain out of place on the biography of a semi-retired professor. FYI "prize winning university press history books" are the definition of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES when writing about a university or academic! These do not count as academic research; they are written by public relations and marketing for the express point of advertising their own university; ie Stanford and ASU were bragging about the exchange programs they offer and universities they do exchanges with. The article is rightly flagged with the Primary Sources template. Additionally: 1) I've never heard of the "you need consensus to remove sections that have been here a long time" rule — where did you read this? 2) Simply because you are having an edit conflict with someone is not a valid reason to propose that user be banned. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Requesting a block of a user

Hello. I am requesting a permanent block of Zzaxx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has consistently gone against consensus on Marvel Cinematic Universe related articles in adding information regarding the upcoming 2017 Spider-Man film. This user has been warned by many (see this most recent diff from their talk) and has completely failed to positively contribute to any discussion on this matter. Many users have approached them to contribute to discussions regarding this content (after a consensus against their view was formed), but that was just met with uncivilty (ie here and here) or blanking talk page content because the consensus does not suit their personal opinion (ie here and here). I'm not going to provide specific diffs regarding the actions of this user, because their contribution history can speak for itself. But if anyone would really like them, I'll gather some up. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm on the fence about a full-on block, but I would support a topic ban on Marvel Comics-related articles. There's just too much WP:IDHT going on from this user. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Zzaxx1 only has one current time edit displayed at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe and a few edits that were wiped in her/his blanking of content. Major issues here are the disregard to other editors in regard to this blanking of content and the obnoxious responses to apparently well intentioned edits.

I support the block request. GregKaye 10:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

He isn't a bad editor, he just refuses to go by consensus so maybe just a topic ban until the issue is resolved.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban as well. Which I suspect for this user would effectively be a block, since it appears to be their primary topic of interest. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 14:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I would support the topic ban, but as Ebyabe pointed out, it is effectively a full block on them, as their primary editing topic is Marvel Comics and its related articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Weak support as I was in the discussion and they don't seem contempt with much conversation on the talk page. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner: not quite sure what you mean there. Either way he was directed to the talk page and has also tried to blank the talk pages of the various articles involved of all topics that discussed the topic and linked back to the main discussion. Can you actually block someone from editting ceartain pages or is it a trust thing? If it is a trust thing then a full ban may be better suited.--19:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

To whoever commented above, yes, users can be topic banned so they do not have the ability to edit those pages in that topic. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As a technical point, no. Users can be topic-banned. That does not mean that they do not have the ability to edit those pages. It means that they do not have the right to edit those pages. At the same time, it isn't only "a trust thing", because editors who violate a topic-ban will be blocked, and subsequent violations (after coming off block) will lead to longer blocks. So a block isn't the only way to deal with tendentious or disruptive editing; a topic-ban is the usual sanction for disruptive editing in a particular topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Would you mind examining this situation and providing an opinion and/or action against the user if you deem it necessary? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure about blocking, but support topic ban Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support non-infinite topic ban. Disruptive, user hasn't participated in the recent discussion or tried to contact other editors. If he would cite sources and be actively engaged, there would be good faith. But I don't think a topic ban should be forever, he may be young. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Either full Block or Topic ban, he is still edit warring as seen here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Viktorengström's SPA campaign on Stalinism?

Viktorengström (talk · contribs) did his first edit on 3 January 2015 to remove a category that Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia were show trials. Curiously his next edits were to an American historian to has been accused of trying to rehabilitate Stalin, which relates to the issue at hand which is very narrow editing area related to Stalinism, communism and a bit to Nazism as well.

He removed category Holodomor perpetrators from Vyacheslav Molotov despite that the article has sources that he was personally related to the origins of the famine. He removed a notorious Nazi judge from the "See also" section of Czech communist judges [1] [2], only to add the very same judge to a present-day US Republican prosecutor [3] and Joseph McCarthy [4] articles! He likes to remove all mentions of "repression" in the Soviet Union and "Stalinism": [5], [6], [7], [8] [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. A part of this campaign included renaming the category Functionaries of the Stalinist regime in Poland in articles despite the fact that his category did not exist, for which Poeticbent notified the user. While "Stalinism" shouldn't be used as an epithet, clearly the user has a problem with it even when it simply refers to Stalin's regime.

Apparently he went even as far to POV-push that the Great Purge didn't include show trials.[14]. Lastly, he removed propaganda category from East German state political journalist [15] but added it to two anti-communist advocacy groups [16], [17]. Classic.

You can go through all of the users edits, there's not much. They just consist of that kind of small POV tweaks and categories, never using talk pages or edit summaries. Is this WP:SPA or just business as usual? --Pudeo' 15:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, in looking, on the first edit, "Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia" he did remove "show trials" with a note explaining that there wasn't any references to back up that claim, and he's right about that.

I saw no discussion on the talk pages about that particular revert, but did see talk about "show trials" with one user claiming "common knowledge" as a reason to add it in, which , even if it is, doesn't square with Wikipedia's insistence on reliable sources, so I'd say that revert is correct. The other removals of "show trials" was pretty much the same thing, with the judges, yeah, it was a dumb move to move a judge into a spot that says he's a current judge, that fails reliability, so while his reverts aren't all vandalistic, some are definitely wrong , but not all are, some are helpful. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That's true. But what makes it impossible for me to assume good faith are cases of that kind of dualistic "retaliatory" POV-pushing: so there's this notorious Nazi judge in "See also" of communist regime judges, better remove it and moments later add it to articles about right-wing judges in the US.--Pudeo' 18:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I quickly checked a few their edits. Some are definitely POV and hardly supported by RS. Others amount to vandalism. For example, this edit links an article to a category that does not exist. My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Got my attention. Here we go. (1) Arch Getty is an ultra-serious, big boy full professor of history at UCLA specializing in the history of the Soviet 1930s LINK. It is absolutely tendentious bullshit to try and pigeonhole him as a historian who "has been accused of trying to rehabilitate Stalin." The OP has already lost me. (2) There is no easy definition of "show trial." Individual mileage may vary. (3) "Holodomor" (Good translation = "Hunger terror") is a pejorative term which has great favor among Ukrainian nationalists who assert that the 1932-33 famine catastrophe was a conscious act of anti-Ukrainian genocide. This thesis is dubious at best unless a million deaths in Kazakhstan and Russia were also conscious acts of anti-Ukrainian genocide (not to mention the abject lack of archival support of the notion to emerge after the fall of the USSR). The use of the tendentious phrase "Holomodor perpetrator" is a good measure of where the OP is coming from. Get the boomerang out... Carrite (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  Category:Holodomor perpetrators is an existing category and I don't have anything to do with it. The European Parliament, UN General Assembly and OECD among others by the way recognize Holodomor as a genocide. Perhaps it's just your orthodox pro-Soviet communist POV that reeks here. --Pudeo' 00:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Now that's a nasty thing to call a Social Democrat, oh Fair-And-Balanced one... Carrite (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(Upon further review, the fact that you can't tell my politics after 55,000 edits, many on Communist-related topics, I am gonna take as a compliment... I know YOUR politics though...) Carrite (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if any action would be necessary, but just would like to notice the following. (1) Arch Getty is indeed s a revisionist (may be even a Stalinist) historian. Giving link (above) to his own web site does not prove anything. Getty is mostly known for claiming that Stalin did not plan Great Terror. See here, for example: "One of Getty’s more significant contributions to revisionism was the shifting of blame for the bloody purges from Stalin to Nikolai Yezhov". He sees "Great Terror as the consequence of the USSR’s newfound social mobility and concludes that in such chaotic political flux inadvertent atrocities were bound to be committed.". (2) There is no any controversy what Soviet "show trial" means. (3) "Holodomor" in Russian and Ukrainian is not a pejorative term. "Death by Hunger" is merely a translation, nothing more. There is a scholarly opinion (e.g. by Robert Conquest) that a million of deaths in Kazakhstan were also an act of genocide; this does not disprove anything about Holodomor. My very best wishes (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you remove your libelous insinuation, for that is exactly what it is. And I know your politics, too. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(Addenda): The irony of you lauding the poet Robert Conquest as a historian and covering your User Page with poetry is not lost on me. Conquest was a Cold War era polemicist and the "revisionist" movement of the 1970s and 1980s (Stephen Cohen, Roberta Manning, Lynne Viola, Arch Getty, Robert Thurston, ad infinitim) is the mainstream academic history of today, for those of you at home trying to follow the game without a scorecard. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean Stephen F. Cohen who has been described as "most prominent intellectual apologist for Putin" [18]? My very best wishes (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• WHOA, was looking at another ANI and saw this! J Arch Getty is a Stalinist and pro-Stalin? LOL! That paragraph from World Affairs is laughable - if I say that Yezhov was a diabolical, manipulative little bastard in his own right who thought he was doing the right thing by committing the horrible atrocities of the Great Purge, does that make the execution-order signing Stalin somehow less responsible? Does that make me a "pro-Stalin Stalinist"? Apparently it does to the right-wingers at World Affairs.

As for Viktorengström, his edits to J Arch Getty were hardly controversial and more anecdotal, including correcting the broken external link to his personal page at UCLA (undone by My very best wishes, thanks!, which btw was corrected by me, coincidentally, the next day! I'm guilty of not reading this article thoroughly as My very best wishes's edits done while claiming Getty is a "well-known revisionist" are WP:UNDUE and will soon by pwned). I think it's extreme of the nominator in this ANI to say Viktorengström "went even as far to POV-push" by removing "show trials" from one sentence about Max Eastman, which to me is not necessarily incorrect, yes, they had the three Moscow Trials, rightly in the Soviet Show Trials category. But the millions of other Great Purge victims never got a trial. (Going back to Getty: By 1937, Yezhov said, "Yo Stalin, let's increase this number and kill a whole bunch of people. It's way more efficient if we don't have to deal with trials." (as seen in and concured with in this review of Getty's book on Yezhov, which Simon Sebag Montefiore calls a "fascinating and essential biography, which tells us more about the Kremlin and Soviet Russia than most history books"—I guess Montefiore failed to pick up that it was revisionist propaganda like the tinfoil-hat wearers at World Affairs). I don't know enough about Eastman to know if his change of view specifically was the Moscow Trials or the Purge in general.

HOWEVER, as far as the non-existent category change... his change from "Category:Functionaries of the Stalinist regime in Poland" to "Category:Functionaries of the People's Republic of Poland" is WAY better! I don't understand why "Category:Functionaries of the Stalinist regime in Poland" first is named in this narrow way from an encyclopedic point of view, while there is no corresponding article for the Polish People's Republic. Really? There were no functionaries in the People's Republic of Poland? (note there are NO other categories or subcategories referring to "The Stalinist regime of Poland" in "Category:Polish People's Republic" and Stalinism in Poland redirects to a section in the country's history article.) I agree Viktorengström doesn't seem to be your average neutral editor as his articles here are all related to the same topics, and adding the "See also" link to the Nazi prosecutor on Jeanine Pirro's page is, while hilarious, definitely inappropriate, overall I don't think this escalates to the level of an ANI or that he is a WP:SPA with a "campaign on Stalinism" but this ANI is helpful as it does shed some light on the non-NPOV of other editors. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What was a reason for all this excitement? The thread is about a barely active user Viktorengström. I do believe that my edits on this page were reasonable. Beyond reverting an edit by a suspicious red-linked account debated on the ANI (I have a reason to believe this is someone's secondary account), I only made this edit. As one can see, the assertion about Arch Getty in my edit was supported not only by the article from World Affairs, but also by a number of books. I did not check these books, but I trust other editors who used them earlier. If you disagree with my edit(s), please discuss them on article talk page (why you did not do it so far?), prior to bringing them on the ANI in a thread about unrelated user with whom I never interacted.My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

In brief, another RS, which was there before my edit (diff above), tells about the paradox that Getty's work is rehabilitating Stalin's reputation just when Soviet historians were exposing the details of Stalin's crimes against the Soviet people. That does qualify Arch Getty as a revisionist if not outright Stalinist historian.My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't edit Getty's page first since I had already started writing my response here, and after that I was busy dealing with my rug burns from ROTFL that J Arch Getty is a pro-Stalin Stalinist Revisionist™ 😄😄😄 He's a very well-respected academic and historian. I don't see how World Affairs is reputable enough to refer to a historian as a revisionist in WP:BLP (even World Affairs own article here admits is right-wing, and their rationale about Getty and Yezhov was laughable). That section of Getty's bio is fully WP:UNDUE— look how the creator of this ANI took one look at Getty's article and deduced that he was a Stalin rehabilitator!!! As I said I didn't even read the Getty article the other day, I was just adding his VIAF and noticed his URL was wrong. The rationale for the other "sources" calling him this and what criteria they used is unclear — one of the authors of that book is a right-winger and the others (a paper from Norway in 1985? an article from what I think is a CIA journal "Intelligence & National Security" from 1987?) are extremely, suspiciously obscure references. I'm guessing are probably taken directly from the footnotes of the first book cited (violating WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT) as a way to pad that viewpoint. BTW the reason why I say "right wing" here as not credible is not because I think it means their opinions don't count, but because I suspect they have their own personal agenda. I haven't read everything Getty has ever written, but as I said he's well-respected. From what I can surmise, some people subscribe to the black-and-white Cold War dogma that Stalin was so wholly omnipotent that it means nobody else was just as evil as him or possibly even doing evil things behind his back; therefore, introducing other ideas is not acceptable and makes one a "revisionist." —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

All your words above are your personal opinion, nothing more. After quickly looking at sources, including writings by Getty himself, it does appear that he supports the idea that the Great Purge was planned and commanded not by Stalin, but by Yezhov and other Stalin's subordinates, as clarified in this edit. This is per multiple RS, as one can see in the diff, rather that the single source you do not like. But here is the bottom line. If you do not like an edit, please go to the article talk page. If you do not like a source, please go to WP:RSNB; do not tell your personal opinion about content and editors unrelated to the thread here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I have read pretty much every word written by Arch Getty and I'm saying this: My very best wishes is pushing a tendentious, right wing point of view and is engaging in libel against a respected academic. Dust off your quotations from the right wing blogosphere, that's all you've got to back up your absurd political line against him. It is clear that this editor should have nothing whatsoever to do with writing a word about the history of the Soviet 1930s, being very clearly a POV-pusher. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but it was not me who just removed perfectly sourced text from this article [19] without any discussion on this article talk page [20]. And no, contrary to your statement here, none of the multiple sources was a "blog". Simplest Google search shows a lot of scholarly books (e.g. by Oxford University Press) that describe Getty as a revisionist historian (e.g. here). My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you even understand what "revisionism" in history is? You are conflating a scholarly revolution in the 1970s and 1980s (which "won" and became the mainstream by the 2000s and 2010s) with holocaust denialism... Carrite (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Answer me this: whose estimated death toll for the Ezhovshchina was more correct now that we know the archival numbers, Solzhenitsyn/Conquest or Hough/Getty? I'll help you out: the latter. Carrite (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

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

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

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

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

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

Discuss this

Personal attacks alleged

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

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

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

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

So the first dif is "User:AlbinoFerret claims "You have not discussed one edit in the 19k characters you inserted."[21] But I did discuss sources User:AlbinoFerret deleted.[22] The response was "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[23] That is not a specific objection for excluding relevant information. User:AlbinoFerret is not here to improve this page IMO. how is deleting numerous reliable sources improving this page? QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)"

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

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

• This comment "WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless" by User:AlbinoFerret makes me wonder if a topic ban WP:Boomerang would be useful though. See how consensus is that WHO is one of the best medical sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Bringing concerns to a noticeboard is what they are for [24]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd agree with considering a temp TBAN. I had a discussion with AF on my talk page awhile back [25] about them being too locked-in to the topic and not being able to step back. Looking at the current situation I do think it would be helpful to both AF and the topic if they had a break. The previous ANI on AF specifically said there was no consensus at the time on an action, but that is very different from saying there wasn't a behavior problem. I think AF definitely has the potential to approach things more evenly (this conversation did give me some hope), but they really need to step out of their single topic and get experience in less contentious topics since their posting history looks like a WP:SPA right now.Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Block for QuackGuru

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

collapsing excessively hot and ABF comments made in reaction to personal attack
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
*Great -- now Wikipedia is going all callous about NPA and slurs based on disability. Apparently NPA means nothing as long as the attacker is well-liked, the attackee is not, and the attack is on a relatively invisible, disadvantaged group. Quackguru just insinuated an editor was lying about having a disability. Are you people that tone-deaf? If ANY editor had said what QG said about race or sexual orientation or gender, they'd be blocked or banned in a heartbeat. The only thing worse is outright stereotyping. Disability rights, as a movement, isn't taken seriously compared to other rights movements; we see this everywhere, great job Wikipedia. If SOME of the other editors here had said what QG said -- especially to a "favored" editor -- they'd be at least blocked, even though QG has a longer block log than the large majority of editors whose conduct comes up for review. And should know better, has edited for over 8 years.[26] WP's double standard on NPA is now de facto policy, as is the "ends justify the means" attitude. As if the antidote for "civil POV pushing" is incivility, no matter how offensive it gets. Yes, I've been on the other side of content disputes with QuackGuru but this goes way deeper than that because it's about disability. I have direct experience with it (in multiple ways; it's intense, exhausting, takes away opportunities every day -- it is what it is but at least show some respect). And I've seen how damaging it is when self-appointed "disability police" challenge others' disabilities. Being disabled is hard enough without all the cluelessness and bullshit people lay on you. Nauseating hypocrisy: a warning is all that's given [27] despite the magnitude of NPA violation, and in spite of the block log and years of editing. (And as usual, QG removes the warning right away [28][29].) At least User:John gets it; [30] from your comments, most of the rest of you admins don't. OK, enough. The double standard is sickening, and the tone-deafness to disability just makes me numb with rage. Great job, people. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC) copy-edited 13:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Striking; my intent with hatting was to strike the whole thing, but now that I'm striking so as to be exactly clear about my intentions, I'll leave one part.01:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@ Ched - I too had the impression that QG was fundamentally benign for some time until I saw his mean side. For example, WP:DICK, mocking other editors: Mallexikon: "I think you clarified this very nicely.'; Quackguru: "I think I clarified this very nicely.". He's also held a grudge toward me that started after I co-signed an RfC on him (which was concurrently brought with a thread at AN). Since then it's been POKE and BATTLEGROUND (below) despite multiple olive branches attempts [31][32][33][34] (which he just deletes from his user talk).

• Wikistalking: 10 petty examples [35]
• GAME-y/KETTLE accusations: characterizing edits I made as bad when he did the same thing [36]
• Repeated, baiting, disingenuous "questions" about COI despite an explanation right in my signature line (Middle 8 (contribs • COI)) and multiple good-faith answers: (asked | answered twice); (asked); (asked | answered).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret

User:AlbinoFerret is making a lot of comments and edits to e-cig related pages. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/AlbinoFerret&offset=&limit=500&target=AlbinoFerret See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:AlbinoFerret for previous behaviour issues. AlbinoFerret tried to hide Environmental impact section from a reliable source from the page. He eventually tried to delete some of the text.[37][38][39][40][41] AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] AlbinoFerret claims "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[50] But AlbinoFerret has not given a specific reason to exclude relevant information about safety. WP:COMPETENCE is not the issue IMO. AlbinoFerret has turned the e-cig pages into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. AlbinoFerret is not the only problematic editor at these pages. Some of the e-cig enthusiasts are not here to improve the e-cig pages. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#E-cig_editors for background information on this. Something needs to be done to prevent this from happening over and over again. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose The editors who want AF banned mostly seem to be involved in a content dispute with him, and some of them look to be pushing their own point of view pretty hard. I had a look at everyone's block logs and QuackGuru seems to be a serious problem editor. Instead of being turned into a witch hunt against AF I think this should return to the question of what needs to be done about QuackGuru and those who support him.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @InfiniteBratwurst: So, you took your 56 edits and your vast 9 weeks of Wikipedia experience and went looking into other editor's block logs in order to come here, !vote oppose, and poison some wells with the dirty little secrets you uncovered there? (How does an editor with 56 edits find out about block logs, anyway? I was here for quite a while before I heard about them.) You complain that the editors supporting the topic ban are involved in a content dispute with AF, but you don't mention that the article you have edited the most. with more than double the edits of the next-most article, is Safety of electronic cigarettes, that its talk page is the one you've edited the most, the seoncd-most being Talk:Electronic cigarette -- but I assume you'll tell us that, unlike the other editors commenting here, you are uninvolved, you are totally neutral, and your vote is in no way influenced by your personal views. Everyone else's is, of course, but not yours. BMK (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @BMK: WP:DBAD — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfiniteBratwurst (talk • contribs) 11:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Wow!!!! 9 weeks here, less than 60 edits, and you cite an obscure essay from Meta. The closing admin should note with pride what an extremely knowledgeable newbie InfiniteBratwurst is!!!! BMK (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I didn't cite anything. I idly wondered if there was a WP:DICK, because you're being one, and guess what I found? Now maybe you could stop with the childish sneering and personal attacks, and try saying something constructive.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Oh, I think pointing out your very interesting, if short, history is quite constructive indeed. BMK (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
            • User:Beyond My Ken, InfiniteBratwurst is actually CheesyAppleFlake. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:CheesyAppleFlake. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
              • I can't wait to see you prove that.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
                • QuackGuru if there is a case to be made, please make it at WP:SPI and post here. Otherwise please don't add distraction. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
                  • • Yup once you have SPI confirmation you can discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
            • BMK, you've been around since 2009 (aren't you an admin, and weren't you an Arb?) At any rate why are you still this rankly clueless about commenting on content not contributors? Is NPA just deprecated? You've done this before [51] -- what is your problem? You know very well that some editors make CLEANSTART accounts and that is their business. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
              • @Middle8. Wrong on every count. I've had an account here since June 2005, started editing shortly before that as an IP (see this for the thumbnail of my history). I've never been an admin (perish the thought!), don't want to be an admin, will almost uncertainly never be an admin, and would be an absolutely lousy admin if someone forced me to do it. And, of course, I've never been an Arbitrator. I have no idea who you are thinking of, but it ain't me.

                Comment on content, not contributors? Sure, in general, great concept, but this is the place where the community examines behavior, and not just the behavior of the subject of the thread. If someone pops up to comment with an editing history that looks very much like they're a SPA, or have a COI, edit with a distinct POV to push, are someone's sock, or were canvassed on- or off-Wiki to participate, those are facts that need to be brought forward, because they can (and should!) mitigate the value of that user's comment. It's completely valid to point that stuff out, and as long as people continue to take advantage of Wikipedia to promote whatever it is they're promoting, whether or not they're paid for it, I'm going to keep pointing it out. BMK (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

              • BTW WP:CLEANSTART may be one of the most abused Wikipedia policies around. Any user who is making a clean start should be obligated to say so when questioned with good reason about their editing, and to report to a CU of their choice the name of their previous account to be checked to be sure they aren't evading a block or are a sockpuppet of a banned editor. A clean start should never be a license for serial misbehavior, which is what I'm afraid it most probably is utilized for. BMK (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Whatever good AlbinoFerret does tending the electronic cigarette articles is outweighed by the persistent puffing-up of e-cigs as safer than apple pie. Since September 2014, AF has made 2000 talk page comments at the three e-cig articles, and 250 comments here at ANI—it's time to look for other topics. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, this is not clearly a content dispute as A1candidate suggests. A1candidate is repeatedly making blanket reverts of reputable organizations and reviews.[52][53] This disruption of blanket reverts by A1candidate should not be allowed to continue. A1candidate, I recommend you take a voluntary short-term topic ban from the page. A1candidate, are you going to continue make blanket reverts? QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

One might want to look at the size of the edits (18,711 characters) trying to edit in sources that were the topic of a (still ongoing) RFC. That at the time was almost 1/2 the size of the existing page. The comments on the edits were directing people to the talk pages. This wasnt blanket removal, this was a few editors (QuackGuru, CFCF, and Cloudjpk) trying to force a mammoth edit on the page during a discussion of the sources used. Looking at the history makes it all the more clear. This is purely a content dispute. Where one side wants to discuss things, and others just want to get it in. AlbinoFerret 18:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Remember the talk page discussion? I wrote "User:AlbinoFerret, you were asked "Are there issues with the sources or the summary of said sources?" So far you have not specifically explained which new sources are a concern to justify your blanket revert and there is a clear consensus for the the positions of the organisations."[54] You repeatedly deleted a number of sources including reviews without any logical reason. User:AlbinoFerret, do you agree you are going to stop making blanket reverts? QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru, please stop making these baseless accusations against me. I'm surprised that you would want to enforce a "voluntary short-term topic ban" on me, given that I have made minimal contributions to this the article so I am not sure what that would achieve. -A1candidate 18:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• @QuackGuru, This is a constant problem, WP:IDHT. I answered you why I thought a press release was not usable. link and that sources that are WP:Tertiary should not be used for medical content. These sources (the subject of your second set of diffs) were already on a sister page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Where they are appropriate, this isnt removing content and blocking, but a discussion on the location WP:ONUS. This is a fine point of WP, and I dont think you get. Your link to a blanket revert is part of the mammoth edit I posted on a reply ago, You made an almost 20000 character edit to a controversial page with no discussion, after planning it for almost a month in a sandbox without discussing it at any time. Again taking WP:Tertiary sources from the sister page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Where they have never been removed. If you look in the edit comments, you will see I quoted WP:CAUTIOUS and noted that no discussions have happened. There is even a talk page section started by me on the topic. AlbinoFerret 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

distraction; not focused on Albino's behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I understand what you're saying, Jytdog. (And it's interesting how many of the editors who contributed so tenaciously to the loss of focus in the QG RfC are suddenly so able to stay focused on AF, yet lose focus when it comes to QG. One would almost think there was systemic bias afoot.) Looking at the merits: Which diffs? Going from QG's thread-starter, the two links to ANI threads are weak [55][56] Re QG's other diffs: Just because AF removes stuff QG added is not prima facie evidence of misconduct -- far from it; I see a lot of UNDUE. AF's removing the WMA however is not good. And I see a pattern of OWN in both QG and AF, worse in QG. Is that it? Where can I find a good, concise summary of the most obvious diffs? Or maybe you or someone could just paste in the five worst ones? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 16:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Jytdog, your example (of AF writing about pharma companies lobbying to have e-cigs treated as medical devices) would indeed be a compelling instance of twisting a source [57] (just as Mallexikon showed QG did with GERAC, which you were one of the only editors to grok). Except: AF explains [58] (supported with diffs) that the passage they wrote was originally sourced to a different source [59] that the passage indeed summarized accurately. (I don't care for his ABF-ing and calling your characterization "twisting" of what happened, but they wouldn't be the first to run hot under pressure on a drama board.) I'll keep looking. If there's a smoking gun -- besides fighting over including WMA, which is bad, but alone not imo worth a ban either -- I'm not seeing it. I see general TE (which is at least as bad with QG); I don't see it as over the top: is this a situation like QG where those who know AF well gnash their teeth in frustration but have so far failed to build a strong case? If not, can you help, and point me to the good evidence? It's a lot to go through. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 20:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

yeah the thing about lobbying was really frustrating. [[60] his original source] was an opinion piece and of course we prefer straight reporting over opinion pieces (he could have cited the opinion piece, attributing it, yes). but what we really got my goat was that the NYT reporting (the more reliable source) was unambiguous in emphasizing the victory of the e-cig lobbyists. so twisted. and adding the rhetorically self-righteous stuff about the COI of pharma with their lobbyists... when all lobbyists are nakedly self-interested. just... argh. on that whole thing. But of a piece with the pattern of relentless pro-e-cigarette editing. its the pattern. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Middle_8 Am I perfect, No. Have I made mistakes, yes. Have I learned from them, I think I have. What you have here is two examples Jtydog has found. What he doesnt have is a pattern of me repeating those mistakes. The first diff is from October 2014, I had taken almost a year off from editing wikipedia, and almost 6 years since I was active. I had never editied a page with medical rules. I made a mistake and replaced a source and edited out a comment. I learned from that experience and have not done that again. As for using WP:TRIVIA In November of that year, well the reason Jtydog can find it so quick is he was the one who misused it on me first. Was it a mistake to not research its use first? Yes, have I done the same things again? No. AlbinoFerret 23:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

But there is a pattern, cf. the diffs QG has at the top, and they're not only undue weight (though I agree this has been a problem and commend you for pushing back, within reason). QG's first diff after "AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources": [61]; those are MEDRS, and you really should know that by now. Sorry, but MEDRS is one thing I don't IAR on. Take a break (short I hope) and come back, and grok MEDRS and try to take to WP:OPPONENT to heart and lung. Wishing you well. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 00:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Middle_8 You may want to look closely at the World Lung Federation, at the top of the page is a gold bar clearly labelling it a press release. I am not the only editor that was against using WP:Tertiary sources for medical claims. There is even a ongoing RFC on the subject. Until that edit they had only been used on the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes sister page, both of which were one time part of the Health section of Electronic cigarette, split off at the same time by Doc James. Up until QG's edit there was a defacto standard/agreement of only using reviews for medical claims on e-cig pages (read the first link), thats why the RFC was started. AlbinoFerret 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There NEVER was a consensus to use only using reviews for medical claims on e-cig pages. We don't have different rules for e-cig pages. There is a long standing WP:CON to include other sources including WHO, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the World Lung Foundation. See Electronic_cigarette#Position_of_medical_organizations. Also see Electronic_cigarette#Harm_reduction for other sources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that are not reviews. User:AlbinoFerret, claiming that only reviews can be used for medical claims runs against WP:MEDORG. The RfC resulted in WP:SNOW. See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Positions.

You also deleted other sources including a formal policy statement. After you could not delete the reliable source you then added context that was inappropriate.[62][63][64] See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_1#Original_research_2. You, User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, and User:Levelledout appeared to be against using the formal policy statement written in a peer-reviewed journal for medical claims. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_21#Policy_Statement_from_the_American_Association_for_Cancer_Research_and_the_American_Society_of_Clinical_Oncology. Your last edit to the safety page was to delete even more sources including a number of reviews. So what is your reason to make a full revert back to an old version while delete a number of sources including reviews? We want to know the WP:TRUTH. QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The facts are clear as can be, if anyone looks at the article when it was copied over from the Electronic cigarette article. Before you started editing it on your own because of the activity on the main page kept us busy. You started adding non review quality sources for medical claims. You will notice that reviews and formal policy statements in peer reviewed journals (review quality) are all that existed. AlbinoFerret 02:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's review according to your diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625

See WHO: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-WHOPosition2014_8-0

See US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-FDA_nitrosamines_13-0

See The UK National Health Service https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-nhs_17-0

These sources are not reviews but they are reliable according to WP:MEDORG. QuackGuru (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from e-cig related articles. Per Bishonen, I see obvious advocacy. Assuming good faith, I feel that both the articles and AF would benefit from him spending his wiki-time on other topics for the foreseeable future. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors.

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

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

17th Feb

IP edit: [65]

Wtshymanski revert: [66]

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

18th Feb

IP edit: [67]

Wtshymanski revert: [68]

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

25th Feb

IP edit: [69]

Wtshymanski revert: [70]

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

25th Feb

IP edit: [71]

Wtshymanski revert: [72]

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

2nd Mar

IP edit: [73]

Wtshymanski revert: [74]

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

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

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

As evidence: a quick scan produces this IP address's contributions [75]. This editor has made good quality contributions on UK parliamentary procedure; seems to understand the subject and the contributions have been well referenced. I suspect this may be an experienced editor, but if it is, I have not been able to link the address with any other or an account. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Not proven The accusation is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[83] vandalism by IP. Rv by Wtshymanski.

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

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

[86] vandalism by IP. Rv by ClueBot.

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

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

[89] vandalism by IP. rv by ClueBot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Wtshymanski hammering his personal knowledge into articles again
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User Wtshymanski refusing to follow the merge procedure when merging articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Unilateral redirects without merging as stated in edit summaries - User:Wtshymanski
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive683#Request for admin attention re: proposed deletion of multiple electronics components articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive690#Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive138#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Floydian .28Result: Stale.29
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Power factor
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive257#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:85.255.233.193 (Result: Protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive172#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: declined, semi-protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive149#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:24.177.120.74 (Result: page protected)
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive103#Wtshymanski and the transistor AfDs
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 7#Talk:PSR_B1919.2B21.23Merge

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

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

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

Ah. Found it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Proposal 1: 3 month block on Wtshymanski

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal 2: revert restriction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support - but don't these "restrictions" apply to every editor anyway? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Question What are you supporting? The original Proposal 2, or DSP's so-called "reword"? Jeh (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In concept. Decent edit summaries are a "best practice," not something that's generally enforced; this would make them enforceable. That's why it's not an unreasonable measure. NE Ent 10:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support the reworded (and it is re-worded) restriction. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 11:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Something Awful

I am concerned about the recent addition of a section on Aatrek to the Something Awful article.[96] I thought about putting this on the BLP noticeboard, but I'm not sure if it quite qualifies.

Background: He joined SomethingAwful.com back in the mid-00s. He was made a moderator of the TV forum some time after that. Well, a year or so ago, it came to light that he had been convicted in 2007 of child molestation from the 1990s. When that came out, he was demodded and banned. Now, someone is trying to add a passage to this effect on the article for Something Awful.

I rejected it on three grounds.

1. Inadequate sourcing: there is a source saying he was a forum mod, and there is a source saying he was a sex offender, but there is no source from a third party indicating any notability to this outside of the SA community. So as it is, it comes across as forum drama. The other incidents on the page - the murderers and Slenderman - have their relationship with SA explicitly sourced.
2. BLP Coatracking: there seems to be no reason to add this to the article other than to widen knowledge of Aatrek and/or to smear SA.
3. The person who introduced it is named User:NotAAtrek, which stinks of WP:NOTHERE. But since then it's been defended by at least one other editor.

I suspect sockpuppetry, I've hit my three revert limit, and I've already received off-wiki harassment for this, so I yield and offer it to the wider community. I might be wrong, but I'd like to have more eyes on this please. --Golbez (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Golbez, I am sorry you have received "harassment" over this. However, your bias is obvious. You have admitted that you are a member of the Something Awful website. In addition, there are many issues with the article and points that you have raised can be applied to other sections. As you admitted on the Talk page, there are other issues which could be removed. However, you only choose to act on sections that you feel "smear" the club that you paid money to join. You refuse to act in helping clean up the citations, and instead delete the work of others while admitting obvious bias and refusing to step back. I think that is very unprofessional and goes against the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Please hold yourself to higher standards, you're an administrator and should be above this. Editted this comment as I made it (and the edit to the Something Awful Page removing the uncited information with Sean Smith) with my logged in username. James "J.J." Evans, Jr. (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, was I supposed to keep reading after you put harassment in quotes? Interesting, you had so many words after that too. --Golbez (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Inadequately sourced, certainly. And of almost zero relevance to the subject of the article, as indicated by the complete lack of WP:RS actually discussing the conviction in relation to the forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked NotAAtrek for clearly being not here, and any unblock would be contingent on both a username change and an agreement not to edit anything related to Something Awful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There's also a BLP concern here, which is laid out by WP:NPF. We should not be including that information on an individual that is not notable from our perspective. That the supposed incident(s) had little to no impact on the website itself is of course the other problem. It should be kept out. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, I didn't know it was there. That helps. --Golbez (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

James "J.J." Evans, Jr. has been blocked for BLP violations and assumptions of bad faith relating to the SA article, but he insists that he did nothing to warrant the block. However, the case is getting stranger in that an IP, 46.208.117.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is claiming to be the "little sister" of the aforementioned editor and made the edits under Evans's account.[97] Time to revoke talk page access and semi-protect the talk page along with it? —Farix (t | c) 18:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio - removal of tags by Spearmind

• Patrick Awuah, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rocky Dawuni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Spearmind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

67.131.235.220 has placed speedy delete notices on Patrick Awuah, Jr. and Rocky Dawuni (which should have been copyvio notices) which have been getting edit-warred off. MyNameIsVlad followed by placing a copyvio notice on the Rocky article in this dif, which Spearmind (ouch) reverted.

Efforts by the IP and Vlad to resolve with Spear on Spear's Talk page were met with aggression (that made no sense) - see discussion here.

I have restored the tags and logged the copyvio reports, but I doubt they will stick.

In general, as you can see from his contribs Spear is a newish editor and is editing very aggressively and on bad grounds.

Please restore copyvio tags and protect articles and give Spearmind a block for COPYVIO and edit warring.

• (note - just this morning I had a bad experience with Spearmind at Conspiracy theory that led to that article getting protected)
• (note - Spearmind opened a thread on (what he thinks is incorrect) efforts to tag the articles in AN, here - whoever acts on this should close that)Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Small correction: I originally converted the speedy deletion request on Rocky Dawuni to a copyvio notice (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Dawuni&diff=prev&oldid=650070007). 67.131.235.220 (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Jytdog, and thanks EdJohnston for protecting the one. Both are now deleted as blatant copyright violations. If anyone wants to deny that, or has denied that and edit warred over it, perhaps they should have the rest of their contributions investigated for NOTTHEREness. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Peace Hyde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) probably would also fall into this group, Spearmind seems to have reverted the copyvio there too. MyNameIsVlad ^{💬 | 📧} 02:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

As said Im astonished how fast articles become deleted if just a part is copied from somewhere else. It does not mean everything is copied most is real editors work. It should be fixed in an more appropriate manner giving time to have the lines in question removed not the whole article. All these people were notable.Spearmind (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I reviewed the Patrick Awuah, Jr. history, and it should be noted that it doesn't look at all like the OP makes it out. Spearmind was the THIRD person to remove the speedy deletion notice, one of whom was an admin who declined the speedy deletion request. This doesn't look like someone acting in bad faith; any editor (except an article creator of a recently created article) is allowed to remove a speedy deletion notice and attempt to fix an article instead in good faith. If there were some copyvio issues, we can excise those without deleting the article, and I'm more worried that this is being characterized as Spearmind acting unilaterally; as I note he wasn't the first to remove the speedy notice, he was the third, and an admin declined the speedy, before someone came by immediately undoing this admin action and re-tagging the article. THAT'S more disruptive than someone who is making a good-faith request for temperance. Lay off the speedy requests for a while. --Jayron32 02:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this voice I couldnt just believe what is going on here. Thanks for reviewing. Jytdog asked for the second time within 2 days or so to block me he is absolutely not constructive in such matters. Please restore the articles! Ummm yes I came in peace.Spearmind (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  I'm not going to undo the actions of other admins here, but what we need is a rational discussion of what happened, how to best fix it, and how to move forward amicably. What we don't need is people shouting at each other and demanding blocks. I'll ping the admins involved in the deletions, decline, protections, and other issues with these articles to get some more input. @Ged UK: @Drmies: @EdJohnston:. Lets try to find a way to talk this out and arrive at a solution that is best for the Encyclopedia, and try to get out of the revenge & punishment mindset here. We all want what is best, we just need to look at the material objectively, and figure out how to make this work. It may be this stuff needs to stay deleted, it may need to be restored, it may need to be started over from scratch. I don't know. But I do know that the way this is headed isn't good for anyone, and we need a new way to look at this problem. Let's look at it as a thorny content issue we need to work together with each other to make Wikipedia better, rather than a conflict where we need to punish people. --Jayron32 02:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, the IP user was told by the admin who declined his original speedy deletion request to resubmit it since the decline was due to not being able to access the original content. So his new request was simply following the directions of the admin by resubmitting and including a web archive of the page in case it goes down again. Granted, he did not wait "a day or two" but still, he was definitely acting in good faith by reapplying the tag with more information. I do agree that we should move forward from this, though. Big portions of several of those pages dinged on the copyvio report, so at the very least, that content should be removed. Since the copyright violations seem pretty extensive, we may also want to run samples of the rest of the text through Google to see if bits and bobs were not copied from other places. MyNameIsVlad ^/ 03:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Let's do that. Let's do anything except demand blocks. --Jayron32 03:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I probably erred in declining the speedy when I couldn't access the page, I should have left it for someone else as it may have been an issue on my end accessing it, for some reason. FWIW, the guy is clearly notable, and it seems he needs an article writing. There was enough in the original version to construct something that doesn't copyvio. GedUK  09:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Jayron, I don't see the thorns: it was copied to begin with. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It should not be that easy shooting articles that way. Someone might play lottery with the admin in charge getting rid of articles he doesnt like. There must be strong barriers. When copyright content is challenged there is a procedure of fixing it needed. Im sure there were many good articles lost unjustified.Spearmind (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a procedure in place, though. Both of the notices have instructions on what to do if you disagree/have further information, in the case of the speedy deletion, it's to discuss it on the article's talk page (with a big button that takes you there and has some prefilled text), and in the case of a copyvio, it's in the actual request's page (which is linked from the notice as well). The notices involved only serve as that, a notice of a requested action. It's ultimately up to the admin to look at the content and people's responses, and then make a decision. MyNameIsVlad ^/ 03:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks Drmies Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Jayron32, I acknowledge that I didn't take as much time as I should have to provide all the diffs. I did check that there was copyvio (there was), and I trusted that any admin acting here would do the same. Drmies said she did. So.. done. And Spear was way out of line in removing the tags, in my view. No blocking action there again... so be it! Spear will learn to not edit so aggressively eventually, one way or another. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Spearmind should not have been removing {{copyviocore}} notices. There is a procedure for addressing these, which he did not follow. A copyvio notice is not a speedy deletion tag. The violation was already entered in the right place, Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 March 5#Rocky Dawuni. The actual violation looked fixable to me. But if Spearmind wants to make a habit of removing the copyvio tags without making any attempt at a fix, it's not likely to end well. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I definitely made the mistake of using the speedy deletion banner when not 100% of the current article was copied. My analysis was that the articles started with copyrighted content and therefore it would just be better to restart with a clean slate. I won't make this assumption in the future. Spearmind saw me concentrate on Ghana articles (as said that's because I was reviewing article creations by Nkansahrexford who concentrates on Ghana) and assumed that I was on a mission to delete articles about Ghana. What I deplore is Spearmind's attitude on his talk page. I tried to establish a dialog and asked him to use the talk pages instead of just removing banners but he would not listen and became aggressively defensive.

Tonight I finished reviewing article creations by Nkansahrexford and applied one additional copyviocore banner to Thomas Mensah. A few other articles have copyvio issues but at a much smaller scale and I decided to let it go. There were also a few copyvio issues from the same user on Commons (see his talk page there).

Thanks to everybody who helped with this situation. 24.130.172.5 (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wait a minute. "in the case of the speedy deletion, it's to discuss it on the article's talk page " What I saw my removing of speedy deletion boxes was immediately followed by insertion of copyvio templates. Its that the way it should work? Giving no chance of discussing the matter. Seems to copyvio template is to get rid of Rocky Dawuni, Peace Hyde and Patrick Awuah and alikes which were notable people with lots of links in the outside world. Is it so hard to understand that copyright issues need a solution far away from deleting the whole article, which was not a complete copy at all but work of many editors. Yes and I see absolutely no need to discuss removing speedy delete boxes on personal talk pages. Thats just not the right place. It must be on articles talk page but all are gone now. I deleted one copyviocore because it was an immediate reaction to my removing of speedy delete boxes. And I noticed later it should only be removed by admins. Just exchanging the template to delete an whole article not just the violation. This procedure is absolutely wrong.Spearmind (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You have said here that you believe that the {{Copyviocore}} procedure is wrong, and in deleting speedy tags you have said (on a number of occasions) that you disapprove of the speedy deletion process. If you disapprove of procedures, please go to the relevant talk pages and suggest improvements rather than blindly ignoring those processes which have been developed by consensus. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The pages of 3 Ghanaian are gone. Its shocking in which speed notable character articles are removed here which only to some part identified as copy. It was a question of less than 1 hour to remove the 3 articles completely giving no chance for discussion. The current extensive use of copyvio templates is unfair to all the editors worked on it. I think the board here is a good way to address that.Spearmind (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

See below. The copyvios are gone. If these persons merit articles at Wikipedia because they are notable, then just make new articles. No one will stop you. Just be sure that you don't make new copyvios when making the article. But if you want to start a new article properly, and write it in your own words without copying other text or "close paraphrasing" or anything else which is suspect, but start good articles on people who merit them, do that. No one here has yet told you that you cannot, and no one ever will. --Jayron32 18:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I cannot understand what the initial complaint by user: Jytdog is. Why was it filed here if the complaint is about edit warring? — it should be filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring according to the instructions on top of the page. Why do we care that jytdog believes that user: Spearmind is aggressive? Those of us who are not wp:admins have no access to the material that has been deleted almost instantly after the notice appeared here, so there is not much point in discussing this, or is there? I would hate to think this is how decisions about blocking editors are carried out. Just my $.02. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ottawahitech The #1 issue, which was correctly identified by the admin Drmies, was COPYVIO on 2 articles linked at the top of this thread. Drmies deleted the articles, which is why the links above are now red. The #2 issue was the behavior of Spearmind (who was edit warring to keep the COPYVIO tags off (doubly bad)), which was given a pass. So.. all done. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You must understand only him would like to see me blocked for whatever reason. I removed Daniel Pipes working for the CIA and publishing in orbis magazin on behalf of a thinktank pronounces to serve national interests. as as his source for strange claims at the Conspiracy Theory article. Maybe he was kind of angry about that. (no offense) His behavior asking to block me actually became an issue. I dont understand the way he chooses noticeboards but you must ask that for him.Spearmind (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

that's not accurate, and boring.Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

For you its boring, you started the subject here. Daniel Pipes as source for dubious claims on Conspiracy Theory article. Its not acceptable using terms like conspiracy theorist against real people, its a label no chance to argue. Then he kind of followed my activities. I was removing one copyvio tag when it came as immediate response to my removal of speedy deletion boxes. Later I did read that only admins SHOULD remove copyvio tags. I wanted to defend the articles at this point and let them go through discussion, but then immediately they were gone after less than an hour and while being busy here.Spearmind (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

even more inaccurate, and still boring. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

related issues at Thomas Mensah now

Currently there is edit warring going on over copyvio tags at the subject article, which the IP editor mentioned above. Spear is trying to keep the tag on (good on you this time, Spear) and the creator is blanking the page. Jytdog (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Well another notable person which we lose because some amount of text was copied? Someone seems to copy this stuff from ghanaweb again and again.Spearmind (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no problem with restarting the deleted article from scratch, without any copyright violations. We lose nothing if you start the article properly. Indeed, where a person is notable, and where the article needs to be deleted because the first, and all subsequent, edits in the edit history contain copyvios, the proper procedure is to delete it and start from scratch. Just to put it bluntly, Spearmind, no one is telling you that you cannot create these articles again. When deleted for being copyvios, it's because we have to expunge the copyvio from the history. If you're so concerned with having the article at Wikipedia, if the person merits an article, go ahead and create it yourself! No one is trying to stop you! --Jayron32 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I can "play" this game too. So "the wikipedia" wants in every case a restart no re-editing. Can I assume that? I dont think the speedy deletion templates should exist here. Anyone can take them out.Spearmind (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, not in every case. In cases where the article has existed essentially as mostly copyvios for their whole history, there's nothing worth preserving and they need to start from scratch. In cases where small copyvios have been added to otherwise fine articles, we clean those up. Each situation is judged individually on its own merits, and the best plan to move forward for each situation is decided based on the merits. There's no "every case". --Jayron32 01:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Haffy881 and copyright issues

Haffy881 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

(Retitled to "User:Haffy881 and copyright issues" from non-neutral "Haffy881 and massive amounts of copyright infringements" per wp:TALKNEW. --doncram 21:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC))

I stumbled on this editor adding massive amounts of text to articles. A quick google search found they they are cutting and pasting text from other websites into wikipedia. I reverted them with links to the original sources (Examples: one, two, and three) but this goes way back before today. This is copied from last month. Every time I revert an edit and give them a warning, they wait a few hours and do it again. Helpsome (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I hold no brief for this editor, Haffy881, who seems not to read his own talk page, but I believe the Edit summary should be written in plain English, which these three examples are not. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I linked to the policy and provided the source URL where the content was taken from. I can't exactly type a paragraph in there. Helpsome (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gone through Haffy881's contribs and cleaned up one other article. I have placed a final warning on the user's talk page and will monitor their contributions. Any further copyright violations will result in an indef block. Thank you for reporting this problem, Helpsome. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Further copyright violations = block" on his/her talk page by user:Diannaa. Two days later, copyvio added to Sind krait (see my revert with link to source article). I've not checked any other recent edits by the user. 62.107.221.236 (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Twitter link ban?

There is a User, Ronz, who has been quite prolific in their removal of the Twitter (along with Instagram, IMDB, and similar sites) from seemingly any article that they come across[98]. Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Twitter notwithstanding which states that Twitter is generally not acceptable as an External Link except "for official links when the subject of the article has no other Web presence." Is it now "open season" on Twitter links? The existence of the Twitter template {{twitter|"subject"|subject title}} seems almost bizarre if this is sufficient justification for the wholesale removal of links to Twitter site wide. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The existence of a template does not change Wikipedia's guideline, WP:ELNO, which is pretty clear on the matter. No Twitter links. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There are some exceptions that are allowed, especially the one listed in WP:Twitter. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, so then which of these entries[99] did not meet the criteria for exceptions since most have "no other web presence". You deleted every single External Link from the page including those for IMDB which are allowed per WP:EL/P. Here too [100]. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, your inquiry leads one to believe you have not approached Ronz with your concerns before raising the issue here. I apologize if my impression is wrong. Tiderolls 20:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Tide rolls, yep, wrong impression. Apology accepted, but not necessary, thanks. I try to have more respect for ANI than to run to it as a default. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, if you look on the articles' talk pages you'll see that I linked past ELN discussions (of which this is most relevant). You'll see there (and elsewhere in the relevant discussions) that ELOFFICIAL doesn't apply to individual entries in a list. --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just my 2¢ - As far as I know - If the BLP has an official website - We remove per WP:ELNO, If they don't have an official website then we should list them. –Davey2010^Talk 21:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• That is my understanding also. We try to provide information. Even on a list. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm with Ronz here. No article, no links--Twitter or otherwise. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Drmies, as for the article vs. list aspect, if that is the mitigating factor, sobeit, but DGG makes a good basic point. The subjects in the example above do not have official websites, so that is why their Twitter links were included, a stated exception. You're saying that because its a list article, it should not have Twitter (or any other social networking) External links at all? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but ANI is not the proper venue to try to change consensus regarding content. If you would simply read the relevant policies/guidelines/discussion, you would see that yes it is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, I can understand wanting to resolve an issue, but shutting down a discussion doesn't help the situation. I've read WP:EL and specifically WP:ELNO as well as WP:Twitter, and I still fail to see the logic behind your wholesale deletion of all external links from a wide swath of articles. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue was resolved long ago. You've demonstrated a need to misuse ANI while not being able to read/understand current policies/guidelines and the relevant noticeboard and talk page discussions. Do review WP:IDHT and WP:DTS. --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, instead of using adjectives like "wholesale", can you provide a handful of examples where the Twitter link has been removed and you feel that our policies would have allowed it to be retained, along with an explanation as to why you feel those links actually met policy?—Kww(talk) 20:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with WP:ELOFFICIAL - these links are not the official website of the subject of the page (like in this removal), they are the official website of a subject discussed on the page. We are not writing an internet directory or a version of the yellow pages, let alone that they are necessary for the understanding of the subject of the page. Those links are inappropriate on these pages, and should indeed be 'wholesale' removed. Especially since an earlier discussion resulted in the consensus that these links were not appropriate along with other links on those pages. That consensus should first change before these links were re-included on the pages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Mispelling in robots.txt

Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt[101] - probably one of the most important robots.txts in the whole world.

But it has a mispelling in a comment!

The correct spelling of "machine" is not "maschine"".

Please fix this at once. 217.43.5.204 (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If you didn't fix it yourself, it's your own fault. Wikipedia only exists because people who care make it better. Since you care, it is your responsibility (and no one elses) to make it better. --Jayron32 01:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Site config's editable by ips now? News to me. —Cryptic 01:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't editable on the en.wiki project, it'll need to be added at Phabricator. Nakon 01:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a comment, so who cares, but it was a great way to bring out kneejerk SOFIXIT comments. --NE2 01:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

My bad. Thought it was an article he was complaining about. I've been rightfully admonished. --Jayron32 02:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

To be fair to Jayron32, the IP is the one who linked to robots.txt in the section title [102]. They did link to the correct location in their comments, and their comments also sort of imply they were talking about a real robots.txt rather than an article on it, but it's fairly confusing to link to 2 differnet things. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Being sorted, see gerrit:195097 Mdann52 (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

WOT Services

Please take a look at the activity over at WOT Services. The article has a history of manipulation by those involved with the company. For a few years now user Weatherfug has been obstructing critical edits. When the article is edited for balance or when the unbalanced tag is applied, the user claims vandalism. Recently, the admin JZG has become involved. He uses his administrative powers to push his editorial agenda. Readers will note that neither Weatherfug or JZG/GUY are willing to engage on the talk page. Instead they revert without discussion.

JZG has offered the explanation "Nobody cares" in his edit summary. I suggest that if the user does not care about article quality, that he refrain from editing it. Many users have voiced their dissatisfaction on the talk page. Many have tried to edit the article over the years, only to be discouraged by obstructionist reversions.

Weatherfug's last comments on the page are "The discussion is over" In lieu of discussing the issue the users posts on JZW's talk page. Previously Weatherfug had been posting on multiple notice boards in an attempt to exclude IPs from editing. Respondents at these noticeboards noted that "The IP editor has a point" and the NPOV board found that the article was unbalanced. During this time I did not attempt to edit the article due to the apparent futility of the process. I had been simply tagging the article as unbalanced.

After a 3rd opinion which established that the article was unbalanced, I found a source at The Nation which was previously unused in the article. After I had posted the source on the talk page, Weatherfug did decide to include it. However, his wording misconstrued the critical information provided by the source in an apologetic tone. As I was advised by a 3rd opinion editor that I must edit the article myself, I attempted to clarify what was written at The Nation. Unfortunately, the predictable pattern of obstruction has continued.

I do not expect that users will always agree 100% on article content. However the techniques used to exclude and discourage others at WOT Services seem contrary to Wikipedia's goals. Apologies in advance if this is not the right place to bring this issue.36.252.1.178 (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• I read the talk page going back to December. You seem to have been trying to add this material for a long time, this poorly verified and trite material verified only here in an FAQ, not an article written by a journalist and vetted by an editorial board, about an incredibly minor thing--minor in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure that at the time it was a considerable nuisance to The Nation, though what time that was, no one knows, since the FAQ isn't even dated. I assume your NPOV tag is based on the exclusion of the Nation material, and is thus also invalid.

  What we have here is stonewalling, wikilawyering of the worst kind, in a passive-aggressive way that no doubt greatly irritates other editors. Whether JzG is involved in some article content or not is irrelevant: any admin who looks into this would have semi-protected it, and if the IP keeps this up then maybe the talk page ought to be protected as well. As far as I'm concerned, this IP should be topic-banned from this article. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The source was perfectly acceptable for Weatherfug & JZG when it was being misconstrued. Why is it suddenly unacceptable when it is clarified? The reason given in the edit summary was that it is a blog. If JZG had stated that it were unacceptable because it is a FAQ page, we would not be here. Is The Nation a blog? The other reason given was a section heading issue, which was addressed. I am no wikilawyer, if anything I am less familiar with how things work here than others. I have repeatedly asked other's opinions. In fact, I asked before inserting the passage, but no one had anything to say. Others who are concerned with the balance of the article have already been driven off.36.252.1.178 (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

For a period of at least two years, a series of IPs all, I am told, geolocating to Nepal (I haven't checked because it is pretty obviously all one person or a small group of people) have been relentlessly adding poorly sourced negative material to this article and tagging is as biased, any time the material is removed or toned down. The specific text being edit-warred in by the IP at the moment is a section headed Inaccurate ratings, based on the story of an apparent false positive affecting The Nation and supported only by an FAQ page on The Nation's own website. The only thing that can be said for this version is that it is better than Inaccurate and Biased Ratings which was the IP's original preferred title (and also edit-warred when someone tried to tone it down).

All the IP has ever had to do is to bring reliable independent secondary sources to substantiate the veracity and significance of these errors. I can't trace any attempt to do so, or any evidence of understanding of our sourcing guidelines. In short, then, this is almost certainly a single user with a bee in their bonnet. Only one thing surprises me: that the complaints concern a political magazine. The major source of claims of bias against WOT is the subculture of quacks and conspiracy kooks. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I am tangentially involved in this dispute, having offered a 3O last December (after which I unwatched it). Looking at what has happened since, it seems to me that the case belongs on the Dispute resolution noticeboard rather than here. Since it is here, however, I would like to note a couple of things that disturb me:

1. WeatherFug has consistently addressed the IP with the patronizing "Dear user with the ever-changing Nepalese IP". On JzG's talk page this has become "Troll with the ever changing Nepalese IP". This is uncivil and he should be asked to stop.
2. JzG, very much a party to the dispute, has protected the page twice, on 30 January and yesterday. This looks to me like an abuse of admin privileges.

I would be happy to offer an opinion on the content issue if it was raised in the proper forum. Scolaire (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a party to enforcing WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. That is pretty much the entirety of my involvement with that article. If people want to add properly sourced critique then they can go right ahead. Anonymous hatchet jobs? Not so much. I do think a review of Weatherfug's contributions is probably worth doing. I haven't looked precisely because I don't want to get drawn in. As I stated above, all the anon has to do to get his preferred content into the article is to bring some half-decent sources to the talk page. I am an occasional user of WOT, I have no connection to it and don't give a damn beyond what is said in Wikipedia's voice based on self-evidently inadequate sourcing. As an aside, the IP should register an account, that would make it much easier for the other editors of the article to interact with him.

If I thought WP:DR would help, I'd have sent them there. I don't think the IP is interested resolving the dispute and I don't suppose Weatherfug is either. The immediate question of whether we should include a section calling into question the reliability of a service based on a single incident documented only on the website of the other party to the dispute, answers itself. Poorly sourced negative material comes out until it has been discussed. The IP believes the opposite, hence I semi-protected the article. The parties can work it out on Talk, during which time we do not say, with Wikipedia's voice, that WOT is biased based on the say-so of a political website without the benefit of any independent review or coverage. Because, you know, this is kind of obvious.

Standard terms apply: any admin who thinks the action should be undone, is free to do so. I personally don't see any other way of controlling this relentless addition of poorly sourced material, but if someone else wants to take a shot then be my guest. I am off to spend the day singing Poulenc's mass in G and a requiem by Pizzetti so can't respond quickly in the mean time. If an IP address geolocating to Goring-on-Thames adds a section to the article on Francis Poulenc to the effect that he hated basses, sourced to a scan of the closing bars of the Gloria, you'll know who it was. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Whatever your motives, you were reverting the IP's and ScrapIronIV's edits – with tendentious edit summaries – and you were involved in discussion on the talk page. Therefore you were a party to the dispute. As an admin you know there is a page for requesting protection. You should have gone there if you wanted the page protected. Scolaire (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at the talk page and the edits I have made. Decide for yourself if JzG is presenting the issue fairly in his telling of the story. (and also edit-warred when someone tried to tone it down). I repeatedly tried to engage on the talk page. I did modify what I reinserted to respect the concerns of others. I am interested in resolving this dispute. I have asked for compromise. I do ask for good faith. Where I could have been more polite, I apologize and recognize that I can improve. The passage was being misconstrued in a way that implied the mistake was on the part of The Nation, when the source clearly stated that the user responsible for the negative rating admitted fault. Look at the contributions of others who have also spoken to the unbalanced nature of the write-up. Even the NPOV board said as much. Anonymous hatchet jobs Is it appropriate to pressure IPs into registering? all the anon has to do to get his preferred content into the article is to bring some half-decent sources to the talk page You removed it stating that it was a blog. I agreed that the word bias was not appropriate because I can not reference the disclaimer used by WOT, as that is primary sourcing. Because The Nation is not a blog I put the passage back, without the word bias. Before inserting this passage I asked for your comment. You say all I need to do is find an appropriate source, but when I do find a source, it is misconstrued. When I clarify, the source is no longer acceptable for you. This seems duplicitous to me. Naturally, I can continue to find more sources, but it seems a bit futile if I am going to be obstructed at every step. The name calling etc. is not important to me. We are all adults here, you may use whatever language you feel is most suitable. I am not here to complain about those things. However, I do expect a logically consistent discussion that focuses on the content of my actions, not my identity, where I reside, or how I connect to the Internet via dynamic IP addresses. I can only take responsibility for my actions. I am not responsible for the lack of competent ISPs in my area.36.252.1.189 (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"For a period of at least two years, a series of IPs all, I am told, geolocating to Nepal (I haven't checked because it is pretty obviously all one person or a small group of people) have been relentlessly adding poorly sourced negative material" I had only tagged the article until after the 3rd opinion, when I was advised to edit the article. Check for yourself. Why does JzG seek to misrepresent this? 36.252.1.189 (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A more pertinent question is, why are you so determined to insert poorly sourced negative material? I have no problem with properly sourced criticism in that article, the issue has always been that the content of the (usually tendentiously titled) WP:CRITICISM section has never had anything approaching proper sourcing. The solution is, just as it always has been for over two years, bring better sources. Or give up. Either works, in a way that constantly adding poorly sourced critical material does not. Per policy. WP:RS has strong support, WP:NPOV requires reliable sources for critical commentary, whereas WP:LETMEADDTHISPRIMARYSOURCEDCRITICISM ORTHEARTICLEISAWHITEWASH is not widely accepted. Your edits were disruptive. You can fix that by sourcing them properly or stopping. End of. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Weatherfug added the source after I posted it on the talk page. You reverted to Weatherfug's version of the passage when you were edit warring with ScrapIronIV. If the source is unacceptable, why did you not remove it at that time? The source was acceptable when it was being misconstrued. When it was clarified, you objected. The edit history and talk page covers it all. Readers should check there and decide for themselves.36.252.1.189 (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Scolaire: YOu say tendentious edit summaries. The text I removed was:

Political magazine [[The Nation]] received a negative rating from WOT Services for their outgoing emails. The Nation inquired with the user responsible for the rating, who admitted that he had erroneously rated the domain. The magazine called upon readers who felt compelled, to help to improve the rating.<ref>{{cite web|title=FAQ: Web of Trust|url=http://www.thenation.com/web-trust|date=|accessdate=17 January 2015|publisher=[[The Nation]]}}</ref> On March 31, 2014 a WOT power user (who's ratings carry greater weight than others) had negatively rated the domain, accusing it of distributing [[malware]].

The statement that "nobody cares" is not tendentious. If anybody cared. there would, by now, be a reliable secondary source for this repeatedly added text. I do not care about the text (or indeed the article subject), I do care about the relentless addition of critical material of this nature based solely on the self-published content of an involved party. Excluding such content is not even remotely controversial. I have no idea where I first heard fo the article, most likely it was OTRS, all I know is that when I see junk content like that in an article, I remove it, as any Wikipedian should. If supported by reliable sources, I would have done nothing. It never has been. Over a looooooong time. Sooner or later, the obvious has to be done. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

self-published content of an involved party. Can you please explain how this is relevant to the discussion? Where did you remove self-published material from the article?36.252.1.189 (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that JzG should not have used his admin priviledges to settle a content dispute in which he is a participant. Whether this constitutes an "abuse" of privileges is up for debate, although I note that JzG was recently warned not to invoke his admin status during a content dispute, so he should have been a little more careful in this aspect. As for his usage of tendentious language, I think there is a fine line between being direct and being abusive, but JzG has clearly crossed this line when he began to use words like "fucking ridiculous" and "I have been an admin since a long time before your first edit". As far as don't bite the newcomers is concerned, this recent attempt to invoke one's admin status during a content dispute is completely uncalled for. It is an inexcusable action because this administrator had already been warned not to do that. -A1candidate 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What you fail to recognise is that I am not part of the content dispute. All I did was to remove poorly sourced, contentious, negative material. We're supposed to do that. I have no opinion about the inclusion of material itself, should those determined to include it ever get round to finding a reliable source. That's my only "involvement" with the article: as janitor. This is not like the many disputes I have had with you (you were going to mention that, weren't you, in a spirit of transparency?). Sure, you think it's unforgivable. You think my mere existence is unforgivable, this is abundantly clear by now. Quackery supporters and long-time Wikipedians tend not to get on, that's just how it goes.

And now to get back t othe complaint at top.

• The IP complains that "Weatherfug has been obstructing critical edits". That is arguably true, but would need diffs where he has opposed properly sourced critical edits.
• The IP claims that "when the article is edited for balance or when the unbalanced tag is applied, the user claims vandalism". That is a serious misrepresentation. The IP claims that the article is unbalanced on the grounds that poorly sourced negative material is not included. The IP has only to produce reliable independent sources to substantiate the significance of the claims, and the problem goes away. That has not been done. The IP's version of the article being "edited for balance" is, as the article history plainly shows, to include poorly-sourced negative material. The solution is, and always has been, bring better sources to substantiate the relevance and signficance of the material. What the IP is actually doing is tendentious editing.
• The IP claims "admin JZG [...] uses his administrative powers to push his editorial agenda". I have no editorial agenda, other than the removal of poorly sourced negative material, something every Wikipedian is required to do.
• The IP states: "readers will note that neither Weatherfug or JZG/GUY are willing to engage on the talk page". This is simply false. On the talk page right now is a section titled "recent reverts" where I explain exactly what people need to do to include this content.
• The IP states "the article has a history of manipulation by those involved with the company", I see no proof. There is a clear implication that I am one of these. This is entirely false. I have no idea about Weatherfug and haven't looked, it is legitimate to wonder why the IP is so very determined to include this content and whether the IP perhaps has some undeclared external agenda, but my employer is not a secret and I have never had any connection whatsoever with WOT other than as an occasional user.

The problem for me here is the idea of "involvement creep". There aren't may admins given the numbers of articles and disputes. If every admin becomes "involved" the first time they take any action on an article, then all the POV pusher have to do is keep going until they run out of active admins. It won't take long.

I'm happy to leave someone else to police this article. The addition of poorly-sourced negative material is forbidden by policy, and whether or not the IP manages to drive away Weatherfug, me or both, the same will apply. That content cannot go into the article unless and until it is properly sourced. A three minute review of the content, its inclusion and the tendentious headings under which it has been included, is all you need to see that this is an obvious case where anybody would have done the same.

As I say, I have no idea what first drew me to the article, the edit summaries indicate it may have been this request by Scolaire at the NPOV board, which accurately summarises the problem needing intervention at that time. Whatever it was, it was not a desire to edit the article, it was a specific complaint about non-compliant content. I have not looked at the claims of conflicted editing, they may have merit, albeit that no specific evidence has been provided other than that the supposed conflicted editors oppose inclusion of poorly sourced negative material. ScrapironIV is not a problem, Weatherfug may be, the IP definitely is. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

JzG is definitely involved in the content dispute as evidenced by the following diffs:

• JzG made a controversial edit to the article on 26 December 2014 [103]
• JzG was reverted by ScrapIronIV [104], In the edit summary, ScrapIronIV told JzG to participate in the talk page and NPOV Noticeboard discussions
• JzG ignored ScrapIronIV 's request for talk-page discussion and continued edit-warring [105]
• JzG then invoked his administrator status in the midst of a content dispute [106], despite being warned recently not to do that [107]
• JzG made his third controversial edit to the article by reverting ScrapIronIV yet again [108]
• JzG's controversial edits were opposed by both ScrapIronIV and the IP but he blatantly ignored them and continued edit-warring [109][110]
• JzG, very much a party to the dispute, has protected the page twice, on 30 January and 6 March 2015, after persistent edit-warring with the IP [111]

As shown by the above diffs, JzG's claim that this is not a content dispute is a complete lie. He not only participated in the dispute, but continued to engage in edit-warring and invoked his admin status in the midst of the content dispute. He bites the newcomers [112][113], views himself as a "long-time Wikipedian" [114], attacks other editors by calling them "apologist" in the edit summary [115] and accuses me of being a "quackery supporter" [116]. Surely, these personal attacks and abuse of administrative privileges must stop. -A1candidate 11:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED contains the "any reasonable administrator" clause. Given the semi-protection has been reviewed and endorsed by another admin, that is not of concern to me. What is of primary concern is JzG's statement: What you fail to recognise is that I am not part of the content dispute. All I did was to remove poorly sourced, contentious, negative material. We're supposed to do that. I have no opinion about the inclusion of material itself, should those determined to include it ever get round to finding a reliable source. That's my only "involvement" with the article: as janitor. indicates a lack of understanding of "involved" -- specifically admins have only been authorized/tasked by arbcom to act in this editorial capacity for WP:BLP issues; as WOT Services is not a person that is not applicable.

Of much greater concern is JzG's repeated failure to meet the requirements of WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." As arbcom recently explained: "Administrators are expected to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. This requirement is not lessened by perceived or actual shortcomings in the conduct of others."

If the scope was limited to just this incident, I'd simply make the statement above and move on; however, given the recent AE warning I'd like to see an acknowledgement / commitment from JzG to abide by WP:ADMINACCT moving forward. NE Ent 13:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent - Does this mean that Guy is your next victim, the next admin you're going to go after and attempt to get desysopped? Do you undertake this campaign because you know that you will never be an admin?

Go edit some damn articles and make yourself useful. BMK (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

IP claims that the article is unbalanced on the grounds that poorly sourced negative material is not included When did I claim this? The article is unbalanced because it takes an apologist PR tone. Check the edits which misconstrue The Nation's FAQ. Decide for yourself if that is balanced. Others have tagged it as reading like an advertisement. The NPOV board said the article had problems. Did the NPOV board take this view because there are not enough poorly sourced passages? I am not the only user who has voiced concerns about this issue. The consensus was to edit the article for balance.

"readers will note that neither Weatherfug or JZG/GUY are willing to engage on the talk page". Did you engage on the talk page or just lock the article and ignore the proposed edit? I left the proposal up there for almost a week. If you had offered guidance or any feedback at all we would not be here. When I reinserted the passage, I did it in a way to address the concerns you mentioned. If you had other concerns, you could have shared them. You still have not addressed the seemingly duplicitous nature of how you determined that the source is unacceptable, after having previously allowed it.

"the article has a history of manipulation by those involved with the company" I see no proof. There is a clear implication that I am one of these. I am referencing the talk page, near the top. Cursory research would have revealed this. My expectation was that an administrator would review these things. Maybe I was wrong to make that assumption. I will try to be more explicit in the future, although I fear that I have already become too long-winded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WOT_Services#References_and_POV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WOT_Services#NPOV_question https://www.mywot.com/en/blog/123-wot-publicity-awards-2008 Deborah S. is the WOT PR spokeswoman. The previous conflict of interest edits should be considered here, along with the apologetic tone of the article. I can not rationally accuse JzG of being involved in this. I have no way of providing evidence to support those accusations.

The way JzG presents the issues here seems dishonest in my view. Maybe this is due to my lack of experience. Maybe it is not, as others seem to have similar problems with his behavior. JzG's history of warnings speaks to this. Again, I ask readers to review the talk page and edit history before deciding for themselves.

I am not perfect. In fact, I am an inexperienced user. Why not offer guidance instead of making (seemingly inaccurate) accusations? I recognize that I might have taken a higher road on the talk page. In fairness, WeatherFug was confrontational from the beginning. My actions were quite mild as compared to the treatment I was given. I am open to criticism, especially specific instructions on how to navigate a situation like this. I know, you will say: "post reliable sources". I will find more sources. Finding The Nation took a bit of effort, but I am sure I can find more. My issue here is that the source was acceptable for JzG & WeatherFug, until it was reported accurately. Finding more sources is futile if I will be obstructed in the same manner. ScrapIronIV observed the same.

If JzG or WeatherFug are penalized, it is not my business. Resolution for me simply means stopping the obstruction. A pledge to edit in good faith would suffice in my opinion. Retribution does not solve anything for me. From the beginning there has been an adversarial tone. Initially this concerned my use of a dynamic IP. Can we move forward from this, and bring this issue to a close?36.252.1.183 (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read the article or talk page, but removal of WP:BLP violations from an article, and warning those adding them, does not make one an involved admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Did Arthur Rubin even read this thread before making that irrelevant comment? WOT Services is not a person and this [117] is not a BLP issue. NE Ent 19:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Your report above contains all those things. I fully understand that you believe your edits to be peerlessly neutral, of vital importance to the subject, and to fail to include them is a fundamental abrogation of Wikipedia's mission. And all you have to do to get your way is to produce reliable independent sources to substantiate the importance of the matter. Have you thought of trying that? I did suggest it on talk. You chose to reinsert the text without independent sources instead, which of course is unacceptable. I'm encouraged that you're now discussing things but shouldn't you be discussing the content on the Talk page? With reliable independent sources of course...

That is all you've ever had to do. Just saying. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for that. I do not claim that anyone is possible of holding an unbiased view. In my view, we all have our biases. Please do not make these unfounded accusations. It does not help. The rest of your response is just talking past what I have posted above. Please address what I have written.

...determined that the source is unacceptable, after having previously allowed it. This is the part where in my view, you push your editorial agenda. 36.252.1.181 (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Clearly there is a need. It is not me who determines that the source is unacceptable, it's policy and guidance. I'm happy to talk you through that on the article's talk page, but in simple terms, in order for Wikipedia to accuse a service of being biased we require sources independent of the two parties, with some degree of editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. You will find, somewhere, a trenchant critic of just about everything, however Uncontroversial. Wikipedia does not, by design, weigh these things up according to our own beliefs, we defer to independent sources. In as much as I can make anything of the claim at issue, a WOT user mis-classified a site. The site asserts that this was a deliberate, evil and suppressive act, a clear violation of Hanlon's Razor on the face of it. The reader can't judge the merit of the claim because no trusted source, no analysis is provided. See the problem? Guy (Help!) 06:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for_inaccurate_hyperbole. Early on the talk page, I outlined my personal bias. I asked for help from more experienced editors. Not sure why you think there is a need to characterize my activities in that way.

The site asserts that this was a deliberate, evil and suppressive act... I am not seeing that anywhere on the source I posted. In fact, that was what I was clarifying. "For bullet point two, we did contact the original user who left the bad comment on elabs10.com and he said it was a mistake." So as you suggest, it was a mistake on the part of a WOT user. This is the content I inserted. We need to be on the same page. ScrapIronIV posted this in an edit summary. The way WeatherFug had composed the passage made it sound as if the error was on the part of The Nation. However, I will agree that on the WOT page there was plenty of the back and forth you describe. That is by the wayside, because the WOT page was not the source. Before deeming it an unreliable source you restored the passage written by WeatherFug. So at one time, you had interpreted The Nation's FAQ as a reliable source. Maybe you can appreciate how this gives the appearance that you were interested in promoting the view presented by WeatherFug's version which misconstrues the source.

For the 'bias' part, I removed that at your suggestion. It had been added initially because I made the mistake of referencing a disclaimer used at WOT. ScrapIronIV explained that this was an unacceptable use of primary sourcing, so I left that out.

Of course I will gladly continue this discussion with you or others at the article's talk page. For example, I responded to your assertion that The Nation is a blog. It is a magazine. If you had participated and said 'Well, actually this is a FAQ page which is unacceptable', I would not have used the source again. I gave it about a week before I re-inserted. Before we can discuss it there, you must participate. Reading the talk page, the content of edits, and the sources being contested might be part of that.

Again, I ask you to try to see it from my side. Not participating, being a bit abrasive(without logic or checking the facts - otherwise speak how you like), and then locking the article. It does not show you in a light of an impartial arbiter who simply wishes to adhere to policy. While the rules are definite, the interpretation is subjective. From where I stand it looks like you were willing to bend them for the benefit of WOT & WeatherFug. It gave the appearance that you locked the article because the source was not a blog and you could not produce further objections. Put this in the context of an article which has long-term neutrality problems and a history of edits by company PR staff. Maybe now you can see my side of it.36.252.1.158 (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

reoccuring disruptive behavior

I don`t know how to go about this..there is an editor who seems to be borderline disruptive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SaintAviator 66.177.244.25 (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I see an equal (and equally pointless, from both sides) argument over inconsequential things between yourself and that editor. Instead of "reporting" someone because they argued with you, you could, you know, walk away from the argument, find something else at Wikipedia to do, and do nothing about it. That'd work too. --Jayron32 03:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You`re probably right..however this person seems to be unable to not have the last word..I`ve about had enough of trying to express an opinion here or anywhere else on the internet for that matter..my guess is you havn`t heard the last of him. 66.177.244.25 (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is a admited sock of User:Lonepilgrim007 who has a long history of being warned on disrupting talk pages. He abdoned his account and started editing from an IP after he was given a last warning on both his talk page and on the Arthur Phelps talk page [118]. He continues to totally ignore all policy and attack others when they disagree with him. Nice little WP:BOOMERANG here. 72.188.95.203 (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As a perfect example this editor is now approaching me on my talk page claiming they were told to discuss things further with me. You can see on the Lost colony talk page where this user despite being warned for years at this point simply continues to use talk pages as forums. Here he admits he is a sock of Lonepilgrim and admits he just wants to chat and not work on the article. [119] It's like an annoying gnat that wont stop flying into your face. 72.188.95.203 (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:WaldirBot is removing all subsection headings from Portal:Current events

User:WaldirBot is removing all subsection headings from Portal:Current events

example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2001_January_1&diff=650100129&oldid=639019324

and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2002_October_23&diff=650105285&oldid=639149010

has this been agreed to??? looks more like a vandal bot run amuck to me--70.190.111.213 (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I realize having these edits performed by bot may raise concerns. The run isn't fully automated, however. I'm reviewing every edit manually, and the section heading removals are only performed if I consider them (in good faith and to the best of my judgment) unnecessary overhead — for example, if each section has a single entry.

I'm happy to stop doing that simplification if there's consensus that such changes are not welcome. Btw, thanks for warning me on my talk page. --Waldir ^talk 16:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

IMO, the section headers in those should stay. --IJBall (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Care to explain why? As I said above, having section headers for a single entry seems excessive and adding more overhead than usefulness. --Waldir ^talk 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion. There seems to be at least two of use here that believe that the sub-section heads are worthwhile, even for a single entry. They certainly shouldn't be removed from the archives without a much wider discussion and consensus for such a move. --IJBall (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I dont understand about this guy's action - he just suddenly takes it upon himself to run his little bot and change 4,000 entries because he "deems it his own consensus" even thou for years a 1,000 other editors read the thing eace day and had no problem with it - i can find no where a discusssion in advance where he talked it over with anyone but his own "deemed consensus" in his head--70.190.111.213 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Add me to one who believes they're useful even for a single entry. It allows one to tell at a glance whether anything was included on a given topic, and removing them serves no useful purpose. I would very strongly suggest this bot be blocked and its actions mass-rollbacked. Mogism (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the IP has a point, WaldirBot has been approved but only for " Article and other pages' assessment/standardization for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Verde. ". The Current event portal is not related. If WaldirBot can show an approval for that task, that's fine, otherwise, it needs to stop. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 11:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Repeated inappropriate removal of user-talk-page post

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

---

I have attempted to communicate with User:Atsme on his talk page. A third editor, A1candidate (talk · contribs), is trying to inhibit this, first by twice removing my post there [120] & [121], then by hatting it, [122], and then removing it a 3rd time [123]. To top it off, a 3RR warning on my talk page, [124]. I fail to see why another editor should be interfering in my attempt to communicate with someone else, and I feel the situation merits a block for A1candidate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The way you phrased your comment was highly inflammatory, unlikely to resolve the conflict and certainly viewed by the other party as a form of harassment. You're of course free to communicate with Astme, but you should do so in a civil manner. -A1candidate 19:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the comments that Nomoskedasticity left on Atsme's talk page. While you may view the comment as unhelpful, that is not justification for removing it. —Farix (t | c) 19:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. -A1candidate 19:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The comments are hardly derogatory. Confrontational, maybe, but they are definitely not derogatory. —Farix (t | c) 19:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

They are neither uncivil nor derogatory, in fact that sort of user talk post is fairly routine. The removals are in no way supported by policy. How about an apology for an honest misunderstanding of policy, and we can get on with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that A1candidate must restore the post... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO, A1candidate is in violation of this by removing others' comments without just cause. It's also somewhat worse that they decide to attempt to WP:GAME you into being blocked for WP:3RR when they shouldn't have even removed said comments in the first place. Tutelary (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate is not in violation for removing Nomo's post on my TP. It is quite the opposite. This isn't the first time Nomoskedasticity has posted unhelpful comments on my TP. [125] I have asked him before to please stop his disruptive behavior and to stay off my TP. I respectfully request that this issue be dismissed. I apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused. Atsme☯^Consult 19:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That diff does not contain a request that I not post on your talk page... I don't recall that you have requested this. If it's true, then a simple reminder from you would suffice. We still can't have third editors removing posts from talk pages not their own. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, now you know, as since A1candidate apparently knew, it's time to let it go. Besides, it's pointless to edit war on another user's talk page because with the orange bar it's not like they won't know someone posted. NE Ent 20:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Nomoskedasticity, don't post to User talk:Atsme. A1, let Atsme remove the posts themselves. Are we done now? — Ched :  ?  20:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Ched. Atsme☯^Consult 21:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

IP using sexual images for vandalism on own talk page

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

---

See [126]. I reverted his edit, please revoke talk page access (and extend block if necessary). --ToonLucas22 (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've revoked talk page access. Nakon 20:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If it was any use, I wouldn't have let that character out after a mere three days. But never mind, they're probably already elsewhere. Bishonen | talk 20:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

Yeah, it's a wireless IP, so all they'll have a new address in no time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Kannada123 not heeding warnings

Please see User talk:Kannada123. This user seems to have a longstanding pattern of problematic edits (as evidenced by roughly 50 warnings on their User talk page), seldom provides edit summaries, seldom participates in Talk page discussions, and never responds to warnings posted on their Talk page. I think perhaps something should be done to get their attention. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there have been problems with my 'edits' with most being "Disambiguation link notification", non-addition of "Non-free rationales" for album covers, posters etc. just like anybody else who has been contributing for over a period of 1.5 years. But, every single issue has been rectified by me. I provide edit summaries whenever it's required. — Kannada123 (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Note Kannada123, I hope you can make things work here on Wikipedia. Your edits seem to all be made in good faith, at least the ones I have seen. A few words of advice: 1) Always provide an edit summary, even if very brief. 2) Respond to warnings and the like on your Talk Page so editors don't think you are ignoring them. Be willing to take advice, and constructive criticism. 3) Slow down. Work on your prose, and make sure your edits are encyclopedic. I believe you have a future here on Wikipedia. I speak here only as an editor, NOT an admin. Juneau Mike (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

50 warnings seems like a lot to me. I doubt that very many people would get 50 warnings in 1.5 years. Yes, some of them are just disambiguation link notices or bracket mismatch notices, but many seem to indicate, e.g., that copyright concerns are not being taken very seriously (and so does the tone of the response above – dismissing copyright concerns as equivalent to accidental dab links). I also suggest that the user should try to be more communicative – using edit summaries and engaging in Talk page discussions. I am pleased to see that the user posted a response here. Some others might have just ignored this complaint along with all the others. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

comment I see the edits are really contributing and with good intention, would suggest Kannada123 to take time to sharpen once tools and learn how things work and why issues like copywright are important, would suggest a admin/expert adoption to things better.

Closed merge discussion

After one month, and 1,887 page views in the past 30 days, I closed the proposed merger discussion on Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago User:Veggies and I disagree on whether or not my closing the discussion was proper. I based my decision on Wikipedia:Merge, which states that discussion can be closed after a week. I gave it a month. The result of the discussion was a "draw", with only two !votes. Please advise me on whether or not I followed policy, and please let User:Veggies know what your determination is. Thanks!Juneau Mike (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur in the closing of this discussion. Ideally, User:Michaelh2001 should have posted to AN or ANI to request an uninvolved closure of the debate. However, as there was only one dissenting opinion over the course of a month, and I find a lack of consensus in the debate, it is determined that there is no consensus to perform the merge. Nakon 05:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Veggies' View: Well, first, Feb 9 - March 7 is not 30 days (February is a short month, remember?). Second, Michaelh2001 didn't count the pro-merge vote from FL v Zimmerman. My main objection, however, is that so few people have participated, that I wanted to broaden the discussion to more than three interested party members. This situation is not helped by the confusing WP:MERGE guidelines that encourage boldness while distinguishing controversial matters as necessitating a good, long discussion. My original intent was to give editors who watched the relevant talk pages 30 days to make their cases and then open the discussion up to the rest of the Wiki community (through the board for "Awaiting Consensus" at WP:PM). Please remember that the guidelines state that: "If the discussion is contentious, however, you can post it at WP:Proposed mergers to get some help." The discussion is clearly contentious. However, if the objection is: I left the discussion open too long before bringing it to WP:PM, then, okay, apparently I did. Should we not get more than three people participating in a debate like this before we close it? That's my view, anyway. -- Veggies (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

During the (roughly) one month since you reopened this discussion, 1,887 people have visited the main page according to the page count app. Only you and I have commented on your merge proposal among said visitors. The original AfD/Merge proposal was much more contentious, and the article survived. The page is more stable today. I know you disagree that this is about Barack Obama, I get that. But I personally believe that consensus is against you on this. I've seen other edits you have made, and I know you edit in good faith. I believe you should build your user page, but that is a very minor concern. I am glad you edit Wikipedia. But I also firmly believe that this article contributes in a very positive way to "Wikiproject:Barack Obama", which I have long contributed to. I would be happy to collaborate with you on articles in the future. I mean that sincerely. Juneau Mike (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

support and speedy close. The previous debate was closed as no consensus, no new views were mentioned in this, nor enough participation, therefore going with the status quo (the previous result) is entirely allowed. @Juneau Mike: please read WP:INVOLVED, and don't get in a situation like this again - WP:ANRFC is your friend in situation like this. Mdann52 (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Mdann52. This has been a learning experience for me. Thank you for your input, and for your participation in my request for help here. @Mdann52: By the way, my signature appears as Juneau Mike, but my actual account is "Michaelh2001". I didn't get the ping, but I saw your message. Thanks! Juneau Mike (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing and hounding with allegations of bad faith on GMO

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

short story

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

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

longer story

WP:Canvassing

David entered the GMO topic by canvassing 4 editors on their Talk pages.

• 08:51, 13 February 2015 dif
• 08:54, 13 February 2015 dif
• 09:02, 13 February 2015 dif
• 09:08, 13 February 2015 dif

These messages are identical, are on pages of dissenters from the consensus on the GMO articles, and are decidedly not neutral, citing a "a pattern of corporate manipulation" and other bad behavior by "small group of watcher with a particular slant on the subject" and discussing the "bogus" and "blatant falsehood" of the scientific consensus statement. (Note: the scientific consensus is that currently marketed food from GM crops is as safe to eat, as food from conventional organisms. That was subject to an RfC that upheld the content with the consensus statement and its sourcing. That statement in the GMO articles really bothers anti-GMO activists. Continual problem with drive by editors, and some editors who are active here.)

I provided David formal warning of canvassing here. I also made a note on the Genetically modified food controversies Talk page and added a recruiting template to the article.

• After the canvassing warning, in this discussion on another user's Talk page, David used his concerns about my removing a personal attack (see below) to again vent his general concerns with the POV/COI going on at the GMO suite and my behavior. (again, with an editor he thought would be sympathetic)

David's canvassing led directly to a posting on Jimbo's talk page by one of the canvassers. Thread is here, which grew directly out of David's canvassing of the OP, one of those already linked above.

• David contributed this to the discussion there, discussing "COI problems that are happening with pharmaceuticals, and are now an equally big problem with GMO articles which lack of NPOV." This is just a continuation of the community activist campaigning and canvassing.

• And then, David left a message on another editor's Talk page tonight that I consider to be canvassing, that started with said "Anyone who tries to balance any of the GMO articles is immediately reverted and is often threatened like this." and discussed more below), and is what prompts me to call for a 24 block for canvassing.

• WP:NPA / WP:TPG

• David has now twice added content to article Talk pages, to "introduce" new users, with POV and attacking messages about contributors, not content:

first with this beauty, which i removed per NPA and provided David with a warning on this Talk page

and just now, this, which was also removed per NPA by another editor.

• Most recently, a new editor came to the articles wanting to add UNDUE content with messed up referencing to the Genetically modified organism article, which i reverted. I provided that user with a Welcome template, and I added another note informing the editor in a neutral way, about how the suite of articles is set up and explained how to add a reference. That editor used what I taught him to edit war the content back in (with proper reference formatting), without talking back at all, so I provided an edit war warning. (am not going to do all the editing diffs in this part. they are here if anybody wants to see them)

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

• In the two or three weeks since all this started, David has engaged in only two real discussions about content.

• one about "substantial equivalence" which is here: Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Substantial_Equivalence
• the other, trying to add content about a 14 year old primary source discussing cellular engineering (not genetic engineering) to the genetic engineering article. Discussion is here.

In both cases, he was wrong about the topic (law/regulation in one and science in the other), and after he actually read the sources or had them explained to him, he acknowledged he was wrong. All this agita appears to be based on a very strongly held position that "GMOs are bad". He does not appear to be WP:COMPETENT in the subject matter.

• The behavior is all, classic WP:ADVOCACY. I deal with a lot of editors like this in the GMO suite and do not bring them here or create drama.

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

deeper background here, for anyone who wants it Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Closing. David believes he has The Truth here and that his behavior is justified, and I reckon he will try to turn this into an examination of my behavior. I know that and expect it. I had a very long interaction with David in the leadup to this, (which was prompted by my noticing one of his canvassing messages b/c it was written on a page I watch; I became aware of the others only later). In that interaction I explained how the GMO articles came to be as they are, discussed how COI is and has been discussed and dealt with by the en-WP community, discussed how concerns about behavior are handled in WP, and urged him many times to focus on content, not contributors, nor their motivations - that this is what we do in WP. I grew increasingly worried by things that David wrote in that interaction, and my worries were realized in this message on my Talk page, which to be honest, freaked me out. I realized I had a stalker who a) does not understand how WP works at all (we identify reliable sources, craft content from them based on PAG, and discuss them - we do not speculate endlessly on what motivated this or that editor to do or say what... and that message was the fruit of, and 100% committed to, analysis of (guessed-at) motivations of contributors, all explained with great confidence. yikes.) and b) was really, really committed to his conspiratorial, convoluted POV about me. I replied appropriately (and I meant it) that I would be more careful to welcome new editors going forward. I then struck my interactions with him on my Talk page, apologizing for having bothered him (which I meant). And I archived my Talk page and reduced my User page to a minimum. And went to his Talk page and likewise struck my remarks there and apologized to him again. I have never had a stalker before; it is a weird feeling.

• I ask that, if this turns into an examination of my behavior, that this be done in a separate thread. This thread is focused on David's behavior demonstrated above, which is out of line.

• Anyway, as I mentioned above, I am seeking a 24 block for canvassing and a warning for David to stop these behaviors. I would like the warning to include instruction to discuss content, not contributors.

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

Have you first tried to engage with David in a meaningful discussion? If so, why did initial attempts to solve the issue fail? I'm asking this only because I can't make any clear inferences about that from your long post, so it may be a good idea for you to state that clearly. -A1candidate 01:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

yes, as i did describe above. added some Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I see lots of accusations thrown against David Tornheim for allegedly stalking you, and that may indeed be occurring, but if you don't want him to come to your talkpage, you may wish to tell him to stay away from your talkpage (in clear language) and see if that works. You said that you apologized to him, but I don't consider that a good way to deal with unwanted attention. -A1candidate 02:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your advice but you are distracting from the point. I have not disinvited him from my Talk page, as that is the first place for him to bring concerns about my behavior. Per WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, this board is next, as I have told him.

But this is about david's behavior. I believe the canvassing is sanctionable and the discussions of content, not contributor, need a warning. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll also chime in and say that Jytdog seems to try to help out new editors relatively well. However, some terseness is needed in controversial topics when someone comes in with a strong viewpoint of their own. This seems to be a case more so not of a new editor being bitten, but someone coming in from an advocacy perspective with a fringe viewpoint and coming in a bit too hot to really realize the problem with that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support temp block and warning.' I've been involved in some of the content in this case, but haven't been targeted by David Tornheim like Jytdog has with this hounding behavior. There's really no excuse for this behavior and it's just poisoning the well at the related articles. The canvassing is very apparent (also to a t as described by WP:Votestacking) as Tornheim has been selectively recruiting from editors who appear to hold his viewpoint or have been trying to further WP:FRINGE viewpoints in the article. If it was just a new editor reaching out to one of those folks, that could be construed as someone just learning the ropes, but not this many people. The WP:TRUTH behavior seems very apparent where Tornheim came into the article hot as a new editor and just doesn't seem to get WP:GEVAL in this topic (similar to climate change, evolution, and other science articles where other editors with fringe POVs run into trouble). Overall, this just seems to be lashing out for not understanding how Wikipedia works (not for a lack of others trying to help) from trying to move too fast with a certain POV. The advocacy is tricky to address at this point here and maybe could be resolved without need for ANI, but it does seem to be leading towards the personal attacks and hounding that is not appropriate in any case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll also tack on there has been some battleground behavior/edit warring:

• [127] David adds content, removed due to sourcing issues by Jytdog.
• [128] David reverts content back in " please do not undo without presenting your reason on the talk page. "not accurate" is not a reason"
• [129] Reverted by Jytdog asking, "per WP:BRD please do not edit war, but rather open a discussion on the Talk page."
• [130] David reverts again directly copying Jytdog's edit summary "per WP:BRD please do not edit war, but rather open a discussion on the Talk page."
• [131] I reverted David's 3rd revert asking him to justify his new addition on the talk page at this point.
• [132] At which point, David posts a 3RR warning on my talk page after my single revert.

This shows a tendency to edit war rather than come to the talk page and seemingly not understanding that if you make a change and it gets reverted, you then need to gain consensus for it on the talk page. The snark involved in copying Jytdog's edit summary about BRD is also problematic and the warning on my page seem pretty retaliatory in nature. This user is still relatively new, so I do hope changes occur, but this is looking like a difficult case that isn't just due to being a new user. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose temp block and warning. I am working on a response, which I intend to post tonight. I would appreciate a chance to respond before any action is taken. David Tornheim (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Calling for a block based on a single incident involving canvassing of four editors which occurred nearly a month ago seems on its face unreasonable. Jytdog is an involved editor in this issue, and as such, Jytdog's behavior in this lengthy interaction should be subject to scrutiny as well; "this isn't about me, this is about them" arguments are specifically discussed and dismissed in Wikipedia:Boomerang, and "anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny."Dialectric (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Some of this would be for Jytdog to clarify, but I didn't see a clear it's not me it's them demarcation in his post, but rather him asking that if someone really wanted to discuss his behavior, it be brought up in a different section so there could be some clarity rather than a jumbled mess. The canvassing though is only one of the problems experienced at the articles (though maybe the most actionable). Advocacy really seems to be the core problem here though, so this isn't based in a single incident. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say there is nothing to do at this stage but it's clearly important to watch David Tornheim's input in relation to these articles, as he seems to be of the school that believes that anything not anti-GMO is pro-GMO, an easy mistake to make but not one that Wikipedia should fall for. For example, this edit states in Wikipedia's voice that an experiment that led to genetically modified human children in the US was unethical and illegal "there" and in other countries (in fact it should say "in the UK" as it is not illegal in the US, where ti happened); this is attributed to "British scientists" but the story makes it clear that the criticism comes from some British scientists and is nto a considered corporate view of any British scientific body. It would have been much better to attribute the actual quotation in the source by Lord Winston, whose criticism was much more measured. But in any case this is a 2015 edit based on a 2001 story about a technique (ooplasmic transfer) that has been covered much more recently, and is intimately bound to the three-parent baby debate. As a criticism of genetic engineering, it represents nothing more than a random interjection. In short, the edit represents a simplistic and partisan view of a complex topic, within a mature article. many of David's edits are similar. I think David now understands that he needs to discuss such edits in advance and achieve consensus before making edits that may be controversial. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi JzG I am not making this report based on the 4 initial canvasses. I warned him for that. I am seeking the block because of the subsequent canvassing that I bulleted above, here and here, with that post on Jimbo's page here in the midst. He shows no sign at all of stopped and appears very committed to continuing to "community organize"?canvass around these issues. And I am seeking the warning for his continued comments on contributors (me) in, inappropriate venues, and following me around. ( this message to me on another editor's talk page... just ick. Jytdog (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog's behavior

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

• Response to Allegations: I have been on Wikipedia since July 2008 [133] and have worked on a number of different articles.  I have never been taken to an ANI board before and have never been blocked. I have never taken anyone else to an ANI board or any other notice board. I am used to working things out on the talk page of the relevant articles.

I do understand Jytdog has put quite a lot of effort into revising all of the GMO articles and so it is not entirely suprising there is resistance to new people making changes. However, Jytdog's treatment of new users does not follow WP:DONTBITE, especially those that raise WP:NPOV concerns, which I explain below. In 2004, Jytdog said:

"There is a suite of related articles on GM matters. A few years ago these articles were a complete mess, with much overlapping content (most of negative anti-GMO stuff). A group of us went through and cleaned them up ..." here

Unfortunately, during this massive rewrite, as indicated above, the voices of GMO critics/consumer advocates (renamed pejoratively "anti-GMO") were compromised and the revised articles took on a Pro-GMO slant. "Anti-GMO" is an unfair label for the consumer groups, because people can be conerned about GMO's and want more testing before widespread release, without being opposed to all GMO's. This is an example edit where GMO critics' concerns are watered down to be almost unrecognizable here.

Jytdog is correct that I believe there are serious issues with lack of WP:NPOV for all of the GMO articles, and my good faith efforts to address them and work with Jytdog and the others are met with these kinds of accusations--just look at my talk page.

The 'scientific consensus' issue is simple--there is none, and other editors have pointed this out:

• Unmismoobjetivo (talk) here
• LesVegas (talk) here
• user:Arsenal lb here
• Gaba ^(talk) here.

English language Wikipedia is supposed to reflect a worldwide view of the subject, and there is widespread mainstream diversity of opinion in Europe, at least, especially ENSRR here. Reliable sources explain the lack of 'scientific consensus' here and here. Jytdog and others insist that reliable sources that do not conform to their view of the subject are fringe/advocacy groups here. This is POV pushing.

Jytdog, especially, but also Kingofaces43 and others have shown owernship behaiors WP:OWNER (or WP:GANG) towards the GMO articles, especially when changes are proposed that might address the NPOV concerns. For example,

User LesVegas identified the WP:NPOV problem and put an NPOV tag on an GMO article here and the tag was removed only 5 minutes later by Jytdog here. The user attempted to put it back here, and again Jytdog removed the appropriate NPOV tag only 2 minutes later here, despite the fact that the user did discuss the NPOV problem on the talk pages (here) and had good reason to tag the article that continues to have WP:NPOV problems.

Shorly after Jytdog engaged me on my talk page and I explained my concerns about lack of NPOV, he wrote, "You appear to be charging full steam into things that you don't know much about. If you don't move more carefully, this is going to be much uglier than it needs to be..." here.

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

After Jytdog bared his teeth, I was still able to find some common ground and establish some rapport with him/her. However, I felt it necessary to explain the problem of intimidating new users, as gently as possible. I did so here. The situation I explained is that user Alexlikescats explained the same lack of NPOV here at 21:45, 29 March 2014 (another user:107.2.182.250 chimed in, in agreement here). Only 32 minutes after Alexlikescats said the article was biased, Jytdog accused Alexlikescats of having a single-purpose-acccount here, which violates the rule of WP:DONTBITE, especially the section, "Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute ". That was the last thing the user did on Wikipedia. See Alexlikecats, contributions.

When I had confronted Jytdog with the problem of intimidating new users, Jytdog admits in the box (show more detail above), that s/he 'freaked' out and struck out ALL the correspondence between us and archived all discussion. I don't think that is a mature way to address the very relevant concern I had raised.

Another example of Jytdog's similar treatment to a new user is here

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

When I saw yet another new user (MaxwellBarr) who tried to make good faith edits to address NPOV in a GMO article getting hit by accusations by Jtydog here, I did indeed tell Jytdog again I saw that as a problem here, here and here, while urging the user not to give up on editing the page here. Unfortunately, this user appears to have been scared off as well and has not made any further contributions to Wikipedia confirmed here. Again this is a problem with WP:BITE. This last incident pushed Jytdog to bring me to this forum claiming this confrontation was "canvassing.". I am happy to accept advice from 3rd parties on what I should do if I see a problem like that. I continue to be concerned about Jytdog's behavior of treating new users like this and having ownership behaviors like reverting any new additions and refusing to take seriously new ideas, but I am not sure what I should do about it.  Even though I have been on Wikipedia for quite a while, I don't really know much about resolving disputes in the forums.  I generally just try to talk it out with the people involved. Until I tried to add sourced material to articles in the GMO suite, I had never encountered such vigorous and tendentious opposition.

The incident Kingofaces43 describes was resolved here and here. I said on the talk page, that I intended to add material another user had suggested here, for which neither had specifically objected except for a blanket rejection here. The two working together reverted my inclusion without discussing on the talk page and without giving a valid reason of reverting (too old and "not true" [an opinion not backed up with WP:RS] are not valid reasons for rejecting material IMHO), which to me seemed like edit waring and unnecessary obstruction on their behalf as part of a WP:TAG team to accomplish 3RRR.

In summary, I think there are some real WP:OWN and WP:GANG behaviors on the GMO pages, and serious problems with WP:NPOV that can not be addressed because of that. I have tried in good faith to address those problems and am looking towards 3rd party admin(s) who have no investment in the GMO articles to give some guidance on how I might address the problems.

Instead of a block or warning for me, I think the deserving person for sanctions should be Jytdog for biting (WP:BITE) new users who do not share his/her POV and thereby "poisoning the well." David Tornheim (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That's unlikely to happen, because the allegation of biting relies on the idea that anti-GMO views have parity of esteem with the mainstream view. The articles right now reflect the neutral point of view as a result of many years of debate between people of all shades of opinion. I understand that some people are not familiar with a lot of this, and you perhaps you don't know about the practices of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry that historically plague contentious articles. Your best bet is to offer new users advice on policies and how to stay on the right side of them (though I have to say I'm not convinced you know, fomr a sample of your edits in this area).

We do know that people cast themselves as "consumer advocates" not anti-GMO. Antivaxers, climate deniers, creationists and many other activists opposing the scientific consensus, do the same, with some success, in that in recent years some segments of the media have fallen into the trap of believing that science and cranks are valid opposing views. Recent outbreaks of preventable disease have seen some changes here and it's becoming slightly less common to interview an antivaxer and put them up against a lone scientist representing the tens of millions who support the consensus view. The nature of a scientific consensus is that it encompasses all known facts and valid opinions about those facts.

Wikipedia notes that there is no good evidence to support most of the harms claimed by anti-GMO activists (a few of the economic ones are entirely valid but that is a different debate). I'm a fan of the precautionary principle, but I've had to accept this view of GMOs over time. They are actually in many ways safer and less environmentally damaging than non-GMO crops: less pesticide, less fertiliser, less preservative, less chance of toxic breakdown products in the produce. It doesn't help that much anti-GMO activism comes from scientifically illiterate "chemophobes" like the Food Babe, or from the organic movement, which is prone to all kinds of irrationality due in no small part to its Steiner "biodynamic" heritage.

This is not Wikipedia's problem, it's the anti-GMO movement's problem, they need to find better arguments. Obviously we also need to patiently explain the facts, but in general we already have, in talk page headers and the articles themselves. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Responses

• some of the above is about content; this is not the place to discuss content disputes so I will not respond here.
• With regard to claims that I WP:OWN the subject matter...

It it true that I watch them (I watch ~2500 articles) and in all my editing, I am keen that content be sourced from reliable, secondary sources per VERIFY, OR, RS, and MEDRS, and that content be NPOV. The GMO suite is no different.

And it is true that I am the biggest (or one of the biggest) contributor to most of these, and that they dominate my editing, if you analyze my edits by article. Here is a breakdown. i am aware of this.

but I don't believe I do the behaviors described in OWN, here. i ask myself the questions in WP:TENDENTIOUS all the time. But some things come close to the OWN behaviors, like

*the "qualifications" thing (the subject matter is technical - science and law etc.) If an editor is calm enough to actually listen, those things generally can get worked through, as they have with David twice now when he slowed down enough to actually listen - you can see that in the two examples I linked to in my complaint.

*The "comments on other editor's pages" thing comes close too. I think I have generally stayed within both the spirit and the letter of this place in talking with other editors and editors, but I could see how someone could have an issue with some of what I do there. I acknowledged that to David already and am thinking about this going forward.

• to state the obvious, GMOs are a subject matter where people come to the article with very strong emotions and views and make changes that violate NPOV, OR, RS, etc. We get lots of "driveby" edits adding bad content (violates NPOV, OR, etc) in the articles because of that. The new editor Maxwell discussed above is very typical - editors come, want to add some UNDUE matter, and never talk back. it is not my fault if people do not understand WP and do not talk back. WP:BITE does not say that "anything new editor adds is OK." It just doesn't say that.
• That said, I try very hard to engage in civil, PAG-based discussions with editors who are willing to talk on these pages and have received several barnstars, specifically for my efforts working with people on controversial subjects, (and this is just some of the feedback along these lines):

this from 7%266%3Dthirteen

this from Yobol

this from Brangifer

this from DocumentError

this from IRWolfie-

this from Epipelagic

this from SandyGeorgia

With regard to "engaging with new ideas" I am very happy to hear new ideas and see them implemented, or implement them myself. On the GMO suite, most people who come by are not bringing up anything new. Maxwell's edit, for example, was about the Seralini affair, which was worked on vigorously as it is unfolded and is now integrated into the suite and has its own article. I'm always happy to discuss re-arranging things and have offered to discuss with David, which he has taken up.

I am really proud that ~in general~ these articles have stayed off the drama pages, and we have not gone to Arbcom. (although there was a really bad period back in August 2013 when it got to so ugly (especially with unfounded claims of COI on my part that I took myself to COIN (none of my accusers had the sense or graciousness to even bring a case in the proper forum) and I revealed by private information to an outsighter - results of that are here.

I have interacted with lots of folks over the past three years on these articles. I've attracted some haters. For the most part these are folks really committed to an anti-GMO POV. I will ping some of them here, to be sure they are aware of this. Viriditas, Petrarchan, Canoe67, El duderino, TheBanner, I would say are key people who have said I am a bad presence here and would love to chime in. There are other editors whom I know have strong concerns with my GMO editing, for example GandyDancer and Groupuscule, but have generally not personalized it (especially not groupuscule who is always a paragon of elegance and civility). There are other editors who have generally had different perspectives from me and have really engaged in Talk discussions over the years, like Semitransgenic. IjonTichyIjonTichy and Dialectric have shown up more recently.

Lfstevens is fairly new to the topics and recently went over the GM Controversies with a very fine-toothed comb (thanks again for that) and may have input on this. Guettarda also recently came by.

Then there are those who have really collaborated on building the articles - Sunrise (not so active on them anymore), Aircorn (not so active anymore), SylviaStanley too, and Kingofaces, who has already weighed in above. (the article analysis tool is broken or i would list more)

Tryptofish (away on personal matters) has been invaluable in mediating some of the conversations. I wish he were around as his feedback is wise.

What I am trying to say, is we have managed to keep the conversations civil enough, and focused enough on PAG based discussion of content and sources, that we have been able to resolve issues on the Talk pages or through RfC. David - a newbie, community activist - is breaking that. Making personal attacks of COI etc all over WP, trying to whip up opposition, instead of simply dealing with the content and sources in the article.

I am glad David finally brought this here, however. This is, finally, the proper forum for raising his concerns. As you can see, I am taking the initiative to open this up wide. Let's get this dealt with.

finally, i ask myself the questions in WP:TENDENTIOUS all the time. I am human and fuck up sometimes. When I do, I acknowledge the mistake, apologize for it, fix it, and move on. If there is consensus that I am acting badly I look forward to hearing that. (I do expect some strong accusations that I am acting badly.) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:Harassment by Bfpage

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

---

I first addressed Bfpage about WP:Harassment at Bfpage's talk page. Bfpage then moved my additional comments to User talk:Bfpage/Following me around, and replied there each time I made a new reply at Bfpage's talk page. Eventually, I took the matter to Jytdog for advice, and Jytdog also saw WP:Harassment on Bfpage's part. Like I stated on Jytdog's talk page (User talk:Jytdog/Archive 10#Advice on potential WP:Hounding behavior) regarding my concerns about Bfpage, particularly stalking: "To me, [Bfpage declaring to edit the same pages that I edit] was [Bfpage] making sure that there is potential for us to interact when [Bfpage knows] that I would rather that we do not interact. I can and do collaborate on Wikipedia, but [Bfpage and I] got off to a rocky start and it can take time before I am willing to work with an editor that I feel very irritated by and/or had significant disputes with. [...] I therefore wished to remove myself from [Bfpage's orbit]...other than occasionally editing the Sexism article. And [Bfpage] seemed to want to [be placed] directly in my orbit. I don't seek to work with editors that are causing me annoyance. And instead of occasionally interacting with [Bfpage], [Bfpage] pretty much declared that I would likely be interacting with [him or her] on a daily or weekly basis." After that, Bfpage seemed to back off, but, like I noted in a section on my talk page, Bfpage is still keeping tabs on me and awarded a barnstar to an editor (Lucentcalendar) who made ill-advised comments about me, ill-advised comments that caused NinjaRobotPirate, who is aware of the WP:Harassment I often receive, to attempt to see me in a better mood. A day after Bfpage's barnstar award, I warned Bfpage about stalking me again, on March 2. Bfpage's response was to "self-ban in good faith." I never asked for a self-ban; I asserted that the obvious stalking should stop. Bfpage continues to stalk me, and the excuse for that stalking now is to mark down "where not to edit." Any time an editor, such as this harassing IP, has something negative to state about me, Bfpage shows up to award that editor a barnstar; besides awarding Lucentcalendar a barnstar, Bfpage awarded the harassing IP a barnstar and DangerousJXD (one of my other harassers) a barnstar, seen here, after laughing at DangerousJXD's user page commentary about hating me.

Normally, I ignore my harassers unless I "have to" interact with them. And if DangerousJXD wants to state that he hates me on his user page, or any of the other things he's stated about me on his user page, then I don't think he should be forced to remove it. But seeing users obsess over me, as these users do, is often where I draw the line, as I did in a different notable WP:Hounding case focusing on me. I ask that one or more WP:Administrators advise Bfpage to stop tracking my edits, or to at least stop publicly tracking my edits, to perhaps un-watch my user page/talk page, and to stop speaking of me and/or ambiguously referring to me on Wikipedia unless necessary. If DangerousJXD keeps obsessing over me, I will start a WP:ANI thread in that case as well. Other than their obsessions with me, and any poor editing that they may engage in, I am not interested in these editors. Their obsessions regarding me, and any poor editing that they may engage in, is the only reason that I have their user pages/talk pages on my WP:Watchlist. I have enough issues to worry about at this site, and in my personal life, than constant badgering and/or belittlement from these editors. Flyer22 (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please leave me alone. –DangerousJXD (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

DangerousJXD, that goes the other way around, which is the exact reason for this thread. Should I point out all of your silly edits regarding me, the way that I pointed to them near the end of this section? If not, then do stop obsessing over me. And do stop acting like I am the one who has been bothering you. Never do I mention you, except for when it is to point out your obsession with me. I barely even think of you, yet your user page is laced with edits showing just how much you think of me. Get a clue: I am not interested in you. Flyer22 (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Just stop. I never did anything to you. I was done with you with my closing notes note. Leave me alone. I have left you alone, can you please do the same? I put you in the past yet you keep coming back. Can you please just be happy or something? Come to an agreement? (That last part sounded stupid) —DangerousJXD (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone interested in the truth about who "keeps coming back," and who keeps referring to the other, as far you and I are concerned can look at the diff-link I provided in my "04:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)" post above. They can also look at this Editor Interaction Analyzer tool (and I'm not counting my WP:STiki edits on that matter). And while you removing mention of me from your user page is a start, what I seek is that you completely stop focusing on me, including awarding anyone a barnstar because you like how they supposedly told me off. Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Playing the victim does not suit you in light of evidence to the contrary. Flyer22 (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not playing the victim. I am not observing you. I'm not obsessed with you. I'm not focusing on you. I stopped focusing (your words) on you with my closing note note. That Barnstar is old. Stop destroying my time on Wikipedia, please. Just be nice. I am not playing the victim, I am asking you to leave me alone. I was never planning on contacting you again until thing BTW. —DangerousJXD (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Recently, there's been some talk about how to retain female editors. If I took all the abuse and harassment that Flyer22 does, I'd probably have left a long time ago. I occasionally edit feminist, gender, and sexuality articles, and nobody has ever – not even once – called me an activist, a crusader, or identified me as part of some feminist cabal. And yet Flyer22, who has been vocal about not self-identifying as a feminist, receives constant abuse directed toward her. I don't know. I think this is exactly the situation that admins should be focusing on if they want to retain female editors. Maybe if I called myself NinjaFairyPrincess people would start "I hate NinjaFairyPrincess" threads, follow me around, fix my edits, and rewrite my articles to be more neutral. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This kind of behaviour from Dangerous and Bfpage is not only bizarre, it's downright scary and that's not a personal attack. I mean that reading these diffs, I find the content of their posts actually scary and I also think that they are clear evidence of stalking. Flyer22 is indeed very tough (and apparently very very patient and kind to a fault, no offence) for having put up with all this, as like NRP said, I also would have left this project in disgust a long time ago rather than having to put up with this kind of treatment and apparent application of double standards (as evidences by all the labels that have been stuck to her). A woman should be able to edit Wikipedia freely without being subjected to this sort of harassment, belittlement, and disrespect. Were I Flyer in this situation, I'd ask for a lot more than a simple interaction ban with caveats, I would want them banned all-together, but I think she's being very kind here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Adar 5775 05:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm done. —DangerousJXD (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What in the world were you thinking when you wrote that you hated another user on your own user page? That kind of behavior is totally unacceptable. I think you should be blocked for several months just to give you time to think about what you've done. Maybe you aren't old enough to edit Wikipedia; maybe your parents raised you to hate other people. I don't know what the answer is but I do know it is NOTHERE. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Bfpage: - stop. Your behavior is inappropriate. If you continue to act in the same way towards Flyer, don't count on being able to edit Wikipedia in the future. For that matter, if you act in the same way towards different people in the future it'll probably threaten your ability to edit too. Dangerous: it would be wise for you to stick to your statement that you won't be engaging with Flyer in the future, and it would be wise for you to include actively avoiding any sort of intentional interaction with Flyer that is likely to be perceived as even the very slighest bit antagonistic. The behavior of both of you - even within the last days, this isn't ancient stuff that you've stopped doing - is grotesquely inappropriate for Wikipedia or any WMF project. If Flyer hadn't only asked for an iban, I would be supporting (or implementing..) much stronger sanctions against both of you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Requesting an intervention

A frequent editor of Louisiana articles, Futurewiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to struggle endlessly. The user has been cautioned again and again, and was taken to ANI twice under their previous username Dragonrap2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see sockpuppet investigation). There doesn't seem to be any learning curve, and editors spend a lot of time cleaning up after this editor.

Difs:

• [134] - no edit summary, reason or source, and has been cautioned to stop adding "Hamlet" to infobox names.
• [135] - added a photo gallery to an infobox.
• [136] - added "hamlet" to its official name after being cautioned to stop doing this.
• [137] - random unsourced content.
• [138] - added a small table. While editing as User:Dragonrap2, there were many cautions against this and it went to ANI.
• [139] - changed genre of a musician without adding a source or edit summary. Another editor reverted and cautioned them on their talk page to stop doing this. No matter, Futurewiki just kept on doing it.

Editor after editor has tried to assist, or warned this user about unconstructive edits. Thank you for any assistance you may offer. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The striking thing about that editor's talk page is that so many other editors have warned them about their errors, and pleaded with them to stop. Futurewiki doesn't say a single word in response. I suggest an indefinite block until the editor posts a sincerely worded unblock request, agreeing to engage in discussion with other editors, and to make a sincere effort to comply with our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

SPI at the time was closed by User:Mike V as "This looks like a situation where the user forgot his or her password and just created a new account. None of the edits overlap chronologically and the other account has not been used since the new one was created." Today that was disproved that by being both active at File:KEEL logo.png. DMacks (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure WP:CIR but a block at this time is a bit harsh. The contributions are a mishmash of poor and decent [140] -- not sure about Elite Radio Group notability -- but I'm not seeing evidence of edit warring or throwing a hissy fit when they're edits are reverted. NE Ent 11:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• What Cullen said. This is an editor who keeps doing things that are causing disruption, and who does not engage at all with those who try to stop the problem. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps a warning to stop ignoring and start engaging, followed by a short block if he does it again just to get his attention? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Winmelgarcia

Winmelgarcia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is suspected with hoaxing edits on Top Model articles, particularly notable celebrity stars. I reverted it/them all and vandalized it back. ApprenticeFan ^work 15:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think you meant to say "s/he added it back", didn't you? ;) Anyway, s/he hasn't edited since your most recent warning on his/her talk page, so let's just see what happens. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Failure to engage in discussion at Buddha Bar

User:JesseRafe removed a large amount of material from the article, Buddha Bar. I restored the material per WP:BRD and initiated a discussion about it at Talk:Buddha Bar#WP:BRD discussion on inclusion of compilation albums information. JesseRafe has not participated in that discussion but continues to remove the material. Obviously opinions can differ, but I believe that a change of this magnitude should be discussed and, if there is consensus to move this material to a separate article (which I do not oppose), such a change should be done in an orderly fashion, not just be deleting the existing material from the article. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

As this huge amount of tangentially-at-best related data was just unceremoniously dumped on a page about a bar, I was confused and thought it might have been an accident or untended material. It does not belong, especially sans introduction, and is beyond undue significance given the amount of material about the bar (which is notable) is less than 5Kb, including multiple sections and sources, and this endless list of non-notable albums is almost 27Kb, I fail to see how it's even objectionable that this should be removed. JesseRafe (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, the other editor who replied at Talk:Buddha Bar#WP:BRD discussion on inclusion of compilation albums information. supports Jesse's position ... both editors should use talk page more and edit summaries and WP:ANI less. NE Ent 18:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you agree that if one editor makes a major change, and another editor reverts that change and initiates a discussion, the first editor should discuss the matter before making the major change over again? Also, where is this separate article that User:JesseRafe is supposed to have spun off? bd2412 T 19:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't not. If two editors disagree, the smarter, more mature and more wiki-savvy one starts the talk page discussion and (except in cases of BLP violation / hoax type stuff) lets the other "have their way" transiently while consensus forms. NE Ent 02:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Did that happen once? How quaint. In the real world, junk content is a plague on Wikipedia and contentious material subject to challenge should remain out of the article until there is consensus as to its inclusion. Anything else is a very obvious POV-pusher's charter, to say nothing of the Randy from Boise issue. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Bolterc disruption to Aam Aadmi Party article

Bolterc (talk · contribs) has been nothing but a problem where the Aam Aadmi Party article is concerned. They have previously been reported here, have been blocked twice, have had a discretionary sanctions notification and numerous other warnings, and have tried and failed to push their POV via an AfD. Even now, they are resorting to comments such as this edit summary, they are still messing about with redirect/dabs despite an obvious inability to understand how we operate, and they have just unilaterally moved the AAP article to Aam Aadmi Party (India). The most recent discussion thread of any length is here and even during that they were edit warring to get their dodgy version of various things into the article.

Please will someone deal with this mess once and for all, perhaps via a topic ban. The article move should be reverted also, pending consensus. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved page and made edits based on RFC discussion on talk page. Please stop personal attacks and make meaningful contributions. Please add your views to the RFC section. More Neutral Views are requested. Bolterc (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The RfC is open and you have pre-empted its closure. The thing doesn't even directly relate to a page move. You have been nothing but an incompetent and tendentiously disruptive pov-pusher regarding this subject and time should be called. (I've just indented your response, btw: something else that you have been told about before but still do not understand). WP:CIR anyone? - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've reverted the move and the recreation of the disamb page. Also locked everything for 3 months.--regentspark (comment) 20:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This response to the DS warning does not exactly inspire confidence that the Bolterc meets the CIR requirement... rdfox 76 (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I believe there are competency issues here, combined with issues of partisanship that make User:Bolterc see anti-AAP political conspiracies where none exist, eg, see this this malformed RFC. Would help if some experienced user, not involved in India-related articles (and, thus less likely to be seen as part of the conspiracy), tried mentoring the user; barring that I don't see them remaining unblocked for long. Abecedare (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Bolterc never added anything important to any of these articles, he is only disrupting these articles and wasting the time of other people by repeating the same argument over and over. He had been blocked before for edit warring too. I don't think that he will agree on mentoring at all. Fundarise (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Fundarise could be sock puppet. Admins please have a check. Bolterc (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A sock of whom? - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Leonard Nimoy

Joseph Prasad, after repeated warnings about his conduct has continued to edit war, edit tendentiously, and edit disruptively at the Leonard Nimoy article for several hours today. I'm not looking for a block, I'm not looking for anything punitive, just something from an administrator or another editor who Joseph might listen to in order to help him understand this behavior at any article is not acceptable and cannot continue unchecked. Another editor and myself have attempted at the article's talk page (here: [141]) to discuss the content dispute that seems to have started his behavior in a downward spiral. This is not the first time this editor has had difficulties with understanding guidelines and policy and has reacted in the same sort of manner with edit warring, tendentious editing, and the like and has been blocked once not long ago for edit warring {here:[142]). More than once he's tried playing the WP:DIVA card and has "quit" Wikipedia when challenged in regard to his edits and behavior (one example here: [143]). I have nothing personal against this editor, but I am personally tired of his repeated choices to be tendentious and disruptive even after editors have reached out to him and asked him to stop (most recent example from ATinySliver here: [144]). After the previous was offered, the editor responded by adding an unnecessary and inappropriate "needs citations" tag at the Nimoy article on a section that is well referenced. After it was reverted out and being told adding it was an inaccurate representation of the section's referencing, he responded by starting to place cite needed tags in the article rather than looking for references and improving the article himself. The tendentious and disruptive nature of his tagging is obvious in this edit summary [145] -- with the edit summary showing that he was more interested in winning than building the encyclopedia and improving the article. I think this editor can be a real asset, but when he goes down this road (as he has done often), he starts looking like a net negative. Any help or advice in the matter would be greatly appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This report makes it seem like you never do anything wrong. And the citation needed tags highlight what editors need to reference. If I have the time and motivation, eventually I'll get to it myself. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Instead of putting on multiple tags in your limited available time, fix one or two of them, that would be much more helpful to the encyclopedia. Tagging is simply making someone else do the work that you think needs to be done - they should be used sparingly. BMK (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Concur tagging is not helpful. If tags actually made someone do the work they might be useful; they don't, so we end up with articles with tags from 2007 lingering around. NE Ent 02:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Since I see my name here, for clarity's sake: I have asked both to stop. I have no more to add beyond the article's talk page and the user's talk page. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Joseph, why don't you look for references instead of just adding the citation needed template? If you can't find references then remove the text from the article as being unreferenced. Unreferenced text means it cannot be verified.--5 albert square (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the material I tagged, which had to do with Nimoy's television appearences, the only sites I have found from the first page of a google search was IMDb, and Nimoy tribute site, and TV.com, which are all unreliable sources, I'm sure. I switch in between just removing the material and adding those tags, the tags tell editors to add refs to those areas, removing the unreferenced info would take out A LOT of material out of the article. And I have different times where I focus on specific sites, and do other sites on the side. The weekdays are my major days for Wikipedia a lot of the time, from 4-10 PM, the main things I do on Weekends is remove vandalism and unsourced information. I don't have the time or motivation to add sources at the moment. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless there is a genuine question as to the accuracy of the information, I think you should leave this alone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did have a question as to the accuracy, since I know Nimoy's acting career well, just not of his small television appearances. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Why can't you do what BMK suggested above and add one or two references? That would be helpful. Or, if you can only find unreliable sources then remove the information as unsourced.--5 albert square (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If, as NYB says, an editor has actual reason to believe it's possibly / likely untrue. NE Ent 02:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you let him consider and accept the good advice he's been given, as opposed to telling him what to say in order to reject it? You're not his lawyer, and this is not a court of law, it's a project to build an encyclopedia, something you seem to be totally unaware of. Stop kibbitzing, stop Wikilawyering on behalf of other people, and start editing to build the encycylopedia. Otherwise, get the fuck out of here, you're deadweight. BMK (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

IMDB is not necessarily reliable for trivia, quotes, etc., but it is acceptably reliable for mundane info such as cast-and-crew lists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, that really depends... I think IMDb can be quasi-trusted for cast-and-crew lists in regards to long-ago completed projects. But I sure wouldn't trust it for cast-and-crew lists for any movies and TV shows that haven't premiered yet!... In general, I think user-maintained databases like IMDb should be viewed with abject suspicion, at best. --IJBall (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• As Baseball Bugs says, IMDB is an acceptable and reliable source for screen credits, cast lists, and some awards. It's just not reliable for trivia, biographical information (except birth dates/place), quotations, other works, etc. To tag multiple screen credits in a biographical article which are easily verifiable via IMDB is indeed disruptive editing. Either add the cites yourself if you want the verification to be visible, or leave them be -- that's what the External Link to IMDB is for; that's why actor's articles have IMDB links at the top of their External Links. If you sincerely want to improve an article, add citations rather than WP:OVERTAGGING and WP:TAGBOMBING. Softlavender (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Would any of the editors in this discussion care to find a ref for any one of the citation needed tags? P.S. I did one.[146] --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Seeking deletion of a Warning

Hello,

I received a warning when attempting to edit a page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_rape Here is the warning:

Campus rape[edit] I have reverted your addition there because it is based on a page from crisisconnectioninc.org, which is too unreliable and too local for representing those data as general statistics on wikipedia. Please argue your case on the article talk page instead of reinstating the addition. Materialscientist (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Campus rape. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring... Materialscientist (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC) _________________

I responded to MaterialScientist as follows: Materialscientist, I definitely don't want to appear as if I'm taking part in an Edit War! What happened was I cut and pasted my Edit multiple times simply because I was trying to figure the best place to place the Edit within the article. Also my iPad mini was giving me fits.

_________________

I have no problem with the material I added being removed. I am requesting that the Warning be removed from my Talk page. I have always tried my best when doing edits. The very evening that this occurred, I thought my iPad device was not "taking" the edits, or that there was a problem with my connection to Wikipedia, so I must have repeated the process two or three times in a matter of minutes. I had no idea that MaterialScientist was deleting my post as I was trying to re-post it. I respect the job the editors do. I feel this is an honest mistake on my part.

Could I get help on this?

Scott Scottlovessue (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You can delete the warning yourself, but I recommend not editing any more articles until you can get control of you iPad and understand how to use your watchlist to see when your edit has been reverted.- MrX 02:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Harassment, hounding and baiting by Viriditas at User talk:Collect

Collect (talk · contribs) is serving a week-long block and asked Viriditas (talk · contribs) to cease harassing him [147] yet Viriditas persists baiting Collect nevertheless [148]. This not a new pattern for Viriditas and its pretty ridiculous he should be misusing a blocked editor's talk page for harassing him.--MONGO 08:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate MONGO's concern, but there is no evidence of any harassment of any kind occurring, just lively and energized debate among many editors with different opinions. MONGO may have also misinterpreted Collect's colorful use of section headers which were added after the discussion, which likely contributed to MONGO's confusion about this so-called "harassment". I'm happy to stay away from Collect's talk page for the moment, if that will alleviate MONGO's misplaced, but well-meaning concern about Collect's talk page. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

How about just leaving him alone? Your input clearly isn't helping. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I instruct Viriditas to stay off Collect's talkpage unless there is a specific need for him to be there. (I was actually tempted to address this situation by reviewing and potentially commuting Collect's block, but I see it will soon expire by time anyway.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

IBAN request

I have been in a two-way interaction ban with User:The Rambling Man for over a year now. That ban was imposed here, not by the ArbCom, and that's why I have come here. I am convinced I can work amicably with the editor. I have been doing some work at ITN, and things seem to be going well there. I have heard his past criticisms of how I have worked at the ref desks, and I have tried to do better there. Also, in a discussion a couple of months ago, I said I would never again file a complaint about the editor, and I have stuck to that promise, and intend to continue so doing. If the IBAN could be lifted (or at least modified), I would feel at ease communicating in a collegial way with the editor, when or if the need arises. Thank you all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that the issues detailed in the following threads have been resolved.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive868#IBAN request (Users Baseball Bugs and The Rambling Man)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive852#Inappropriate conduct by administrator User:The Rambling Man
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 9#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 110#ANI and The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, Medeis

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy's comment noted, if both TRM and BB say they're able to discuss collegiately, I'd happily agree to it. It can always be reinstated. TRM? --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I would agree if TRM is on board with it. It's not as if it couldn't be reinstated if it became clear that lifting it didn't work out. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support if both users join in the request. JodyB _talk 10:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support removal of the IBAN, it's run for a year, the users seem to have buried the hatchet, let's get out of their way. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support if TRM is no board. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Tumadoireacht and Circumcision

Tumadoireacht was blocked in December last year for tendentious, disruptive and combative behaviour on the Circumcision article. Since then, things have not improved. The latest example is this obvious attempted baiting[149] of an admin (Zad68) for warning another editor about the WP:TPGs. In view of this continued uhelpfulness I propose that it would be for the good if Tumadoireacht were blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As Alexbrn is one of the small but co-ordinated group of editors maintaining the main Circumcision and other related articles in an unbalanced pro-circumcision state, as I have pointed out in recent edits, it may not be public spiritedness that leads to this call for a ban.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 11:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, could you offer some evidence of the problems that are persisting? I'm sure Zad68 is quite capable of handling themselves but beyond that can you substantiate current misbehavior?JodyB _talk 11:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I linked to this edit which by itself is sufficient I'd have thought. But for more just review the previous few Talk pages edits such as this[150] (reference to a "small but well coordinated group of editors and admins") or this[151] where the use of anti-Circumcision groups' web sites and primary sources is being advocated, despite Tumadoireacht knowing that WP:MEDRS applies. Or just look at the problematic response above here ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)