Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive880

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
edit
User indeffed; sock put back in the drawer (all by JodyB). (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Erantan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a new account that appears to have edited as 76.11.94.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), is making legal and other threats against User:Steven Walling to file securities fraud complaints,[1], ruin Steven's career[2] regarding weird claims about collusion between Wikimedia and Quora to manipulate stock prices or some other crazy talk.[3] For what it's worth, they think I'm an alter ego of Steven Walling. I'm going to remove my warnings and notice to this user for WP:DFTT / DFTK reasons. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef for making legal threats. Any administrator is free to remove or change the block without further consult with me. JodyB talk 20:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just idle curiosity, but why would they want to do that, JodyB? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 20:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean why would the person make these threats? Steven Walling • talk 21:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Steven Walling, no I just wondered why anyone would want to change the block after legal threats made. Thanks though! (BTW you don't seem too worried that your career is on the line....! lol)Fortuna

Imperatrix Mundi 22:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah avoiding COI controversy is why I haven't edited the Quora article at all since I was hired there. Apparently that wasn't enough for this person. Steven Walling • talk 22:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now socking. --NeilN talk to me 21:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock blocked, article semi'd. --NeilN talk to me 21:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Because he could retract his statement and make changes that allow him to return. It just prevents someone from waiting around if I am offline. JodyB talk 22:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass changes to Jewish educational Categories tonight

edit

Please see [4]. This user, who has just explained at his user talk page that s/he doesn't know what a rabbinic seminary is, has made mass changes tonight to a host of Jewish religious education Categories, with no discussion and no edit summaries. He or she has also deliberately emptied Categories in order to nominate them for speedy deletion for being empty. I have attempted to engage, but will now pull back as a) I don't wish to use my admin tools when I've disagreed with another user and b) I need to go to bed. I'd love to think that they're a good faith editor, contributing destructively, but honestly, the effects are so wide-ranging effects they may as well be a vandal. --Dweller (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

edit

Following community consultation and voting. the Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the Functionary team.

  • The following users are appointed as Oversighters:

The Committee would like to thank the community and all the candidates for bringing this process to a successful conclusion.

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

2602:306:C5E4:A50:18E9:404E:FEF1:C9F5

edit
FULLY RESOLVED
*Block applied (though now expired), along with page protection thanks to Materialscientist and Ged UK, and frankly I have better things to do than go back-and-forth all day with someone trying and failing to have multiple personality disorder through multiple IPV6 socks. Nate • (chatter) 02:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can I have a block on this obvious TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock, please? They have been persistently harassing me on my talk page for the last hour claiming they aren't an account of TRCG which I reverted sock contribs of and now just sent password resets for here and my Instagram account in an attempt to 'hack' me. Nate • (chatter) 04:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not TheREALCableGuy, I've never used that account name before and never created any accounts here! Plus what makes you think I'm gonna hack you. Stop telling lies about him and me now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5E4:A50:A1F7:C870:8659:603F (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because you need to hop new IP's when the one mentioned above is blocked for 12 hours...right. Anyways...was blocked for twelve hours, as seen above, a new IPV6 responded this way, and this can probably be closed since the worst issue, their spamming of my talk page, is done for a couple days at least thanks to RFP. Nate • (chatter) 16:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not, I'm not him. I'm not TheREALCableGuy, I'm just a fan of him who misses him! You're delusional. What is wrong with you? And that IP was not spamming you, he/she was telling you off! 2602:306:C5E4:A50:24C4:3350:69E0:D300 (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
edit
*Block applied. Amortias (T)(C) 17:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User has clarified that they didn't intend to make any legal threat against Wikipedia. They were referring to the accusations mentioned in the article. The article content they commented on was indeed in clear violation of BLP and has been removed. The user has been unblocked by me. While this incident was an understandable miscommunication and no one's at fault, let's all remember that even if someone does make a legal threat, they still may have legitimate concerns that should be addressed. It appears we got too caught up on the perceived legal threat and didn't pay enough attention to the blatant BLP vio in the article. Swarm we ♥ our hive 17:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Orlik8 Made a legal threat here Weegeerunner (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indef'ed by User:Orangemike. DMacks (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issue with User:Verdy P

edit
No action taken. Appears more to be a content issue then a conduct issue, some of the replies have got a bit fraught, although the best plan here is for both people to drop it. Mdann52 (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

verdy p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please review the user Verdy P and the way he responds to users on Wikipedia, as can be seen on his Talk page. I originally inquired why a page title was changed, in addition to some of its content. He did provide a valid reason for the former, but had no valid points for why he changed the content and made it more incorrect. I tried to explain this to him, but he instead chose to insist that he is correct, despite being proven wrong with facts, and continued to respond with arrogance, and then rudeness. As you can see in his latest reply on the issue, he proceeds to use inflammatory words and declares that he will delete any further replies from me, which he did.

I don't think this is the attitude that regular Wikipedia editors should be displaying; it also should not be tolerated because he can easily just continue with these questionable edits and dismiss everyone who tries to correct him.70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@70.51.38.110: You must notify users when you start a discussion about them on this noticeboard. I have taken care of that for you. Ivanvector (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. His response was heavy handed and haughty KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 16:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify—which response was heavy handed and haughty? Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've said repeatedly to him that I had already replied to the answer, but he insists in discussing about things I'm not interested. I have said him to stop this discussion and discuss it somewhere else.
He continues... I've just stoped this discussion going nowhere, my talk page is not the appropriate place for that. What can I do? verdy_p (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are not interested in the subject, and yet you keep insisting that whatever information you put into the article is valid, even with lack of proof?70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw some of the discussion (User talk:Verdy p has been on my watchlist since April 2013 when Verdy p provided some very helpful advice). The IP is completely misguided—we are volunteers and expecting people to argue indefinitely on their user talk page is very unreasonable. Verdy gave several detailed explanations (the section is now 1950 words), and the fact the IP does not like the replies does not entitle them to waste even more volunteer time at ANI. In general, if an editor thinks a page title is not correct and they not sure how to discuss that, they should ask at WP:HELPDESK. Harassing someone on their talk page is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are volunteers, it gives you the permission to respond to people with arrogance and call them names? Because that is what he had been doing in all of his replies. It seems to me that you did not read the entire discussion, nor did you try to understand the details of why the discussion had been prolonged. Verdy had made some changes to the content of an article, which were incorrect changes. Despite my many attempts to explain to him why those changes are incorrect, using facts and clear evidence, he continued to insist that I am the one who is wrong (again, with invalid arguments); so you are saying that I should simply agree to whatever he says, even when he's wrong. Sorry, but being a volunteer does not entitle you to treat others with a lack of respect; it does not make your words and assumptions the absolute truth and it certainly does not label others who try to fix your errors as harassers. Also, the argument would not have extended "indefinitely" had Verdy at least tried to carefully read my replies and humbly accept that he was mistaken; not wanting to admit his mistake was a bigger priority to him.70.51.38.110 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing the IP has done is harassment. You've unfortunately shown a lack of neutrality here (which is understandable, given that it's your friend). Furthermore, in addition to the harassment claim, you told the IP that he was "wasting time here at ANI." You seem to have exactly the same civility and superiority complex-toward IPs issues Verdy has. I hope that's only because you're heated about your friend being brought up here at ANI. --DawnDusk (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly posting to a user's talk page is a minor form of harassment. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not a form of harassment when those repeated posts are replies to the user. If I had been posting a bunch of additions without any replies and simply filling up the talk page with provoking messages, then yes, that would be harassment. Don't tell me that users aren't allowed to post replies in an attempt to correct someone, claiming that such would be a form of harassment. If it's in the clause for you volunteers to have the right to be stubborn and unwilling to accept when you're wrong, then I'm sorry for the "harassment".70.51.38.110 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The moment I saw Verdy's message that included "IP accounts like yours have very low trust among Wikipedia users, they are frequently reverted," it became clear to me that we have a WP:CIVILITY issue as well as a lack of understanding of WP:IPs are human too. Verdy has certainly tipped his hand about his bad faith towards the IP that makes anyone trying to argue that he isn't being a WP:JERK and needs to take a step back here simply wrong. If the IP can produce his sources that show 1. The North American release is the only official one. and 2. It's referred to as "C: The Contra Adventure" by the game's own manual, then he's entirely in the right. However, even if he is wrong, Verdy has handled this quite poorly. Side note: other damning comments include " like you stupidely continue to do here" and "if you want trust you DO need a personal account". --DawnDusk (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to provide sources, but you're right, his talk page isn't the place to list them. I have plenty of sources that confirm what I posted; but even if I did try to provide them at the right page, as Verdy stated, he doesn't care about the game. That, I find rather contradictory for someone who claims they are correct on a matter that pertains to the game itself.70.51.38.110 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your reading is incorrect, and Verdy is a helpful editor, not my "friend". The advice given to the IP is completely correct—anyone caring about their privacy would make an account (see MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning which is displayed to the IP every time they click edit—Verdy's advice is merely echoing that official statement, with the extra and correct observation about reactions from many editors—whether those reactions are justified or not). Please don't conflate direct language with civility. The issue of the article title is not a matter to be settled on Verdy's talk page, as Verdy explained to the IP; also see my above reference to WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, but correcting him when he's wrong is a matter to be settled because otherwise, that kind of attitude will follow him with further edits he makes on Wikipedia. Please don't tell me that you would condone such conduct. That has been the biggest issue with him.70.51.38.110 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page I have all the rights to give a personal opinion even if you think it is wrong, you cannot insist on changing it. My talk page is not a WP project.
As I said, I gave my opinion, you gave yours. All stops there when I've said I don't want to invest more time in additional topics that were not even the reason of his initial question.
Everyone has the right to have an opinion and give it on his personal page. It is not needed to force people to change their mind: this is abusive against my own freedom.
When we talk on WP, it is only to try convincing others people to join some **common** project, or agree together with some changes to do in an article or community project or when there are some concerted decisions to take by reaching some form of consensus (but there's nothing to do on my talk page where no public consensus is reachable).
How would have you reacted if I had asked you a question about Lie's algebra (or some other topic you're not interested in) and each time you gave some reply or opinion, I insisted multiple times during several days trying to convince you it was really important?
How do you react when you see your mailbox filled with notifications or ads for products you've never bought and don't want to buy but the notifier still repeats its alerts several times a day? You just put the mails to garbage. Yes this is named "harassment" if, after instructed the notifier to stop sending his post on the same topic continues (and in the email world, this is generally considered as "spam". verdy_p (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have every right to express your opinion on your Talk page. What is not permitted, I hope, is putting your opinion into the article and then insisting that you are correct about it, which is exactly what you did. You do have the freedom to believe what you want; but when you choose to ignore plain facts and stick with your own opinion on something when it is evidently false, you are simply deluded. You can have an opinion on things such as preference or taste; don't tell me that facts are opinion-based, tailored to each individual. Otherwise, this entire site would be useless.
As for how I would have reacted about the Lie's Algebra topic: unlike you, I would at least admit that I know little about the subject and therefore I am likely wrong about it. What did you do? You added false information about a subject for which you admittedly know little and have little interest about. Then, you continue to insist you are correct, as if you know the facts; again, for a subject for which you admittedly know little about and care little about.
Also, don't compare apples to oranges. You're talking about soliciting advertisements and SPAM mail that are sent to individuals unprovoked. They are sent in mass quantities regardless of your actions and/or interactions with them. What I did was address why you put incorrect information into the article's content (again, as I already said, I understood why the article title had to be changed). Instead of agreeing you made a mistake, you insisted that your edits to the article were not wrong. Then you instructed me to stop responding to you and be ok with you continuing to make similar edits to other articles with opinion-based information.70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree; you're right that this conversation absolutely should not have taken place on Verdy's talkpage. That is the fault of the IP, who wouldn't know better. That being said, Verdy still handled it awfully. His first response, rather than telling the IP to go to the right page, was to engage him with a lengthy reply (which already showed him getting heated in the last sentence and didn't mention the correct venue to use). Did you honestly expect the IP not to think to reply there? It wasn't until Verdy's very last reply, where he also said he would delete any new comment the IP posted (which is totally his right to do per user talkpage policy) that he directed him to the right page. By this time, Verdy had already been extremely rude and, as others have said, heavy-handed and haughty. And no, I honestly wouldn't say I'm "conflating direct language with civility". Check out the Avoiding Incivility section of WP:CIVILITY. He was intense, unprofessional, name-called, and became condescending - those are right there in that section. Furthermore, it doesn't matter that his "advice" about creating an account was correct. It had absolutely no place in the discussion, it wasn't brought up by the IP at all, and Verdy was clearly using the fact that he was an IP to condescend to him. Second, no, it isn't true that IPs aren't to be trusted, should be discredited in discourse, or "need" accounts. Like I said, I'm quite the fan of WP:IPs are human too as well as the plenty of other WP policies about it. The bottom line is that Verdy were going to respond in the uncivil manner that he did (as well as bringing up the user's IP status as a jerky point out of nowhere multiple times), he shouldn't have engaged the IP at all. The best thing he could have done was direct him to the article's talk page right away. You're making it sound like he did and, as you said, "explained it to the IP." He didn't (until the very end, as I said). --DawnDusk (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad to say, I might not have been able to master the patience for so much tedious explanation as Verdy p did when the IP wouldn't take no for an answer. The only problem wrt courtesy on Verdy's page that I can see is that they were a bit short with BracketBot.[5] (That's supposed to be a joke.) IP, I'm afraid you expect too much time expenditure of our volunteers. @ DawnDusk: Golly, I recommend the parable of The Mote and the Beam to you, with your attack Johnuniq's integrity here. "You've unfortunately shown a lack of neutrality here (which is understandable, given that it's your friend)", "given that he's your friend". Twice, you say it, and it's made up out of whole cloth. You're a fine one to talk about assuming bad faith. Am I to assume the IP is your friend? (To be clear, I don't suppose so for a moment.) Don't make such charges lightly, please. Bishonen | talk 10:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, Verdy is not at all out of line for his inflammatory responses. Instead, it is the fault of the IP user (me) for even having a problem with that. Because Verdy is a volunteer, right?70.51.38.110 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I was cited many times above, I do not understand the general spirit in most of what is written above, with many people making personal judgements without even knowing me or asking me.
The fact is that I tried to help for several days the same 70.51.38.110 IP editor, I tried to explain various things, but as he had already agreed why his initial question was fully answered (why the page was renamed), he continued to post messages for several days speaking about things unrelated to his initial question, trying to convince me about somthing I'm not interested in.
I was finally upset because I had instructed him not to continue his discussion in my talk page. I gave my opinion, he gave his own but this does not matter, I don't want to continue on this game topic (I was only concerned on why the page was renamed many months ago when I was interested in having the "C:" interwiki prefix being allocated to Commons).
Several times also I instructed him to sign his posted messages, and he didn't (but he criticized me immediately when trying to answer the first time to the many topics he started initially (he did not undestand why I splitted his message in several parts, when commenting them separately (in indended paragraphs all signed separately and not mixed at all with his own words). I just wanted to act fast, my talk page is not a wikipedia article and I don't want to take too much time.
Yes finally I was a bit rude but only in one word (after repeated attempts to have him stop his discussion).
For the rest I was helpful and very patient for several days. I had stopped the discussion on my talk page (this is my right jsut like everyone else in Wikimedia that no longer wants to discuss or being notified multiple times each day about topics they are not interested in), but as he refused that, I had to be more expeditive (I don't think it was "inflammatory" given the time I had already given for several days for a topic I was not interested in). I could have not replied anything and would not have given any help to him, but he still does not want to recognize that I was helpful and does not consider the time I already gave to him only.
But I don't know which WP policy I would have violated that merits a notification or action from administrators here, just for my own talk page (which was not the appropriate place to talk about the article) after all the time I gave voluntarily. Please 70.51.38.110, next time use the article talk page, or use the standard forums. I have been helpful enough about most of your questions but if you disagree the WP forums are there to discuss them: there are plenty of WP projects you can join (but I do not participate to the WP games portals or projects).
And was it really "haughty" to explain him that IP users are frequently not given any trust in many pages for their edits? Was is haughty to suggest him to create a regular account (and explaining him why it would be a protection for him)?
And sorry but I don't understand the qualifier "handed" that was given about me above. Remember that English is not my native tongue. I did not find any appropriate definition with a context that could explain it, so I think the word was badly chosen or very informal. There has been other personal comments above that I do not consider being in line with WP policies, from people with whom I had not discussed before (in a time I can remember): how do you think they can make such personal judgements? All comments about my supposed "friendship" with people I don't know or that I have not discussed before are out of topic.
Thanks. verdy_p (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please ignore ANI—if an editor with more than a month's experience posts something needing your response I will let you know on your talk. I hang out here and so am familiar with the fact that anyone can edit also means anything can be asserted at ANI. Trying to refute every mistaken claim is pointless—the best response here is silence to let the thread fade away. The IP will never be satisfied, and the simplest is to just revert any further comments they make on your talk—do not put any explanation in your edit summary, just remove comments with summary "remove"; the reason for that is to not give the IP something to argue about (if you put an explanation in your comment, they might think it is reasonable that they should reply). If the IP persists, I will find someone to fix the problem. The IP should take the advice given and pursue the question of the article title at the article talk page or WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yet again, you completely ignore the issue at hand and assume the favor is on the side of Verdy_P, Johnuniq. I repeat yet again, the issue is not with the article title, but with how Verdy refuses to accept evidence for why he is incorrect and how he responds so condescendingly. As for me never being satisfied? All Verdy had to do was swallow his pride and simply accept that he did not know all of the facts on the article at hand. One little thing seems to be asking too much from him, according to you; again, probably because both of you are volunteers on this site and you guys must look out for each other, no matter your position.70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: By interleaving replies in User:Verdy p's post,[6], as well as top-posting above Johnuniq, 70.51.38.110 has made Verdy's coherent post incomprehensible; you can't tell which bits are whose. This may work in e-mail, but is strongly deprecated on talkpages. In justice to Verdy, I've removed the IP's responses from inside Verdy's and paste them here below, moving up Johnuniq's much earlier response. I'm sorry if it's not clear which bit exactly the IP is responding to, but it was the best I could do. If you can improve on my arrangement, 70.51.38.110, with due consideration for others, then please do. Bishonen | talk 14:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Enough with claiming that you were being helpful by saying that your information is not incorrect just because you say so, even despite evidence otherwise. I don't remotely perceive how you think that is being helpful.70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You were not helping me "for several days" by insisting that your edits were correct. Even in the face of evidence, you decided that you were still correct; which I find funny because you keep repeating that you're not interested in the subject.70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to changing the page title (which I accepted was justified), you changed content in the article itself, which was based on your incorrect opinion. That, I also had a problem with (which I explicitly stated); you instead kept insisting that your information is valid. You even added a false, shallow citation note to the claim you put into the article.70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, but what has been haughty from you is how authoritatively you insist that I am wrong, even when what you provide as arguments is so thin.70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You instructed me several times? There's another lie from Verdy_P. He asked me once, and I signed my edits promptly since that one. 70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, but using words like "stupidely" is not informal at all, right? It is not making a judgement on someone who's trying to explain something to you about a subject you admit you don't care about. Does being a "volunteer" automatically make your word and your wikipedia edits superior to all non-volunteers', regardless of their validity?70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I've placed the evidence on the talk page of The Contra Adventure. It's there in plain sight. Also, don't mind my irate wording; since Verdy is not at all at fault for replying with such crass, I figure I would be allowed. Unless, of course, that's one of the special privileges of you volunteers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Contra_Adventure 70.51.38.110 (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I said I wouldn't post anymore, and although it was wrong of me to charge John with bias due to friendship, he IS being incredibly short-sighted (completely ignored the evidence that I laid, in addition to the IP's own, and instead is just dismissing this with handwaves because he disagrees). DawnDusk (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you are missing is that Verdy provided a polite and detailed response including some important technical information. Please stop and examine the following line, then click the link.
[[C: The Contra Adventure]] → C: The Contra Adventure (check the URL where this goes)
Verdy could have ignored the IP's question, but instead explained that the issue was discussed a long time ago, and that "C:" cannot now be used. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And once again, YOU decide to ignore the point of this issue and continue to assume it pertains to the page's title; a subject which, you're right, has been discussed a long time ago and that I had already come to agree with. Here I am repeating the issue at hand for the umpteenth time (probably due to you either deliberately ignoring my replies in favor of a fellow "volunteer" that you admittedly follow in his work, thus making your own look very biased, ignorant and unintelligent; or because this is your level of reading comprehension); the issue pertains to Verdy's arrogance and stubborn, counter-productive attitude towards his page content changes. I wrote that besides the page title, he also changed content in the article and made it seem like what he wrote were facts. The latter is what I had a problem with and instead of accepting his mistake, he continued to insist that I'm the one who's wrong. Me trying to explain this to him constitutes stupidity in his book and a waste of his time. He must really feel above others when he can't even accept his own mistakes.70.51.38.110 (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't tell me that Verdy was being polite when he said things like "You should care about it.", "And I absolutely do not care at all about your preception of "quality" when you don't care about Wikipedia usages and don't want to learn.", "and other people on Wikipedia have not disputed the fact like you "stupidely" continue to do here". I didn't realize that being demanding, arrogant, condescending and vulgar fit the criteria of being polite; it must be a new policy for volunteers.
Wikipedia isn't a resource of information to which ALL readers are strictly obligated to edit or contribute, let alone create accounts for. I'm not (or at least was not) the only one who falls into the category of readers as far as Wikipedia goes. As such, we are not really familiar with editing regulations that Verdy values and stresses so much over content accuracy/validity. You may not believe it, but it actually damages Wikipedia's credibility when it becomes riddled with inaccurate information, the likes of what Verdy has added into the game's article.
I think it's phenomenal when many of you volunteers spend more time and effort in getting each other's back than understanding the issue at hand. Cringe-worthy to think that Wikipedia is maintained by people like this, but not at all surprising with respect to a significant public perception of it.70.51.38.110 (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)70.51.38.110 (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see this is going on ignored and many of these volunteers have no valid arguments to dispute my complaints. The fact that there's no progress shows how much freedom some privileged users have on this site. Hey, how's Verdy doing, what with adding inaccurate information to pages and insulting anybody who disagrees with him? Hard at work in shaping up the site, it must be.70.51.38.110 (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks alleged (restored from archive, needs close)

edit
No consensus for a topic ban on QuackGuru, AlbinoFerret has decided to take a 6 month break from the area, and discretionary sanctions have been authorised by the community for use in this area. Mdann52 (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

Edit March 10, 2015 (added 5 more diff's below)

  • So not to get lost in the long discussion. QuackGuru on this page made another more serious harassing post towards me on my disability here. This is an ongoing pattern.
  • Another link to the section in comments to discredit me diff
  • Another link to the section in comments to discredit me diff
  • Another link to the section in comments to discredit me diff
  • Links to the old AN/I section and misrepresents the nature of it to discredit me. diff (note: 4 difs added by AlbinoFerret in this dif and this dif today Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

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

So the first dif is "User:AlbinoFerret claims "You have not discussed one edit in the 19k characters you inserted."[7] But I did discuss sources User:AlbinoFerret deleted.[8] The response was "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[9] That is not a specific objection for excluding relevant information. User:AlbinoFerret is not here to improve this page IMO. how is deleting numerous reliable sources improving this page? QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)"[reply]
I am not seeing anything ANI worthy there. Sorry Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@QuackGuru, thanks for pointing out I had the wrong diff. I have struck out the wrong one and placed the correct one. AlbinoFerret 03:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion already happened in the WP:AN/I QuackGuru keeps linking to and is now 5 months old. It is a content disagreement, and this focus of this section isnt on content, but the persistent personal attacks by QuackGuru. The noticeboard is only one place out of many, and it was the noticeboard for page protection, not a place to level personal attacks or discuss editors. AlbinoFerret 03:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree BR, I don't see WP:NPA here. I do see unhelpful behaviour, not unidirectionally, including WP:IDHT, WP:Battleground and WP:NOTHERE. I fully understand AF's furstration at QG's massive undiscussed edits on a controversial topic, usually I find with reasonable content in them but lots of dross that doesn't add to the article as well. I also understand QG's frustration with AF undoing what is a large amount of work. But QG is persistently trying to discredit AF over old and resolved ANI threads. I don't know what can be done to reduce the tension at the e-cigarette family of Articles but I think some form of sanctions need to be handed out to those making it harder for productive collaboration to happen. SPACKlick (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think sanctions might be the way to go here since there are multiple problem editors. Many editors left and unwatched the article as it became toxic. Considering how often e-cigs have come up at WP:RSN where decent medical sources always seemed to be challenged by the same group of editors, I'm concerned there may be significant POVs running the discussion. The more problematic POV seems to be being critical specifically of sources that are critical of e-cigs. There are behavior issues tied to how editors are dealing with content, so it doesn't seem like it's easily addressed here at ANI where people will say it's just a content dispute and ignore the behavior problems within it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry While it is not classically defined WP:NPA it is WP:HARASS and the two are very close. AlbinoFerret 14:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen So, its ok to smear another editor by bringing up old AN/I sections, even those that were closed with no consensus of wrongdoing. Even on article talk pages and others in an attempt to discredit and smear another editor? AlbinoFerret 18:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing up what you have stated before is not a smear. Possibly a topic ban of User:AlbinoFerret would improve things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do think you may be right, that at least a temporary (perhaps 3 month) TBAN from electronic cigarette articles would be good for AlbinoFerret's equilibrium. This is an issue where advocates are running well ahead of the evidence, and this is necessarily a source of friction and controversy. The Wikipedia articles are a classic case of WP:TRUTH. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with considering a temp TBAN. I had a discussion with AF on my talk page awhile back [11] about them being too locked-in to the topic and not being able to step back. Looking at the current situation I do think it would be helpful to both AF and the topic if they had a break. The previous ANI on AF specifically said there was no consensus at the time on an action, but that is very different from saying there wasn't a behavior problem. I think AF definitely has the potential to approach things more evenly (this conversation did give me some hope), but they really need to step out of their single topic and get experience in less contentious topics since their posting history looks like a WP:SPA right now.Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a WP:SPA, I edit other pages and have other interests. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James, The whole other section was a smear campaign, started by you. All based on content disputes. Had it resulted in a finding against me, perhaps it could be used here. But it didnt, and talk pages of articles are not the place to try and bring up dirt on another editor. AlbinoFerret 21:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of what Albino says is valid, in that this is the proper forum for bringing the list of diffs - not article Talk pages or admin Talk pages. Deploying the list in that way is harassment-y and I think QG should be warned to address behavior issues in appropriate venues going forward. However I don't agree with anything else Albino has written. (particularly his claim that it was not valid to link to the ANI section concerning a topic ban against him; we all know that many ANIs lose focus and become sprawling, uncloseable messes, as that one did. There was plenty of solid feedback on Albino's behavior in that ANI, however, and linking to it is OK.) Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • it appears that QuackGuru has not taken down the page tracking Albino's behavior yet, despite being advised to do so by an admin, which is not good. QG, it is fine to build such a list but you have to deploy it and then get rid of it. You may have not been ready to use it but your hand is forced now. So - either just delete it, or post it here with a request for admin or community action against Albino, and then delete it. But either way, it should go. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Quackguru see WP:POLEMIC - it is OK to compile a list of behaviors in your userspace but you must use it timely. That is why i said that your hand has been forced, and you have to use it and lose it, or just lose it. It seems like you have enough there to request the community to topic-ban, and this is the place to do that. The last one could have potentially succeeded but it was lost in that totally sprawling ANI. But i will get out of the way and let bish answer. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quackguru, for you to blank it yourself would be an acceptable compromise, from where I stand, between the hat and putting a speedy tag on it. Blanking isn't a problem, is it? The material would still be at your fingertips via the history. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
A short time ago I did blank the page. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed Block for QuackGuru

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

QuackGuru has a long history of blocks and banns log including a past block for personal attacks and harassment. He appears to be a WP:SPA that focuses on controversial medical articles. Past short banns and blocks have done no good. I proposed an indefinite block or alternately a one-year block. He has engaged in harassment WP:HARASS again. His actions to remove some of the harassment don't go far enough, the edit summaries are still there as well as the attacks on talk pages. AlbinoFerret 13:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:AlbinoFerret proposed the same thing before and that went nowhere fast. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#Block_or_Ban. A return WP:BOOMERANG will resolve the issue at hand. QuackGuru (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse an immediate block for QuackGuru for this edit. I note that QuackGuru regards me as WP:INVOLVED per this section of his talk page. It lists a collection of dubious statements and untrue allegations against me, and has done since December 2014 in violation of WP:POLEMIC. If QG has issues with me I request that they address them in the proper way. While I do not accept that I am INVOLVED here, I do request that another admin make the block. --John (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
QuackGuru has no right to comment on AlbinoFerret's private life whatsoever, let alone assume he's lying about things QuackGuru can't know anything about. I've warned him. Bishonen | talk 19:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
How many warnings will QG get for harassment? AlbinoFerret 13:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the same amount of WP:ROPE you've been given to continue your obvious advocacy. BMK (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious advocacy? You are incorrect. That is a baseless false charge. AlbinoFerret 15:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really, a "baseless false charge"? If that is so, it is one that is accepted as true by a goodly number of very experienced editors who voted in support of a topic ban for you. Your advocacy isn't in the least covert, it is, as several have commented, easily recognizable. BMK (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to count the total number of past warnings against QuackGuru, so I'll simply list the notices given recently:
I suppose one could give QuackGuru another warning and remind him not to ignore administrative advice or attack editors, as has been done many times in the past, but I don't think such an approach would be helpful to the community (or the administrators). This editor was blocked many years ago for canvassing via email and making misleading accusations, and it appears that with every successive administrative warning, his disruptive behavior continues to worsen and escalate. -A1candidate 16:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition I think that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:QuackGuru may give light into QuackGuru's activities on electronic cigarette in the recent past. It has not gotten any better. Arguing round in circles trying to get a press release used for medical content, making 20000 character edits in private with no notice or discussion on the talk page. AlbinoFerret 16:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that QuackGuru's ownership of articles is highly detrimental to the consensus building process and I note that he had been previously warned (and blocked) for making edits without first seeking consensus but am not surprised that he continues to ignore all administrative warnings. -A1candidate 16:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You folks have a nice little circle going on here, a walled garden of mutually supportive comments, mostly between SPAs with the same objective in mind. Only problem is, every comment just makes the groups' general lack of objectivity even more obvious. BMK (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an SPA, and I suggest you strike out that comment. -A1candidate 13:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I'm just back from a sepsis-enforced break I don't want to step in and make what would be a controversial block, especially in a situation where an uninvolved admin decided to just warn you for it, but Quack, that was unnecessary and under different circumstances (and if I'd beaten Bish here,) I probably would've blocked you. If you do something similar in the future, I probably will. You do a lot of important content work, but there's really no reason to make such a comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support immediate block - This recent comment by QuackGuru was clearly targeted against an editor's personal life. The edit summary was highly inappropriate, inexplicably cruel and plain disgusting. Given that the comment was made on the administrators' noticeboard where editors should be particularly mindful of their own behavior, and that QuackGuru had been previously warned and blocked for long-standing patterns of personal harassment and disruptive editing (see block log and recent warnings), I think a much longer block might be necessary. We are not dealing with a new or inexperienced editor, but a disruptive, long-term editor (account created in 2006) who knows enough about Wikipedia's guidelines and policies but continues to ignore them ad infinitum. A1candidate 13:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per A1candidate. That comment from QG was beyond the pale. Considering his long list of blocks for the same type of behavior, I would hope such a block would be longer than a day or two. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A1 and WV please pay attention - above an admin has already said they took action for that comment. That incident is done. A1 I understand you both would love to get rid of QG b/c he fights quackery but. In any case this attempt to pile on and override an admin is as unseemly as QG's remark. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC) (amended per Winkelvi's objection below. my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
      • There's nothing wrong with QG fighting quackery, except that he does it while violating a series of well-established behaviorial guidelines. His attempt to enforce a topic ban on me does not give me much hope that he will ever change his behavior. -A1candidate 22:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jytdog, HOW CAN YOU EQUATE A SLUR with a call to sanction a slur?! It's entirely appropriate to debate whether a stronger sanction is warranted given the repugnance of what QuackGuru said; it is nauseatingly out of bounds. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Middle 8 I'll answer although the question seems more rhetorical than actually looking for an answer. I agree the comment was out of bounds - I was the one who hatted it. I also agree it was foul. I disagree with calling what he did a "slur" as he didn't insult AF based on his disability - instead he called AF a liar. It was a low blow, stupid, personal attack based on nothing; very bad judgement on multiple levels, especially in this context. I do see whipping up hysteria over a stupid comment, and trying to use that to gain momentum for a block, in the midst of a very badly framed case, as cynical and manipulative. So yeah, as unseemly as QG's remark, on a different vector. You may recall that I voted in favor of your RfC/U, even though it too was malformed. I think QG is very vulnerable to topic or even site banning based on a very clear record of bad behavior. he functions as kind of a "beserker" on fringe topics where you have alt med or other kinds of POV-pushers opposing sound MEDRS usage, and he goes right up to the line all the time, and over it, not infrequently. Just like he does at the e-cigs articles. I don't like to edit where he is working and leave ... but when he shows up things are pretty far gone already. Anyway, if you look at how this thread started, the case against QG is even more badly formed than your RfC/U, and that one failed too. (I said so way above, before you joined the discussion here) This one does not cut it. I am baffled as to why someone hasn't framed a clear case against him already. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Jytdog, yes, rhetorical. You see it as bad and I see it as terrible. Calling someone a liar about their disability is for sure a slur ("an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation"), and it was gratuitous, dickish and cruel (see my comment below to Ched). We'll have to agree to disagree on the import/properness of A1C highlighting it here; my view is that it's not just about this case: given the well-known context of QG's long and checkered history, it's unacceptable, mean-spirited. In any context on WP it's an 8/10 on the NPA scale (where 9 is the N-word and 10 is falsely calling someone a pedophile). A line was crossed. One just doesn't do that to people.... especially in a situation where collegiality is expected. I agree with your other comments, and if/when a stronger case is brought, I am pretty sure that said diff will feature. I may bring it to Jimbo's attention anyway. One does not screw with someone over their disability, including accusing them of lying about it ("disability policing" is corrosive); disability is hard enough as it is. Revolting. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 20:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC) edited20:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I understand you both would love to get rid of QG b/c he fights quackery" Jytdog, what the "eff" are you talking about? I haven't encountered QC before seeing this AN/I (that I'm aware of) so I have no idea what kind of "quackery" he fights (I'm not even sure what that means). Your accusation is out of line, but certainly not as out of line as QC's comments about AF. He has a long block log that testifies to his history of bullying and harassment. Your comments imply he's performing a necessary service to Wikipedia that we should all be grateful for. The truth is, Wikipedia is a WP:CHOICE and would do just fine without any of us. AGF and NPA, however, is not a choice -- it is required. In my opinion, your attempts to dismiss what he said by trying to assign ulterior motives to those who are supporting a block based on those comments are disgusting to me personally. I hope we never have to connect in WP again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Winkelvi my apologies for lumping you with A1. That was sloppy of me and I apologize. I struck above accordingly. Again, my apologies. We actually have crossed paths briefly. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fine, I accept the apology, Jytdog. For the record, the crossing of paths comment was in reference to QG. I appreciate you striking the comments that included me, however, I still am not okay with your defense of QG and the reasons for said defense. It seems there is a suggestion that QC's contributions should outweigh the fact he questioned and mocked someone's disability status. Not acceptable, in my view. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks that is gracious of you. i think you are still misunderstanding my perspective - pls see my comment to middle8 above. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (oy, forgot a crucial "mis". additional note. i do agree that the remark was disgusting. really i do. Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support - I completely agree with weeding out quackery, but there are enough people willing to do it without QuackGuru's uncooperative, bullying style of editing. It looks like he's had plenty warnings and chances to improve his behaviour, but he clearly has no intention of doing so.--37.201.58.102 (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support block per John Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future -- making clear my priorities. !vote changed, preceding comment added, QG-specific parts of below comment struck 05:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Set aside the other complaints; John is right that accusing someone of lying about their disability deserves an immediate block. It's a gratuitous slur, and worse than a lot of people probably realize: "disability policing" is real and corrosive. This cuts deep in ways that perhaps only people affected by disability can fully grasp. While QuackGuru may not have been aware of "disability policing", he damn well should have known his accusation was afoul of NPA, especially with a long block log and eight years of editing. Still, o Our standards should reflect growing disability awareness. Some may dismiss my comments as cynical since I've clashed with QuackGuru, but I find this triggering and it transcends WP politics. I apologize to Bishonen (who declined John's suggestion to block) and others for suggesting below that merely warning QG shows softness and callousness, and am hatting my (largely) hot and ABF comments just below. Still, John is right and we shouldn't tolerate such attacks. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 23:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
collapsing excessively hot and ABF comments made in reaction to personal attack
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

*Great -- now Wikipedia is going all callous about NPA and slurs based on disability. Apparently NPA means nothing as long as the attacker is well-liked, the attackee is not, and the attack is on a relatively invisible, disadvantaged group. Quackguru just insinuated an editor was lying about having a disability. Are you people that tone-deaf?

    • If ANY editor had said what QG said about race or sexual orientation or gender, they'd be blocked or banned in a heartbeat. The only thing worse is outright stereotyping. Disability rights, as a movement, isn't taken seriously compared to other rights movements; we see this everywhere, great job Wikipedia.
    • If SOME of the other editors here had said what QG said -- especially to a "favored" editor -- they'd be at least blocked, even though QG has a longer block log than the large majority of editors whose conduct comes up for review. And should know better, has edited for over 8 years.[12]
    • 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 [13] 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 [14][15].) At least User:John gets it; [16] from your comments, most of the rest of you admins don't.
  • OK, enough. The double standard is sickening, and the tone-deafness to disability just makes me numb with rage. Great job, people. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC) copy-edited 13:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking; my intent with hatting was to strike the whole thing, but now that I'm striking so as to be exactly clear about my intentions, I'll leave one part.01:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. QG partakes in low-level and/or borderline transgressions on a regular basis, then occasionally, often when he thinks he can get away with it he ups the ante and completely oversteps the mark. The fact that QG went and made that comment kind of vindicates AF's original claims that QG was personally attacking him. QG thought things were going his way and that a WP:BOOMERANG was heading towards AF so he chanced his luck with more blatant attacks. Looks like he'll probably get away with it as well. I'm not going to recommend anything is done with QG, I'll leave that up to less involved editors but I do know from experience that QG is an impossible editor to work with and that he is not interested in consensus, never has been, probably never will be. People say he fights quackery, but there are plenty of editors that fight quackery that do not have long block logs for personal attacks, harassment, disruptive editing, edit warring, etc. Unfortunately many of these editors, whom I have a reasonable degree of respect for, seem to support QG.Levelledout (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW comment. QG has been around for a long time. I think there's a huge "WP:IDHT" issue with them, but I don't think it's deliberate. Anything related to "disabilities" is a very sensitive topic, and with good reason. Yes, QG is very tendentious by nature, and it can be very exasperating. Personally I had a few very long conversations with QG long ago, and I came to one conclusion: I don't think there's an ounce of intent to hurt anyone in his efforts here. Yes, .. he tends to go through things here with blinders on - but I don't think there's any intent to do harm in him. If you told QG "you hurt my feelings", he would spend hours digging up diffs and links to prove that he didn't. QG is doing his best to help the project, but I doubt is has ever crossed his mind to NPA/attack anyone. Just IMO. — Ched :  ?  16:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I too, tried to have a conversation with QG long ago. That apparently did not work out, and he eventually acknowledged the futility of such an approach by stating in the edit summary that he was "not interested" to listen. His most recent attempt to enforce a topic ban on me right after I opposed his attempt to ban AF is disingenuous, to say the least. -A1candidate 16:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand your frustrations, and I wish I had an answer for you - but I can't think of one. There's a huge resistance to anything "fringe" related on wikipedia. The project secures itself in fact. Until you can actually prove that the earth is round - it will remain flat. That's just the nature of the beast. The best I can offer is this: don't tilt at windmills, recognize brick walls when you see them - and don't beat your head on them, and take comfort in your own beliefs - even if other's don't share them. — Ched :  ?  17:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your comments there Ched, I probably shouldn't have brought intent into it since its the conduct issues that ultimately matter.Levelledout (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ Ched - I too had the impression that QG was fundamentally benign for some time until I saw his mean side. For example, WP:DICK, mocking other editors: Mallexikon: "I think you clarified this very nicely.'; Quackguru: "I think I clarified this very nicely.". He's also held a grudge toward me that started after I co-signed an RfC on him (which was concurrently brought with a thread at AN). Since then it's been POKE and BATTLEGROUND (below) despite multiple olive branches attempts [17][18][19][20] (which he just deletes from his user talk).
  • Wikistalking: 10 petty examples [21]
  • GAME-y/KETTLE accusations: characterizing edits I made as bad when he did the same thing [22]
  • Repeated, baiting, disingenuous "questions" about COI despite an explanation right in my signature line (Middle 8 (contribs • COI)) and multiple good-faith answers: (asked | answered twice); (asked); (asked | answered).
The above is not innocent. But it doesn't matter; NPA and CIVIL are to be applied only selectively, apparently.
So, no, I don't accept that QG's slur against AlbinoFerret was anything other than an attempt to mock and discredit them. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 18:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (struck sentence 02:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes suppression of legitimate discussion regarding QG's conduct on their talk page to avoid detection is yet another issue, I have an example of that: "archive - drama over". Edit: Another, better example, of plain deletion this time: diffLevelledout (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose here (for now) and take to ArbCom instead. Given that QG's behavior is so heavily tied to other editors and their actions in the topic, his behavior would seem better evaluated at ArbCom instead along with the suite of e-cig issues. The case below this seems to be much more standalone, but QG's actions are so intertwined with other editor's actions and mired in controversial topics it would seem a more methodical look by ArbCom would be more appropriate than a knee-jerk reaction here. People end up dealing with a lot of crap when dealing with fringe or advocacy type editors, so some of that does need to be disentangled in the topic. That being said, I do think QG can go too far sometimes. We don't afford people with disabilities any special privileges over anyone else here, and talking about AF's situation is going to be tough no matter what. WP:NOTTHERAPY has been brought up in that regard, but that's really as far as any conversation about disability should have gone. Since action has already been taken with regard to QG's comment on whether AF is disabled or not, are more systemic look at behavior at the article and with users is needed to really discuss the appropriateness of a block. I don't see that here at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He has been previously banned by Arbcom for similar behavioral issues and POV-pushing patterns. The Committee concluded that there was no apparent progress in QG's approach to editing. That was back in 2011. We are now in 2015, but has anything improved after four years of leniency and good faith assumptions? -A1candidate 18:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chastising QG for a lack of progress in an area where essentially no progress has been made is a little one-sided, though. If everyone that attempted to warp our articles in favor of pseudoscience was simultaneously and indefinitely banned, wouldn't that do far more good?—Kww(talk) 20:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would do far more good if you take into account QG's repeated attempts to claim that mummified tattoo marks "conform to acupuncture points". How is that not a blatant act of pseudoscience advocacy against prior consensus? -A1candidate 22:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The question of why this has not been elevated long before this... Jim1138 (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I said it above and I will say it again here. I think a good, PAG-based (not emotion/rhetoric-based) case could be pretty easily made, with about a couple hours of work finding difs. This case, is not that case, and thinking about a closer looking at !votes above, it does not appear that there is PAG-based consensus for a block here. In my view, the notion of punting his case to arbcom is just that - punting. The same work would have to go into it then, to make the case, so why not just do it here? (Arbcom cases don't happen by magic - diffs have to be brought, etc.) So withdraw the mess above, and start a new, clean, well-formed thread, if it really matters to any of the supporters. (AlbinoFerret is the one who brought this: I believe he is the only who can withdraw it) Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that there is reason to block him but it needs to have a pretty bow on it. AlbinoFerret 12:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AlbinoFerret your reply is of a piece with your general lack of alignment with, and understanding of, how WP works. The community doesn't take action based on emotion, and we don't edit or resolve content disputes, based on what somebody likes or doesn't like. This isn't facebook. We have policies and guidelines that express the community's consensus on things, and we strive to edit based on them, behave based on them, and resolve disputes through reasoned discussion based on them. Reasoned and discerning WP:CONSENSUS is the very heart of this place. Hand-wavy "he's a dick" complaints don't go anywhere, and don't deserve to go anywhere - they don't provide a basis for rational discussion of the issues.Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A stupid comment? It was an attack. A low blow, and it follows attempts to discredit and harass me elsewhere. I should be surprised that anyone could come up with a defence of his actions, especially the one here on this page. You and the two editors you mention want a slap on a wrist, but only for an editor who edits with you, and who's edits you agree with. Had this been a first time, perhaps but we are way past first time as shown by QuackGuru's extensive history of harassment, edit warring, and other violations. AlbinoFerret 12:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Any derogatory comments about a person's health, or accusations that a person is lying about their health, is contrary to Wikipedia policy. As such, a block of some sort is clearly warranted - though I would find a lengthy one to be draconian, a moderate one is likely in order here. Collect (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Non-administrator comment) I am heavily involved in the topic at hand having spent a long time editing the e-cigarette article pretty heavily and having clashed with QG and AF. I think in the case of both editors the battleground that e-cig has become has brought out a negative side to their WP editing, in AF it's leaning towards ADVOCACY and leaning towards SPA as it becomes more and more a focus of attention, in QG this is found in WP:OWN and IDHT. The regularity with which QG makes edits without discussion on the Talk pages of e-cig articles, even though he knows that any edit on that page is likely to be contentious, makes it clear he's not looking for consensus but the article as he sees it. I also see competence issues in many of QG's edits which could do with a bit of copy editing for structure and repetition before they go live. A topic ban, in the short term, may make things better. I certainly think the page cannot improve with QG there. But the root problem is that e-cig, and the daughter articles, are battlegrounds where a lot of people are shouting, and nobody's [well not quite nobody] listening. I don't know whether ArbCom can do something to help in this matter but while banning QG from the page will reduce the amount of problems there it won't solve the root. SPACKlick (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support indef block or send to ArbCom. QuackGuru continues to make personal attacks, despite being warned as recently as a few days ago. In this edit of a couple of days ago QG attacks the conduct of several editors including myself and demands that answers be provided to them. WP:PERSONAL is quite clear that this is not allowed and that article talk pages are not the place for conduct accusations and smears. However, the worst thing about QG's conduct is the that they are not interested in consensus. Building 20k edits (about 1/3 of the article size) in relative privacy and then dumping them into articles without notification let alone discussion is consistent with this. Attempting to discuss matters with QG on their user talk page generally results in them suppressing the discussion by archiving or deleting it (or parts of it that they don't like), e.g. [diff1] [diff2]. QG of course has a very long block log and has also had been sanctioned by ArbCom in the past so has been given numerous chances to improve their conduct and shows little signs of doing so. I considered whether to make this post at all given that I am a highly involved editor. However this doesn't seem to be an issue for other editors, some of which have supported QG. As I have indicated I would have no issues with ArbCom taking a look at the wider picture.Levelledout (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • really baffling to me. The first dif you provide is just a Talk discussion (QG arguing against the bizarre claim that MEDRS says only reviews can be used and excludes statements by major health organizations); the 2nd is fine (per TPG it is OK to delete others' comments from your own Talk page) as is the 4th (people can archive their talk pages as they wish). The Arbcom diff is old history (that should be brought up in any carefully brought case and has already been mentioned above). I really don't understand why folks are not framing a clear case showing violations of behavioral policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
The case against QG is rather clear cut in my opinion Jytdog and I respectfully disagree with you. Yes the first diff is an article talk discussion, that's my point. Content is irrelevant here as is whether QG is right or wrong about any content claims he makes. QG makes conduct allegations on the article talk page such as accusing editors of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Some of the language they use is just plain rude and actually borders on a breach of WP:CIVIL. Whether or not QG is technically allowed to delete individual comments from their talk page is hardly the point. Remember that they do not own their user talk page and that part of its purpose is for legitimate discussion of their conduct. I have only ever had two discussions (as far as I can recall) with QG on their talk page and on both of those occasions they have either deleted or archived the discussion or parts of it in order to prevent it from continuing. I was fully aware that the ArbCom diff had been mentioned, doesn't mean that it isn't relevant to the point I was making.Levelledout (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Summary: QuackGuru made an extremely stupid remark that he should never have made, he was roundly chastised for it repeatedly by parties from all sides, and an admin warned him not to do it again on pain of being blocked. The End.

    The rest of this is just advocacy-driven hysteria, obvious e-cig advocates and fringe science advocates trying to take out one of their opposite numbers in a content dispute, in retaliation for the suggestion of a topic ban for one of them. (That suggestion of a topic ban, incidentally, came before QG's remark or this sub0section, which AlbinoFerret shoved in here above the topic-ban section, out of chronological order, so that people reading the thread would get to it first -- an extremely good example of the kind of WP:BATTLEFIELD tactics being carried on by the e-cig advocates. [See his edit here). No admin is going to override the original admin's warning with a block, that would be, in effect, double jeopardy, so this entire section is just useless and should be closed by an uninvolved party. BMK (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to clarify, not everyone who !voted "support" is a e-cig advocate or a fringe science advocate, obviously, but the campaign to ban QG and the hysteria surrounding his remark is indeed the work of those advocates. No collusion is implied concerning the actions of those advocates - I'm certain there's no need for them to discuss between themselves taking out one of their primary antagonists. AlbinoFerret started the ball rolling, and his colleagues joined in. BMK (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The original complaint was made by Albino Ferret against QuackGuru alleging personal attacks. Therefore that's what was being discussed at the top of the thread and would seem the natural place to put the Proposed Block for QuackGuru. To claim that the thread not being in exact chronological order is going to affect the way that people vote is well, ridiculous. People might see one or the other first but it doesn't matter. Also, you argued particularly passionately that the proposal for AF was not driven mainly by involved editors and yet apparently QG's block proposal is an "advocacy-driven hysteria" "campaign". Strange.Levelledout (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Each of your responses in this section and the one below adds to the clear conclusion that you are not the neutral party you claim to be. BMK (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK well that is a baseless accusation that uses weasel words (I'm not the neutral party I claim to be because... just because). It's one way of neglecting to respond to reasoned argument of course, but not one that I appreciate or that I will be engaging with.Levelledout (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any open-minded uninvolved editor will see precisely what I mean, despite your Wikilawyering. BMK (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide evidence for serious accusations, not unsubstantiated insults. You should probably also read WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT.Levelledout (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Disability policing" is real, and damaging, and an issue on Wikipedia: see the unsolicited comment on my talk page from an editor concerned about that exact thing. For obvious reasons, I wish someone other than me had posted about it (or that someone other than QuackGuru had made the offensive comment). I'm done commenting in this thread on the merits of a block but "disability policing" needs to be taken seriously on WP. ... P.S. Just to make my intentions clear I've changed my !vote above to "Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future". [24] --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 04:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC) added P.S. 05:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are blocked when bad behaviour needs to be prevented; editors are not blocked as punishment when there is very little chance of a problem being repeated. QG has acknowledged the error, albeit not very clearly, and there is no reason to debate the issue—if there is a repeat, QG will get a lengthy block; if there isn't, a block for a single bad comment is not warranted. The comment is not part of a series of similar issues. Johnuniq (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Johnuniq -- I read WP:BLOCK specifically before commenting. In a case like this, per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT, #3 would apply: some offenses are so bad that we block automatically. (#2 could also apply when an editor has a tendency to push the envelope: they may not make this mistake again, but a block may get their attention. But #3 is the main thing.) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that your considered opinion as an independent editor with a good understanding of Wikipedia's procedures, or as an acupuncturist who is very keen to have QG removed so you can promote your product unimpeded? Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very much the former, which I think should be obvious in light of my !vote change to: "Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future". [25]. Look just a little bit above and you might even see that I mentioned this previously. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 11:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Middle 8, I'm not sure if you've seen the conversation starting after this comment by AlbinoFerret [26], but it does appear that AlbinoFerret is trying to justify their focus on e-cigs because of their disability (or extremely misunderstanding BMK's point). I'd prefer the topic of disability never even entered the conversation and focus solely on behavior here, but this kind of justification really concerns me. This is very different from questioning whether someone actually has a disability, so are you suggesting we shouldn’t question this kind of behavior I’m describing, or moreso not do what QuackGuru did specifically? This becoming a really strange situation. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingofaces43: Not all that strange, really. The case against AlbinoFerrett as a SPA and civil-POV-pushing advocate is quite strong, and he's feeling the need to counter it with whatever he's got. So, even though he called for sanctions against QG for bringing up his physical disability, he obviously feels no compunction about using that physical disability as an explanation for the amount of editing he's done on e-cigarettes. What he seems not to understand is that by comparing oranges to oranges -- i.e. by dealing with percentages of his own edits as opposed to comparing the count of his edits against those of other editors -- that factor is eliminated, and has no bearing on the question. Whatever his physical disabilities are is irrelevant, because they exist when he edits an e-cig article and still exist when he edits an article on any other subject. So when I report that 67.07% of his article edits and 85.08% of his article talk page edits are on the subject of electronic cigarettes, there's no way in which any disability enters into those stats. BMK (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just dont like numbers and innuendo being used to discredit me. AlbinoFerret 17:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kingofaces43 - QuackGuru's insult/innuendo that AlbinoFerret was lying about being disabled was completely gratuitous. All AF had said was, essentially, that their post count in the e-cig area is high partly because they're disabled and thus at home and in front of the computer a lot. There was no reason to dispute this and it was dickish and invasive to do so.
Note: I think AF's volume of posting by itself doesn't require apology, so their disability is actually irrelevant in terms of examining their edits. What matters are the kind of edits and where they are made. Re the kind of edits, I've expressed concerns over AF's persistently not grokking MEDRS. Re where edits are made, BMK is correct that what is germaine to SPA and WP:ADVOCACY is not how many total posts AF has made about e-cigs, but rather what percentage such posts comprise of his total mainspace edits. ... That said, even if AF's disability is ultimately irrelevant to this inquiry, the baseless accusation that they lied is still wrong. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Meta-comment, seed for possible essay: Disability among editors on Wikipedia needs to be addressed with common sense and respect; it should neither be used for twinkie defenses nor as a way to discredit people in any way -- including suggesting that a person is lying about it. As lie-accusations go, this is an especially bad one. When a person is simply asking for a reasonable accommodation, and not attempting to justify gross incompetence -- or is simply mentioning their disability by way of explanation of their editing style (as AF was, in above case) -- the burden they are imposing is low. Therefore it would be stupid to demand proof, and more stupid (and dickish as well) to accuse that person of lying about their disability, with no basis and with such low stakes; cf. "disability policing" (which may be one of those things, like getting called an epithet, that sounds bad but which you have to experience to know what it's really like). I hope that our norm becomes one of rejecting "disability policing" in any form. Demands of proof are bad and outright lie-accusations worse. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, I pretty much agree with you entirely. No reason to ask of actual proof, but in cases like these I'd prefer not to even worry about disability and just chalk up relatively innocuous editing quirks as just that, and if something truly disruptive, it's disruptive. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose QuackGuru questioned a personal comment made by AlbinoFerret which he should not have done. But, in my judgement, this comment does not rise to the level of a block/ban. For the record, QG did not reveal or attempt to out AF in any way. Counsel him to use caution and move on. JodyB talk 12:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose block, but QG should face some admonishment for the disability-questioning comment. This is probably something that should be referred to ArbCom. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as it looks like QuackGuru was fairly neutral in what he added, and all of it was well cited. I agree that that was a very offensive comment he made, but he already received an admin warning for it, so I would consider it closed. If, however, QG does continue with personal attacks, especially of that nature, I would support a block or a referral to ArbCom. Iwilsonp (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret

edit
User:AlbinoFerret has agreed to voluntarily walk away from the topic area for 6 months after a discussion on my talk page. [27] AlbinoFerret can still engage in legitimate dispute resolution (eg. the Arbcom request) but will otherwise be taking a break from editing anything related to e-cigarettes. I feel this is an acceptable compromise to the differing views expressed in this thread, and it will give AlbinoFerret time to gain editing experience and perspective in less controversial areas.

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:AlbinoFerret is making a lot of comments and edits to e-cig related pages. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/AlbinoFerret&offset=&limit=500&target=AlbinoFerret See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:AlbinoFerret for previous behaviour issues. AlbinoFerret tried to hide Environmental impact section from a reliable source from the page. He eventually tried to delete some of the text.[28][29][30][31][32] AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources.[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] AlbinoFerret claims "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[41] But AlbinoFerret has not given a specific reason to exclude relevant information about safety. WP:COMPETENCE is not the issue IMO. AlbinoFerret has turned the e-cig pages into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. AlbinoFerret is not the only problematic editor at these pages. Some of the e-cig enthusiasts are not here to improve the e-cig pages. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#E-cig_editors for background information on this. Something needs to be done to prevent this from happening over and over again. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those were edits in a content dispute. Some of them over 2 months old. This is not about content, but your actions on talk pages. AlbinoFerret 21:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is also about you deleting relevant content you find offensive. AlbinoFerret has a repeated pattern of trying to delete pertinent information about safety. AlbinoFerret is unable to formulate a logical reason for excluding the text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a misstatement. There are valid reasons why the content was removed all covered under talk page sections.Here is a huge one. But this isnt a content dispute, this is a discussion of harassment that happened because you decided to smear me on talk pages. As for WP:BATTLEGROUND, I think you have done enough with building over 19000 character in edits in secret for a month, not discussing any of it on the talk pages, and then adding it, and reverting it back in. On such a contentious article, that should never have happened WP:CAUTIOUS In fact looking at the pages history, you are still planning more because of recient additions, but none of them have been brought to the talk page. AlbinoFerret 22:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Albino you are digging your hole deeper by making spurious complaints. per the userpage guideline WP:UPYES it is totally fine to draft article content in userspace. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its not spurious, but the basis of WP, Consensus. But there is no consensus in building 19000 character edits in private, and making one 16k edit at once. There was no discussion on the addition, no post on the talk pages directing the other editors to it to look over. This has been done before on the main e-cig page. Granted there is nothing wrong with building edits on a sandbox, but a edit that is 1/3rd the size of the page should have been discussed. WP:CAUTIOUS AlbinoFerret 22:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
QG, you should request some specific action that you would like the community to take - make a proposal and let folks react. You have been around long enough to know that just saying "something must be done" (passive voice) will get you no where fast. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think an indef topic ban is most appropriate rather than a short-term topic ban. It is clear that User:AlbinoFerret is not here to improve the e-cig pages. QuackGuru (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really, and what evidence exactly do you present in support of that? Other than the fact that you have disagreements with AF over content which is neither here nor there, I can't see that you've stated any whatsoever.Levelledout (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • support indef topic ban AlbinoFerret is not here and is WP:TENDENTIOUS. And this has been going on for a long time. And I see no reason to believe it will improve. Many chances have been given and few have been taken. It's time for this to stop. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I would support a one-year topic ban. Hopefully in that time evidence will become more clear and the topic less controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Doc James. BMK (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support one year topic ban for Albinoferret. There are many issues here and AF is disrupting any genuine attempts to improve the articles, so much that it is bordering on WP:SPA. AF has previously done good work on other articles and I believe AF's and everyone else's time could be spent much better. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is nothing more than a content dispute. With diff's gathered over months showing a content dispute. All of which have talk page sections dealing with the content link1 link2 link3. The only thing this will accomplish is silence an active editor from the article that disagrees with some content, that press releases diff should not be used for medical content or problems with the sources. In fact one post above me, Doc James, lists a reason for banning me is that "Hopefully in that time evidence will become more clear and the topic less controversial.". AlbinoFerret 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Albino "the evidence" that Doc James is referring to, is medical evidence about risks of e-cigs. I know that a huge focus of yours, has been reducing the amount of what you call "speculation" in the article... but what is, in fact, statements about the unfolding medical consensus on risks. What he meant is that when the science is more solid and the scientific debate settles, there will be less controversy, and that in a year you should have even weaker grounds on which to be disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is speculation. From the Chang, H. (2014). "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes" source, the topic of the section you linked to "No studies specifically evaluated the environmental impacts of e-cigarette manufacturing; issues related to use of resources, assembly, nicotine source, tobacco cultivation and global production". Unfolding evidence? More like a lot of opinions to me, not based on anything, and the lone "review" of its kind. Because apparently it didnt review any studies as it says none exist. Its given its own section? Huge WP:WEIGHT issue here. Being the only source of its kind, what it reviewed is, basically nothing. This is a perfect example of a content dispute, and diffs 157-161 in QuackGurus post above, which are about three months old. AlbinoFerret13:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the fact that you wrote the above, is a perfect example of your persistence in objecting, repeatedly and over a long period of time, to the inclusion of reasonable and well sourced content about health risks being added to the articles, by editors who are very experienced in dealing with health matters in WP. That you bring this up again, even here and now, is exactly why I support the topic ban. You know, I looked and looked, but I couldn't find a diff for this, but didn't you write somewhere that you care about this so much because your wife really needed to quit smoking and tried and tried and couldn't, and it was e-cigs that finally helped her do it? If I have that wrong, I apologize. Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say to that, that everyone is entitled to their opinions. But consensus is how WP is edited. Others have reasons to include this in the article, where it has stayed for the last three months or so. That does not mean I dont think its a WP:WEIGHT issue. It means that its included even though I think it has a weight issue. What you dont have is actions pointing to advocacy. You have a difference of opinion on content. AlbinoFerret 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think DocJames can likely speak for himself but anyway Jytdog, the "unfolding medical consensus" is basically that the short term risks are pretty low and that the long term risks should theoretically also be low. The only "speculation" is exactly how low the long-term risks are. If you are saying that in a years time it will be proven that e-cigarettes are more harmful, well that is just basically crystal-ball stuff. We shouldn't really be discussing content here, but since it seems to be being used as evidence so it seems somewhat necessary. Just demonstrates that this is a content dispute really.Levelledout (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
nope you are missing the point; this is about Albino's behavior. i won't belabor this. Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in my view the prior proposal to topic ban AlbinoFerret (which I supported) would have succeeded, except it turned into a sprawling mess and was closed out of hopelessness. This one is squarely focused. AlbinoFerret is a WP:SPA who wages an WP:ADVOCACY campaign favorable to e-cigs, and has been relentless in opposing the addition of well-sourced content about health risks. That pattern is clear from difs above and in the prior ANI. I do not intend this to be cruel, but he has said he is housebound and edits WP to keep himself sane (which I am very sympathetic toward) but still, WP:NOTTHERAPY - and especially not when, combined with advocacy, his editing is disruptive. (I had said this to him directly before.) He is the paradigm of disruptive advocacy on this article. WP is vast - let Albino edit elsewhere and not disrupt this topic any more. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hatting personalization of the discussion. Out of bounds and distracting from focus of Albino's behavior Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your leaving out the part "My motivation is to help bring what is known about tobacco harm reduction to the article". Bringing out what is known about something is (through reliable sources), I hope, the goal of every WP editor. AlbinoFerret 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do get out every so often, and helping short term as a election judge is something I try to do. You would be surprised at the number of disabled people who work as election judges. I would be happy to send to an uninvolved admin a letter from Social security stating I am disabled. AlbinoFerret 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind about the duration, per Kevin Gorman below. I support an indefinite ban with the option to appeal after a year. Bishonen | talk 13:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose The situation has to be understood in the context of the protracted, bitter content dispute that is e-cigarette articles. It has already been said several times that topic-banning AF would help. Yes it would help, it would help those editors that have been in a content dispute with AF for months on end. I think almost everybody who has supported this proposal so far is either moderately or highly involved in the said content dispute. I think that AF has raised some genuine issues here, did in fact originally raise some genuine issues on the article talk page with QG going about things in a covert way and dumping 20k edits into articles without so much as notification. QG attacked AF on the article page which according to WP:PERSONAL is not allowed. For this to be turned back round on AF is very harsh and unjust I think. It also seems to be almost entirely without substance.Levelledout (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is a roughly 50/50 (haven't been bothered to check the exact amount) split between e-cig and other articles considered a single purpose account? What about editors that edit medical articles far more than I actually edit e-cig articles? Or is that perfectly OK I take it? Your COI accusation is spurious, groundless and you have no right to make it. Helps deflect some attention and blame though I suppose.Levelledout (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, you don't think that 57% of your edits going to one very specific subject – electronic cigarettes – and 43% going to a variety of other topics is an pretty good indication that you're here primarily to edit about that one subject? I would beg to differ, I think it's a damn good marker. It's not like your 57% is going to some broad area, like military history, or New York City or films, it's going to electronic cigarettes.

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

I've already told you what I think so I'll leave it at that for now. I'm not sure what you having made 150,000 edits and being on Wikipedia for 10 years has got to do with anything either.Levelledout (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You "think" almost everyone who has supported the topic ban is involved in the content dispute? Please don't hazard tendentious guesses about things that could be checked with a little research. Here, I'll help you with one item: I for my part have barely heard of e-cigarettes. I'm supporting the topic ban because I can recognize advocacy, at least when it's as obvious as this. Bishonen | talk 12:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I did not do an in depth analysis before I posted of course, nor can you reasonably expect me to before every post. But I do know that of the posters above QuackGuru (the proposer of the ban) and Doc James are highly involved and Cloudjpk, CFCF and Jytdog have all contributed to e-cig articles and have tended to be on the opposing side of the content dispute to Albino Ferret.Levelledout (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually, we can expect you to do some due diligence before you make claims about other editors' motivations. BMK (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said clearly enough for you to understand I knew with a reasonable degree of certainty that 5/7 editors were involved all along. I thought it was probably 6/7, hence "almost all" which was an approximation. Nobody was mentioned personally and it turned out to be 5/7. Big deal. Can we move on from this nonsense now please?Levelledout (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's "nonsense", it your nonsense, not mine. Are all the supporting editors below also sworn enemies of AlbinoFerret? If not, doesn't that change your !vote, since it was based on the supposed involvement of the supporting editors? And since you're on the other side of the debate as an SPA, should we discount your !vote as you would like us to discount those editors above who you say are involved?

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

Despite the fact that you obviously do not accept this, I am entitled to my original opinion. I stand by it and with all due respect, do not care what you think.Levelledout (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hatting discussion no longer relevant with indef blocking of sock BMK (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

comment removed per WP:EVADE

    • @InfiniteBratwurst: So, you took your 56 edits and your vast 9 weeks of Wikipedia experience and went looking into other editor's block logs in order to come here, !vote oppose, and poison some wells with the dirty little secrets you uncovered there? (How does an editor with 56 edits find out about block logs, anyway? I was here for quite a while before I heard about them.) You complain that the editors supporting the topic ban are involved in a content dispute with AF, but you don't mention that the article you have edited the most. with more than double the edits of the next-most article, is Safety of electronic cigarettes, that its talk page is the one you've edited the most, the seoncd-most being Talk:Electronic cigarette -- but I assume you'll tell us that, unlike the other editors commenting here, you are uninvolved, you are totally neutral, and your vote is in no way influenced by your personal views. Everyone else's is, of course, but not yours. BMK (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment removed per WP:EVADE
        • Wow!!!! 9 weeks here, less than 60 edits, and you cite an obscure essay from Meta. The closing admin should note with pride what an extremely knowledgeable newbie InfiniteBratwurst is!!!! BMK (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • comment removed per WP:EVADE
            • Oh, I think pointing out your very interesting, if short, history is quite constructive indeed. BMK (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • User:Beyond My Ken, InfiniteBratwurst is actually CheesyAppleFlake. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:CheesyAppleFlake. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • BMK, you've been around since 2009 (aren't you an admin, and weren't you an Arb?) At any rate why are you still this rankly clueless about commenting on content not contributors? Is NPA just deprecated? You've done this before [42] -- what is your problem? You know very well that some editors make CLEANSTART accounts and that is their business. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Middle8. Wrong on every count. I've had an account here since June 2005, started editing shortly before that as an IP (see this for the thumbnail of my history). I've never been an admin (perish the thought!), don't want to be an admin, will almost uncertainly never be an admin, and would be an absolutely lousy admin if someone forced me to do it. And, of course, I've never been an Arbitrator. I have no idea who you are thinking of, but it ain't me.

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

                • BTW WP:CLEANSTART may be one of the most abused Wikipedia policies around. Any user who is making a clean start should be obligated to say so when questioned with good reason about their editing, and to report to a CU of their choice the name of their previous account to be checked to be sure they aren't evading a block or are a sockpuppet of a banned editor. A clean start should never be a license for serial misbehavior, which is what I'm afraid it most probably is utilized for. BMK (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  I must have you confused with some other editor, sorry. Yes, an editor's history matters to an extent if counting !votes, but otherwise their comments rise or fall on the merits. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 04:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Whatever good AlbinoFerret does tending the electronic cigarette articles is outweighed by the persistent puffing-up of e-cigs as safer than apple pie. Since September 2014, AF has made 2000 talk page comments at the three e-cig articles, and 250 comments here at ANI—it's time to look for other topics. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the diffs where I said they are safe as apple pie or any place where I said they were completely safe. As for edit counts, anyone who looks at the logs knows I rarely make complete edits, I always correct them or add to them, on average taking 4 edits to make a comment. I have tried to preview more, but total edits show nothing. AlbinoFerret 15:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Send to ArbCom - This has been going on from time to time for months. This is the sort of content dispute compounded by conduct issues (tendentious editing) for which a full evidentiary hearing by ArbCom works better than letting the loudest editors at a noticeboard establish consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon i hear you that this may end up at Arbcom but that is a step of last resort. The way this place is set up we are meant to handle what we can at lower levels. I think there is a reasonable case for a topic ban for Albino - this is not about "loudest" but rather based on a clear focus on the behavior of one user. Focus (hard to maintain here, I know) is essential. Please reconsider. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Disclosure: AF has supported sanctions against me in another ongoing RFc. But I have supported a topic ban for AF on this topic on several previous occasions). The problem here is that many of the editors on this article are here to advocate for electronic cigarettes rather than being here to build an encyclopedia. I think AF is basically a good guy, but it is not healthy for the encyclopedia to have editors who spend 8 or more hours a day focused on making sure that a single article projects a specific POV. I'll add that I would support a similar topic ban for any editor for whom edits to electronic cigarette articles comprise more than 60% of their total edits over the last 3 months. Its not personal, its just that this article has attracted too many editors who are there to promote a specific POV. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasons stated by Levelledout. This is part content dispute and part piling on by those with a particular POV. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not involved in the articles themselves or the content dispute aside from commenting on a few posts brought to WP:RSN. I wouldn't suggest any longer than a year for a ban though as it's generally better to give people a chance. The idea that this is just a content dispute so the behavior issues should be ignored is extremely disingenuous. There are also involved editors here who oppose the ban on grounds of it being a "content dispute", but behavior problems are behavior problems whether there is a content dispute or not. It's apparent there is a problem here with AF considering how much they focus on the topic. One could argue whether they fit the criteria of an WP:SPA or not with brief edits in a couple other articles, but there is definitely advocacy apparent here. Uninvolved editors here are seeing that problem, so I'd highly suggest weighing that when determining community consensus. I do agree with Robert McClenon that the topic will probably need to be considered at ArbCom at some point, but this is one user that keeps coming up and seems like it could be handled here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak support There are probably enough behavioral problems amongst many editors that an arbitration case would be the best way to settle this. Otherwise, I think a topic ban is an acceptable bandaid, though I'd argue for a shorter duration, like 6 months, and revisit a more long term solution if the behavior resumes. AniMate 20:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a topic ban of one year for Albino Ferret from discussing the subject of Electronic cigarettes on any page in the English Wikipedia. The reason is largely the one given by Bishonen (overly intense advocacy). Possibly one or more other users will need a topic ban too. Cardamon (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support topic ban of 3 months (preferred) or 1 year from articles on electronic cigarettes, broadly construed, but not indefinite. AF shows some signs of wanting to edit other articles, let's see some evidence of constructive contributions outside this topic area. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is clearly a content dispute with both sides unwilling to reach a compromise. The "evidence" presented by QuackGuru isn't very strong. One could also take Bishonen's argument of WP:ADVOCACY and apply it to QuackGuru, since his recent contributions suggest that he has been engaging in a campaign unfavorable to e-cigarettes. As far as I can tell, none of the diffs violate any of Wikipedia's policies. I do see a strong case for banning QuackGuru though: This comment by QG is clearly targeted against AF's personal life, and the edit summary is not just inappropriate, but also inexplicably cruel and disgusting. -A1candidate 11:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
!vote above doesn't deal with Albino's behavior but rather attempts to focus on QG's- classic rhetorical move. This is a proposal about Albino's long term disruptive behavior as evidenced in the prior ANI (which lost focus) and additional diffs above. Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the diffs presented violate any of WP's policies, as far as I can tell. -A1candidate 13:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
again hatting squabble between 2 main antagonists here Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, this is not clearly a content dispute as A1candidate suggests. A1candidate is repeatedly making blanket reverts of reputable organizations and reviews.[43][44] This disruption of blanket reverts by A1candidate should not be allowed to continue. A1candidate, I recommend you take a voluntary short-term topic ban from the page. A1candidate, are you going to continue make blanket reverts? QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One might want to look at the size of the edits (18,711 characters) trying to edit in sources that were the topic of a (still ongoing) RFC. That at the time was almost 1/2 the size of the existing page. The comments on the edits were directing people to the talk pages. This wasnt blanket removal, this was a few editors (QuackGuru, CFCF, and Cloudjpk) trying to force a mammoth edit on the page during a discussion of the sources used. Looking at the history makes it all the more clear. This is purely a content dispute. Where one side wants to discuss things, and others just want to get it in. AlbinoFerret 18:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remember the talk page discussion? I wrote "User:AlbinoFerret, you were asked "Are there issues with the sources or the summary of said sources?" So far you have not specifically explained which new sources are a concern to justify your blanket revert and there is a clear consensus for the the positions of the organisations."[45] You repeatedly deleted a number of sources including reviews without any logical reason. User:AlbinoFerret, do you agree you are going to stop making blanket reverts? QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@QuackGuru, please stop making these baseless accusations against me. I'm surprised that you would want to enforce a "voluntary short-term topic ban" on me, given that I have made minimal contributions to this the article so I am not sure what that would achieve. -A1candidate 18:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @QuackGuru, This is a constant problem, WP:IDHT. I answered you why I thought a press release was not usable. link and that sources that are WP:Tertiary should not be used for medical content. These sources (the subject of your second set of diffs) were already on a sister page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Where they are appropriate, this isnt removing content and blocking, but a discussion on the location WP:ONUS. This is a fine point of WP, and I dont think you get. Your link to a blanket revert is part of the mammoth edit I posted on a reply ago, You made an almost 20000 character edit to a controversial page with no discussion, after planning it for almost a month in a sandbox without discussing it at any time. Again taking WP:Tertiary sources from the sister page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Where they have never been removed. If you look in the edit comments, you will see I quoted WP:CAUTIOUS and noted that no discussions have happened. There is even a talk page section started by me on the topic. AlbinoFerret 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support topic ban having reviewed this whole mess over the last half hour. My only 'involvement' with e-cigarettes was thinking someone's looked hilarious at Wikimedia DC's GLAM bootcamp. As is generally the case with tbans, Albino would still be able to raise the situation before arbcom if desired. I don't think a time limit has a purpose since plenty of people just take an editing vacation until their tban expires and come back just as problematic as they were before, but AF could appeal it in the future after spending time productively contributing elsewhere on WP. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because two people are involved in a battle doesn't make both of them are aggressors. I do not see any single edit by AF violating a policy or guideline. -A1candidate 14:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
distraction; not focused on Albino's behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
How is resisting the POV-pushing by QuackGuru a form of advocacy? Please explain. -A1candidate 14:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support topic ban of at least a year. I am uninvolved with the topic. To the best of my recollection, I have never edited anything to do with electronic cigarettes, but I can recognize disruptive behavior in support of a POV when I see it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm not convinced there have been any policy violations, or BF editing, or PAs that would constitute firm measures for behavioral issues. I see disagreement, and certainly hope disagreement or an opposing view doesn't warrant a block or ban these days. Atsme☯Consult 23:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the difs for long term behavioral issues are clear. I do understand, Atsme, why you be sympathetic to someone opposing the application of MEDRS, since you would support having positive content on the cancer-fighting powers of amygdalin in WP, using sources like naturalnews, per this. You, at least have been doing that only on Talk, and have not been editing warring over it for months now, as Albino has. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only warring originates with you Jytdog, as demonstrated by your behavior here and now with a PA against me for expressing an opinion where I'm supposed to be expressing an opinion. Unfortunately, your biotech POV is imposed on editors wherever you go. Please try to understand WP:FRINGE is a guideline, not a policy. Atsme☯Consult 13:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the same reasons as the last forty-'leven times this topic-ban proposal has come up. Closing admin should pay careful attention to whether some of these !votes are from SPAs or near-SPAs and are possibly voting on subject matter as opposed to behavior. Zad68 03:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, perhaps a month, then another chance on a short leash. Per this and others, does not (or will not) understand MEDRS; should by now. Not the only disruptive party but disruptive nonetheless. (Note also QuackGuru's repugnant slur against AF, where he accused AF of lying about their disability. Should be an instant block for that, lengthened by aggravating circumstances: block log, experience). Oppose> - Looks mainly like a content dispute to me, with the conduct issues on both sides -- no way can just one side of the e-cig wars could be accused of WP:OWN and WP:TE. And lest process trump content, from what I can see the dangers are being exaggerated unduly and relative to conventional cigarettes by QuackGuru et al., and AlbinoFerret and others are correct in trying to limit this POV-pushing. No, I don't like some of AlbinoFerret's exaggerations and misunderstandings of policy here (re which e.g. Jytdog has commented). But However, I see that at least two of the editors calling for a topic ban (and among the quickest to do so) are also heavily involved in the impasse/polarization in this topic area. All the kettles need to simmer down; suggest 1RR/week for all concerned or something like that. Mentorship/probation for AlbinoFerret on the stuff mentioned (especially MEDRS and WP:OPPONENT) when they come back. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 15:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC) changed !vote, added a bit 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Middle 8 this thread is focused on AlbinoFerrets' behavior. Things like this end up at Arbcom when the community fails to manage them. The most common way the community fails is that it loses focus when discussing complex issues or disputes. (you have seen that happen, as when you brought an RfC/U against Quackguru). There is no doubt that AlbinoFerret has been a key participant in the longterm battleground. Many, many diffs showing that. The community can handle disputes like this, if it focuses. If you want to start a thread on some other individual involved, please do so. But please do not distract from the issue at hand. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, Jytdog. (And it's interesting how many of the editors who contributed so tenaciously to the loss of focus in the QG RfC are suddenly so able to stay focused on AF, yet lose focus when it comes to QG. One would almost think there was systemic bias afoot.) Looking at the merits: Which diffs? Going from QG's thread-starter, the two links to ANI threads are weak [46][47] Re QG's other diffs: Just because AF removes stuff QG added is not prima facie evidence of misconduct -- far from it; I see a lot of UNDUE. AF's removing the WMA however is not good. And I see a pattern of OWN in both QG and AF, worse in QG. Is that it? Where can I find a good, concise summary of the most obvious diffs? Or maybe you or someone could just paste in the five worst ones? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 16:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
update: OK, although the evidence in the thread-starter first ANI is weak, I see more that you and others provided in the comments (yours: scrolling to: "Support topic ban - Albino has gone on a tear now..."). Having a look now. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, your example (of AF writing about pharma companies lobbying to have e-cigs treated as medical devices) would indeed be a compelling instance of twisting a source [48] (just as Mallexikon showed QG did with GERAC, which you were one of the only editors to grok). Except: AF explains [49] (supported with diffs) that the passage they wrote was originally sourced to a different source [50] that the passage indeed summarized accurately. (I don't care for his ABF-ing and calling your characterization "twisting" of what happened, but they wouldn't be the first to run hot under pressure on a drama board.) I'll keep looking. If there's a smoking gun -- besides fighting over including WMA, which is bad, but alone not imo worth a ban either -- I'm not seeing it. I see general TE (which is at least as bad with QG); I don't see it as over the top: is this a situation like QG where those who know AF well gnash their teeth in frustration but have so far failed to build a strong case? If not, can you help, and point me to the good evidence? It's a lot to go through. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 20:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Thanks for considering more carefully. QG's first link above - Albino's contribs, demonstrate he is a SPA on e-cigarettes; this is not ambiguous. Per WP:SPA, SPA editors are often agenda-driven. The next link is the old ANI case, and I see you are digging through that. I'll just pick one diff from there (of what are many) namely this, where AF's edit notes was "emove older study that newer ones find answers to", but what we did, was remove a source (a review of the literature) that described the lack of good evidence for harm reduction and risks of e-cigs, dated 2013, and moving up 2 practice guidelines, one dated 2014 and the other dated 2013, which each recommend e-cigs for harm reduction. (note he left the 2013 ref... why, in his reasoning?) but in any case these are different kinds of sources (and there has been tension in project Medicine about how to WEIGHT practice guidelines vs reviews of the evidence) and they don't cancel each other out. The reasoning was bogus or incompetent, but the effect was to eliminate what AF calls "speculation" about the risks. That is the crux of his agenda in those articles. That ANI case was back in November. If you look at the next difs provided by QG, you will see that agenda being enacted in each edit. Using article-comment notation to hide the "Environmental effects" section (mostly about risks) with edit note that "it is trivia"' removing facts about risks stated in WP's voice on the basis that they must be attributed (that is how pejoratively he has come to view discussion of risks - that it is so perjorative that it must be attributed)... etc. He is a disruptive and persistent presence. Hence the topic ban. Which looks like it will succeed, so far. I think it is objectively on point. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yeah the thing about lobbying was really frustrating. [[51] his original source] was an opinion piece and of course we prefer straight reporting over opinion pieces (he could have cited the opinion piece, attributing it, yes). but what we really got my goat was that the NYT reporting (the more reliable source) was unambiguous in emphasizing the victory of the e-cig lobbyists. so twisted. and adding the rhetorically self-righteous stuff about the COI of pharma with their lobbyists... when all lobbyists are nakedly self-interested. just... argh. on that whole thing. But of a piece with the pattern of relentless pro-e-cigarette editing. its the pattern. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, AF clearly doesn't/can't/won't grok MEDRS and there is a pattern. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 20:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
side discussion that went sideways and has become distracting in-fighting Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Middle_8 Am I perfect, No. Have I made mistakes, yes. Have I learned from them, I think I have. What you have here is two examples Jtydog has found. What he doesnt have is a pattern of me repeating those mistakes. The first diff is from October 2014, I had taken almost a year off from editing wikipedia, and almost 6 years since I was active. I had never editied a page with medical rules. I made a mistake and replaced a source and edited out a comment. I learned from that experience and have not done that again. As for using WP:TRIVIA In November of that year, well the reason Jtydog can find it so quick is he was the one who misused it on me first. Was it a mistake to not research its use first? Yes, have I done the same things again? No. AlbinoFerret 23:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But there is a pattern, cf. the diffs QG has at the top, and they're not only undue weight (though I agree this has been a problem and commend you for pushing back, within reason). QG's first diff after "AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources": [52]; those are MEDRS, and you really should know that by now. Sorry, but MEDRS is one thing I don't IAR on. Take a break (short I hope) and come back, and grok MEDRS and try to take to WP:OPPONENT to heart and lung. Wishing you well. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 00:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Middle_8 You may want to look closely at the World Lung Federation, at the top of the page is a gold bar clearly labelling it a press release. I am not the only editor that was against using WP:Tertiary sources for medical claims. There is even a ongoing RFC on the subject. Until that edit they had only been used on the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes sister page, both of which were one time part of the Health section of Electronic cigarette, split off at the same time by Doc James. Up until QG's edit there was a defacto standard/agreement of only using reviews for medical claims on e-cig pages (read the first link), thats why the RFC was started. AlbinoFerret 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There NEVER was a consensus to use only using reviews for medical claims on e-cig pages. We don't have different rules for e-cig pages. There is a long standing WP:CON to include other sources including WHO, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the World Lung Foundation. See Electronic_cigarette#Position_of_medical_organizations. Also see Electronic_cigarette#Harm_reduction for other sources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that are not reviews. User:AlbinoFerret, claiming that only reviews can be used for medical claims runs against WP:MEDORG. The RfC resulted in WP:SNOW. See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Positions.
You also deleted other sources including a formal policy statement. After you could not delete the reliable source you then added context that was inappropriate.[53][54][55] See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_1#Original_research_2. You, User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, and User:Levelledout appeared to be against using the formal policy statement written in a peer-reviewed journal for medical claims. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_21#Policy_Statement_from_the_American_Association_for_Cancer_Research_and_the_American_Society_of_Clinical_Oncology. Your last edit to the safety page was to delete even more sources including a number of reviews. So what is your reason to make a full revert back to an old version while delete a number of sources including reviews? We want to know the WP:TRUTH. QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The facts are clear as can be, if anyone looks at the article when it was copied over from the Electronic cigarette article. Before you started editing it on your own because of the activity on the main page kept us busy. You started adding non review quality sources for medical claims. You will notice that reviews and formal policy statements in peer reviewed journals (review quality) are all that existed. AlbinoFerret 02:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's review according to your diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625
See WHO: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-WHOPosition2014_8-0
See US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-FDA_nitrosamines_13-0
See The UK National Health Service https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-nhs_17-0
These sources are not reviews but they are reliable according to WP:MEDORG. QuackGuru (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support indefinite topic ban from e-cig related articles. Per Bishonen, I see obvious advocacy. Assuming good faith, I feel that both the articles and AF would benefit from him spending his wiki-time on other topics for the foreseeable future. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose action against AlbinoFerret or QuackGuru via ANI - This should go to Arbcom. Considering the e-cigarette dispute keeps popping up at ANI and has apparently gone on for so long now, and also considering there have been concerns raised regarding conduct of multiple users, this should go to arbcom where evidence can be carefully evaluated by those uninvolved. Seems binding solutions are needed at e-cegarette.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is focused on AlbinoFerret's behavior. We can manage this at ANI if people bring clear cases and responders focus on the question at hand. Here, it is AF's behavior. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Procedural oppose There are two main culprits in this current shitstorm. If the community lacks the cojones to sanction QG, who is the main culprit, and is content to let him off with a weak "warning" (how many warnings is that now?) it is against natural justice to sanction AF. I tend to agree with the view that arbitration will be the way forward here. A lynch mob at AN/I probably won't do it on this occasion. --John (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I see several people opposing a topic ban on the ground that the whole QuackGuru – AlbinoFerret thing should go to RFAR instead. Is anybody actually planning or working on an RFAR submission? John, BoboMeowCat, Robert McClenon, for instance? This question is not meant as criticism, as nobody is obliged to spend time on anything on Wikipedia beyond what they want to, and filing RFAR's is a bugger, with the diffs and so on. Just, it would be convenient to know, and may affect the outcome of this thread. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I have the same question, and I don't think any of the "procedural opposers" have any intention of filing on ArbCom. I do not think this issue is a QG/AF issue, but rather the immensely problematic editing history of AlbinoFerret, whose entire edit history since September 2014 is the most egregious example of relentless disruptive WP:SPA advocacy I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support topic ban for at least six months to a year. His edits and endless disruptive discussions on the subject are simply far too POV and tendentious, disrupting the progress of the entire subject and the articles it encompasses. It does seem like blatant advocacy. Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a draconian solution at this point - especially since the air is rather full of smog because of misbehaviour by QG at this point. Suggest that such issues at that point be addressed to the Arbitration Committee, which will slow down everything in all likelihood. Collect (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs are all presented and the question is clear, with respect to AlbinoFerret. Please take the time to focus on AF's behavior, which is the topic of this discussion. Thanks. There is a separate (malformed) section for QG above. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • (Non-administrator comment) I am heavily involved in the topic at hand having spent a long time editing the e-cigarette article pretty heavily and having clashed with QG and AF. I think in the case of both editors the battleground that e-cig has become has brought out a negative side to their WP editing, in QG this is found in WP:OWN and IDHT, in AF it's more ADVOCACY and leaning towards SPA as it becomes more and more a focus of attention. The large proportion of AF's edits being on the Talk pages of e-cig articles rather than the article themselves reflects, in my eyes, his attempt to bring some form of consensus to article improvements rather than riding roughshod over the opinions and policies of WP. A topic ban, in the short term, may make things better. I certainly think AF taking a vacation from the article may be good for AF's stress levels. But the root problem is that e-cig, and the daughter articles, are battlegrounds where a lot of people are shouting, and nobody's [well not quite nobody] listening. I don't know whether ArbCom can do something to help in this matter but banning AF from the page will not reduce the amount of problems there. SPACKlick (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per InfiniteBratwurst. I used to be involved, but haven't edited any of the articles in several months. I've been slightly active on their talk pages, though. EllenCT (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Infinitebratwurst's !vote was not based on looking at the diffs of AlbinoFerret's behavior and thinking about them in light of PAG, so that !vote should not count for the closer, and neither should this one. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note. It's been a problem previous times that this has come up that those involved in the dispute separate into obvious camps but are pretty vocal. Out of curiosity I checked the history of the users posting in this section and their edit count on whatever e-cig talk page had the highest edits (doesn't indicate time of involvement):
AlbinoFerret: 1641; QuackGuru: 630; Cloudjpk: Not available but has edited at the article a bit 141.; Doc James: 490; BMK: 0; CFCF: 151; Jytdog: 91; Bishonen: 0; Levelledout: 233; InfiniteBratwurst: 10 (relatively new w/ 77 total edits); Johnuniq: 13; Robert McClenon: 0; Formerly 98: 148; Winkelvi: 0; Kingofaces43: 3 (RFC and RSN post replies); AniMate: 0; Cardamon: 0; JzG: 0 ; A1candidate: 22; Kevin Gorman: 0; Two kinds of pork: 0; Cullen328: 0; Atsme: 0; Zad68: 203; Middle 8: 0; RexxS: 0; BoboMeowCat: 0; John: 0; Softlavender: 0; Collect: 0; EllenCT: 84.
Obviously I'm not suggesting to ignore those involved, but I always lose track of who's actually been involved in the article whenever this comes up here, at RSN, etc. Figured it might be helpful for others trying gauge the situation too. If not, just more text and numbers for the wall. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the same data presented in a different way:
BMK (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I wanted to try to keep it as condensed as possible, but I normally don't tinker with tables here, so I didn't think of that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wonder why you left Cloudjpk's data out? They have 112 edits (80.576% of mainspace edits) to e-cig articles and 176 edits (100% of talk space edits) to those articles talks. In total 83.965% of Cloudjpk's edits have been to e-cigarette articles. Significantly more than even AlbinoFerret. SPACKlick (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The edit count cool was acting really wonky when I tried to search Cloudjpk's history. It essentially said the user had no edits whatsoever yesterday, which I knew was incorrect. Today it looks like it is working now. No idea what causes that, but I've heard to tool can act funny sometimes. I've updated the info on my post and made the minor change to BMK's table as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am involved in the articles, but not to the extent the raw numbers show. On average it takes 4 or more edits on a comment for me to get it right. I seldom make a perfect edit or comment and leave. Any view of the histories will show this. I think that numbers only tell part of the story. AlbinoFerret 22:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are not "involved" in the articles, you are ***INVOLVED*** with the articles. Articles on e-cigarettes make up the first (Electronic cigarette - 466 edits, 55.47% of your total article edits), second (Safety of electronic cigarettes - 82 edits, 9.7%} and fifth (Legal status of electronic cigarettes - 23 edits, 2.7%) in the list of articles you've edited most, making up a total of 67.97% of your article edits. The list of article talk pages you've edited has Talk:Electronic cigarette as #1, with 1641 edits, 69.35% of your talk page edits, Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes as #2 (293, 12.38%), Talk:Legal status of electronic cigarettes as #5 (72, 3.04%), for a total of 85.08% of your talk page edits (that includes 7 other edits on the subject in archives.)

These numbers -- 67.07% of article edits and 85.08% of article talk page edits -- most certainly live in SPA territory. It's clear what subject you're here to edit, and crystal what your position is on it. That's the "obvious advocacy" that several very experienced editors have commented on, and that's why a topic ban is appropriate. BMK (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your label as a SPA. I tend to post more to articles I'm interested in, nothing strange there. Your raw numbers tell nothing and I disagree with the spin. I would also like to point out that slightly over half of my editing is on talk pages. Discussing and trying to make the articles better. If you take into account the number of edits I make to a specific edit or comment, it isnt that large. You seem to have some attraction to this section, and seem to post an awful lot here. AlbinoFerret 01:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My calculations show that AlbinoFerret has made over 2890 edits on the topic of e-cigs to talk pages (or noticeboards) since 30 September 2014—over 17 talk-page edits per day for 164 days. That is beyond enthusiasm and is unhealthy for other editors, particularly in a contentious topic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those were to the same comment or edit? How many editors you are comparing me to are disabled and sit at their computer because they cant easily leave the house? AlbinoFerret 01:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AlbinoFerret: If QuackGuru cannot, and should not, bring up your physical status in his arguments, then you, also, should not cite it as a mitigating factor -- not that it makes any difference, really. Presumably you have the same difficulties while editing an article or talk page on e-cigarettes as you do when editing an article or talk page on some other subject, so the percentages I cited above, which are not "raw numbers" -- 67.07% of article edits and 85.08% of article talk page edits on the subject of electronic cigarettes -- have nothing whatsoever to do with your physical state. Please don't bring up that red herring again. BMK (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thats wrong, QuackGuru made harassing statements about my disability. But its a fact of life, one you obviously dont want discussed because it shows that your numbers have no basis for comparison. What you have are large numbers and innuendo. Please point me to the policy or guideline that speaks on the number of posts one is allowed to make.
They are raw numbers because they dont take into account the number of edits I make to the same comment or edit. Your comments are bordering very close on harassment if not going over the line by trying to say that my physical status has no bearing on my editing here. It is something you cant possibly have knowledge of.
Number of posts do not equal advocacy. AlbinoFerret 02:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not understand percentages? Unless you edit e-cig articles differently than you edit all other articles, the numbers are not raw, they're relative to your overall output. BMK (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ignored this, I will ask a second time. Please point me to the policy or guideline that speaks on the number of posts one is allowed to make. Number of posts do not equal advocacy WP:ADVOCACY neither do percentages. AlbinoFerret 12:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, percentages are a good measure of advocacy (and SPA) by showing that an editor is focusing too much on one topic. Using a percentage would account for your tendency to make copy edits and simply show what area you edit the most relative to your total contributions here. There's really no arguing with those numbers. Physical disability should be playing no role in this specific conversation because it should not be making you focus so much on one topic like this. It's one thing to have a lot of time available (which we've discussed on my talk page), but it's that your time is concentrated into one area that is the problem people have repeatedly brought up here. Maybe you're not seeing that, but BMK is actually being pretty well reasoned above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that I am editing an article that is interesting to me, and that some people want me to edit other articles more. Where might I find the policy or guideline that says you must edit x number of articles? I dont think editing articles that dont intrest me is something that should be forced. When I find a subject I find interesting, I edit the article. But I think you are misapplying advocacy. Advocacy isnt posting to much to one article. AlbinoFerret 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a break, AlbinoFerret. A lot of my edits consist of correcting my own typos or copy editing my own comments to make my thoughts clearer. That is common. But any objective uninvolved editor can look at the totality of my edits, and they will conclude that I am a generalist editor. Then, they can look at the totality of your edits, and they will see with crystal clarity that you are here to advance a certain point of view about e-cigarettes. Please do not try to deny what is obvious to any intelligent objective person. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they show I post a lot. I have been editing Bitcoin for a month and have made 216 edits to the page and talk page. About 7 a day, when I am interested in a topic, I post and discuss it and try and improve the article. I am not here to advance a specific point of view on e-cigarettes, and the number of posts doesnt prove that. (added afterwards - This no intelligent person is starting to sound like No True Scotsman argument) AlbinoFerret 02:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not interested in marginal topics like e-cigarettes and bitcoins, so I don't feel like reading this megillah. Can you show me a link where QuackGuru harassed you about your stated handicap? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you asked, its easly found under his topic with plenty of discussion on the topic, but you can find it here. AlbinoFerret 03:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bugs: See the section above this. My synopsis: QuackGuru make a remark that he absolutely shouldn't have, was roundly criticized for it by editors from all sides, and got warned by an admin who told him if he did it again he'd be blocked. The End.

Oh, wait a minute... the e-cig and fringe science advocates seized on it as a sideshow to distract everyone from the proposed topic ban against AlbinoFerret, inserted a new section calling for QuackGuru to be blocked above the topic-ban section, out of chronological order (so innocent editors would come across it first) and have been trying their best ever since to whip up a frenzy to block QG, not only because he is one of the stalwart editors preventing fringe science from infecting WP, but because it helps keep people from focusing on the topic ban necessary to prevent AlbinoFerret from continuing his advocacy for e-cigarettes. Up there (the section above) is a sideshow, down here is the real deal. BMK (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru's comment was rude and condescending, and shouldn't have been said. But it's possible he's thinking back on some users we've had who claimed to be handicapped (ItsLassieTime comes to mind) and it was one of that prolific sockpuppeteer's many lies. So it's not unreasonable to have suspicions like that. But it's best to keep those suspicions to oneself until or if an appropriate time arises. However, disabled users shouldn't expect any special treatment, and in fact they probably ought not even bring up the subject. "TMI". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's better for people to keep unsavory information like that in the closet.[sarcasm] Or, wild idea, we could afford people with disabilities reasonable accommodations (as is done in many civilized places to varying degrees) and not be dicks to them, including not engaging in "disability policing". --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about keeping "unsavory" information "in the closet". It's about not using one's handicap as an excuse. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, AlbinoFerret didn't bring up his disability in such a way as to suggest he should be excused for anything. If I recall correctly, QC did bring up AFs disability, and did it in a manner that was intended to discredit AF, distract, and wave a red herring like a giant flag at a sporting event. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that, that's just an example or scenario that can happen and it's why users ought not be bragging/complaining about their handicaps. QG seems to have seen something in Ferret's comments that suggested he might not actually be handicapped, and the memories of abusive users like ItsLassieTime may have overwhelmed QG's good sense at that point. There are better ways to explore that question than QG did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw what happened when it happened. QG did it to discredit AF. What's more, AF has never "bragged" about having a disability. It doesn't matter what QG saw/thought/or had a memory of. His comments were beyond the pale and WAY out of line. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, AF has been mentioning their disability in what appears to be justification for the editing habits not too far above. [56]. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
off-topic discussion of User:QuackGuru; belongs in subsection above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh, wait a minute... the e-cig and fringe science advocates seized on it as a sideshow to distract everyone from the proposed topic ban against AlbinoFerret Have you actually read the discussion above? QG is a problem editor. People seized the discussion of a problem with QG to advocate trying to fix the problem with QG, some people leapt on the one comment (That I personally think should have been a straight 48 hour block but it's now dealt with) Others are discussing his edit history and while there may be some fringe science and e-cig advocates in there, there are also editors who want to see articles present accurate sourced information in readable English rather than garbled walls of repetitive text. The original post was about QG. QG tried to use boomerang to distract from the issue of his own editing behaviour.SPACKlick (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've concluded that the best way to have any productive discussion of QG's conduct -- or that of any disruptive editor who is perceived as being on the "right" side of content disputes -- is for anybody perceived as being a fringe-sympathizer to refrain from calling for sanctions. (Sorry for shouting in bold itals; I didn't want BMK to feel alone in using that style ;-).) Go ahead and collect diffs and present them; just keep it as uncomplicated, neutrally-presented and red-herring free as possible, and let others decide what to do with it (and needless to say, let someone else initiate the process: this needs to be done properly and not rushed). That will pre-empt the incorrect/disingenuous/GAME-y objection that "it's just fringe-pushers who want him sanctioned".
AFAIK this has never been tried before. There are, IMO/IME, just enough objective editors on WP that some will still look at the evidence fairly and !vote accordingly. And if none do, it can be fairly assumed that it really is only fringe-pushers who want sanctions. In QG's case it has always, from the very beginning, been about 50% perceived-fringe editors and 50% perceived-neutral ones calling for sanctions.
It really is true that the louder perceived-fringers complain, the stronger QG's position becomes, and this will only get worse with time (as will QG's shenanigans as he becomes emboldened: we're already seeing this with five warnings in three months). The community really should have learned this in the past from similarly disruptive/woo-bashing editors (whom I'm not going to mention by name now because they're more or less behaving themselves). The philosophically-inclined should ponder wu wei. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 13:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a reminder, this section is about imposing a topic ban on AlbinoFerrett due to his obvious advocacy in the 67.07% of his article edits and 85.08% of article talk page edits on the subject of electronic cigarettes. BMK (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ignored this above, I will ask a third time. Please point me to the policy or guideline that speaks on the number of posts one is allowed to make. Number of posts do not equal advocacy WP:ADVOCACY neither do percentages. But since you like percentages, the edits above that QuackGuru posted to try and show a problem account for only 0.02% of my edits to e-cigarette articles.. Those edits were reasoned, discussed, and not the product of advocacy. AlbinoFerret 17:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support topic ban. Even assuming that AlbinoFerret's conduct is not advocacy, the edits linked above and conduct in this discussion suggest that some distance from this topic may have a healing effect on someone with a lot of energy and dedication to give to editing Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support topic ban as a clear example of persistent advocacy. Moral support for whoever has to read all the way to the end of this whole huge mess of a thread. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support topic ban, for a month at minimum, for advocacy and so that AlbinoFerret can move on from this and contribute to the project. All the time we are wasting arguing here is time that we are not spending helping Wikipedia expand. Based on his actions and the personal attacks made over this, I don't think that AlbinoFerret can contribute in a neutral way to the E-cigarettes article, for now at least. Iwilsonp (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (involved editor) Originally i intended not to comment, because the pile-up of involved editors was already bad. But now it seems that i have to: By !voting to topicbanning AF, on the premises presented, we are creating an environment where editors will not dare to disagree with editors like QG, no matter how wellfounded the arguments to disagree are, or how little QG actually responds to good faith objections on the talk-page. We are also sending the signal that: Do not dare to only edit areas that you are interested in, because you will get banned. Do remember that being an SPA is not against policy, being interested in a topic is also not against policy..... Because no matter how we slice and dice it, the main argument here is not that AF is breaking our editing policies, or his POV, but instead that he is not conforming to some editors view of how multifacetted you must be to pass the bar. This is not the encyclopedia that anyone can edit anymore ... it is the encyclopedia for people who conform to certain characteristics. --Kim D. Petersen 11:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I do not see policy violations to back up a ban. --Kim D. Petersen 11:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hatting discussion no longer relevant with indef blocking of sock BMK (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
comment removed per WP:EVADE
You've only been here since December. How do you know anything about someone's alleged "long history" of anything? Unless you used to edit under a different ID? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment removed per WP:EVADE
Since you have no more than 100 edits in your two-plus months here, many of which appear to be advocating for e-cigarettes, I assume the rest of your time here has been to try to figure out how to get rid of a user who stands in your way? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment removed per WP:EVADE
I'll take that as an affirmative. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment removed per WP:EVADE
Keep telling yourself that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment removed per WP:EVADE
You might check this out There is a bug in the visual editor. One of the reasons I stopped using it was because it was so buggy on my Linux distribution. If you look at the history instead of doing a date to date search, each of those edits comes up with the "Visual editor" tag on the edit comments. There is nothing between those tags, its basically a tag and another closing tag with no text. This is a AGF problem, nothing between the tags, not asking me about it anywhere, and it the result of a bug in the editor, but right away jumping to negative motives. AlbinoFerret 19:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something interesting. If we accept for the moment, for the sake of argument, the premise that "involved" editors, from both camps, are too prejudiced to cast a !vote in a neutral fashion, then we should look more closely at the opinions of the presumably uninvolved editors, the ones who have no or very few edits to the e-cig talk page.

As our data source we can Use Kingofaces43 list above, and add to it the four !votes which have been posted since: Mendaliv (0 edits), Opabinia regalis (0), Iwilsonp (0) and Kim D. Petersen (780). We throw out all the high-numbered editors, which leaves us with thisL

  • Oppose - 8, including three based on procedure or venue
  • Support - 15, including one "very weak support"

So of the presumably uninvolved editors who !voted, 65% (15/23) are in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. If you want to throw out all the editors with any edits at all, that takes away 2 supports and 2 opposes (13/19) for a 68%. True, one of the supports is "very weak", but bear in mind that three of the opposes are based on procedure or venue, and not on the merits of the case. Throw those out (the "very weak" and the procedurals) and you've got 80% (12/15).

So it seems anyway you slice it, the uninvolved editors are in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret.

But what about an overall state of the discussion, counting all editors whether they're involved or not? Then you've got 21 support !votes and 13 oppose !votes. That's a 62% majority in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret, not all that different from the percentage of the uninvolved editors.

Of course, the closing admin -- and I really think it had better be an admin in this case -- doesn't count the votes (or, at least, doesn't just count the votes), they evaluate the strength of the various arguments as well. I'm well aware of that, so there's no need to remind me. But the count is still helpful as it gives a thumbnail representation of the state of play at this moment. BMK (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • InfiniteBratwurst has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of FergusM1970. Therefore, these results change:
  • All uninvolved editors: 68% (15/22) in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret
  • All editors commenting: 64% (21/33) in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret
With no new recent comments, I believe it's coming to the point where an uninvolved admin should closely evaluate this sub-thread and determine whether a consensus exists for levying a topic ban concerning electronic cigarettes on AlbinoFerret, due to his obvious advocacy in favor of a pro-e-cig POV. BMK (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is strong support for a topic ban. Numerous editors support a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. For example, please read the comments above by User:Cloudjpk, User:Doc James, User:CFCF, User:Jytdog, User:Bishonen , User:Johnuniq, User:Formerly 98, User:Cardamon, User:JzG, User:Kevin Gorman, User:Cullen328 User:Zad68, User:RexxS, User:Softlavender, User:Mendaliv. Only a voluntary break from the topic area is against the community consensus. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret. QuackGuru (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru, You've had your say. Please don't WP:Bludgeon. I took the liberty of removing the <big> tags from your comment. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret

edit
Not helpful ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Of course KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. That's because User:KimDabelsteinPetersen has also made many controversial edits to the safety of electronic cigarettes page. Let's review some of KimDabelsteinPetersen's recent edits.
Revision as of 13:05, 30 January 2015 This edit deleted text and sources from two reputable organisations. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Positions. The sources are reliable per WP:MEDORG. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Discussion on positions. The sources are reliable per WP:SNOW according to the current discussion.
Revision as of 13:11, 30 January 2015 This edit deleted text and sources from two reputable organisations again.
Revision as of 11:20, 26 January 2015 This edit mainly deleted text from a formal policy statement written in a peer-reviewed journal.
Revision as of 19:20, 7 February 2015 This edit mainly deleted text from a review and text from reputable organizations.
Revision as of 06:27, 25 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS.
Revision as of 10:00, 25 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
Revision as of 22:47, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
Revision as of 23:46, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again. KimDabelsteinPetersen does not see policy violations to back up a ban. KimDabelsteinPetersen, aren't you also deleting a lot of sources against WP:MEDRS? This diff shows AlbinoFerret is making many counterproductive edits and deleting of a lot of reliable sources. KimDabelsteinPetersen is also deleting a lot of reliable sources which suggests he/she is promoting a certain favorable POV for e-cigs. Should KimDabelsteinPetersen also be topic banned? KimDabelsteinPetersen has earned a topic ban from the e-cig pages IMO. Does the community prefer a topic ban for KimDabelsteinPetersen for 6 months or one year, an indef topic ban, or just a warning or no action? QuackGuru (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can I assume from the title, that is "KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret", that the intention is to punish KDP for voting the wrong way by topic banning them? There is no wrongdoing in the diffs you've provided I'm afraid, most of them appear to be reverts on the basis that ongoing talk page discussions, RFCs, have not yet concluded or principles such as WP:BRD, all valid ones of course.Levelledout (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret because he/she is also making a number of controversial edits, including deleting numerous reliable sources that he thinks was okay to delete at the time. But it is not reasonable to continue to delete pertinent information about of the safety of e-cigarettes. Both KimDabelsteinPetersen and AlbinoFerret are the main problem editors IMO. There is also a discussion at Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Removal of mammoth edit. No reasonable argument has been made to delete so many reliable sources after over a week. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community authorized discretionary sanctions for Electronic cigarette articles

edit
While the numbers in this discussion are fairly close (19 supports to 13 opposes), I find that there is a consensus to enact community sanctions in this topic area. Both in the supports and the opposes, most editors agree that there is disruption in the e-cig topic area and that something needs to be done about it. The supporters are fairly unified in saying that sanctions are needed to contain the disruption.

The opposers are mostly focused on the fact that they don't feel community sanctions are appropriate to contain the disruption, either because they feel an ArbCom case would be better, or because they would disadvantage established editors, or because they would give admins too much latitude. Given that the vast majority of commenters here feel that there is disruption in the topic area, and that a majority of commenters are in favour of sanctions, the consensus here seems to be to enact the sanctions.

There was some concern about not accepting community sanctions without a "sunset clause". For this reason, I am altering the wording of the sanctions to allow blocks of only up to one year in length. The limit of one year was suggested in the discussion, and is also the same as in ArbCom's discretionary sanctions.

The sanctions to be imposed are as follows:

The community authorizes general sections for all articles related to electronic cigarettes, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working within this topic if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to: page bans, topic bans, semi-protection, pending changes protection, or blocks of up to one year for any editor so warned. Sanctions issued under this authority must be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Electronic cigarettes. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.
This wording means for example, that topic bans can be indefinite in length, but blocks can only be for up to one year. If there is anything I have missed in the wording of the sanctions, editors are welcome to discuss it with me on my talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed: The community authorizes discretionary sections for all articles related to electronic cigarettes, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working within this topic if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to: page banning, topic banning, semi-protection, pending changes protection, or blocking any editor so warned. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.

  • Support as proposer, and thanks for Hasteur for the verbage. This dispute has devolved, and would benefit from some extra attention to get it sorted out. DS should expedite this process, and, in my mind, is sorely needed. HiDrNick! 20:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does Hasteur support this too? I would think so, given that he edited it for you, but I would like to check. Iwilsonp (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. Sorry, I should have been more clear. I just cribbed his wording from the Gamergate community sanctions. I didn't intend to imply his endorsement. HiDrNick! 21:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well after the fact (no User Pings or talk page notices) Couple points: Make sure there's an appropriate log page to log the warnings/sanctions. Make sure there's a venue for editors to neutrally report what they percieve as violations in the sanctions without calls of ADMIN-shoping. Hasteur (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this is not the solution to the ongoing deletion of reliable sources. Admins don't need this to topic ban an editor anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposed, as E-cigs are in any case a contentious enough subject that this kind of dispute is liable to flare up between another few editors (not just QuackGuru and AlbinoFerret) in the future, and this would let an admin deal with it without this sort of mess all over ANI. Iwilsonp (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although I suspect it will end up at WP:RFAR before it's over. — Ched :  ?  22:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unfortunately this is unlikely to lead to anything substantial. There are a number of WP:SPA or near-SPA accounts involved and this would only limit the time needed to address issues, but the problem would still remain. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The proposed discretionary sanctions could be avoided with an immediate block of QuackGuru for multiple counts of disruptive behavior in the above sections. If discretionary sanctions are authorized, it is likely that QG will look for a new topic area to disrupt and antagonize a new group of editors before being brought back to this noticeboard, as has happened countless times in the past. -A1candidate 22:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have proof of meat puppetry among these articles. We know that the e-cig manufacturers are unhappy with the medical community's position on the known and unknown health effects and safety of e-cig. One advocacy group has contacted my university to attack me personally. We need to make sure that we uphold high quality sources. Not sure if this will make that easier or harder since some involved are using throw away accounts / SPA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have proof that AlbinoFerret, or any of QG's perceived opponents, have engaged in meat puppetry? Most probably not. -A1candidate 22:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes User:FergusM1970 linked to his twitter feed which include his efforts at meat puppetry Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not sure this will help . Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I only recall discretionary sanctions being put in place by ArbCom, I can't recall a solo admin or the community doing it. Can someone provide a precedent where the community placed discretionary sanctions on a subject? (Not that the lack of precedent necessarily means it can't be done, but it would certainly make it easier to stand up, should this receive a consensus.) BMK (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing! You're looking for Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community-authorised_sanctions. HiDrNick! 01:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That was very helpful. BMK (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - After careful reconsideration of the issue, I am changing my !vote based primarily on the comment of Robert McClenon and some of the information provided by Bishonen. I still believe, though, that a topic ban for AlbinoFerret would be the best first step in guaranteeing that the e-cig articles are balanced and NPOV, which to me is the primary concern, more so than the "atmosphere" of the editing environment. BMK (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - if editors misbehave despite warnings, then uninvolved admins can sanction them anyway, right? -- so what does this add? Is it a way of saying "don't worry, sanction as needed, it won't be seen as controversial"? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 14:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. For example, without discretionary sanctions (DS), administrators lack the authority to topic ban editors, and may only block editors in a limited set of circumstances outlined in the blocking policy. Once DS are authorized, administrators are given much more latitude to enforce community norms around a particular topic. Furthermore, sanctions placed under DS cannot be undone without a clear community consensus (or a motion of the Arbitration Committee), while ordinary blocks can be lifted by any uninvolved administrator. I think that about sums it up. HiDrNick! 14:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Middle 8, for my money the big difference discretionary sanctions make is that they allow a single uninvolved admin to topic ban an editor (on their own discretion, hence "discretionary" sanctions). Much easier than schlepping the person to ANI and trying to raise consensus for a topic ban, indeed perhaps a bit too easy in this case. I'm dubious about instituting DS here. Admins should probably be more ready to block disruptive editors in the area, something they can do without DS. (Take that as a weak oppose.) Bishonen | talk 22:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support - There have been too many threads about electronic cigarette, and community discretionary sanctions will work as well as ArbCom discretionary sanctions to get a few contentious editors off the article. If the community doesn't do this, the ArbCom eventually will, because this will eventually go to the ArbCom if the community doesn't impose general sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Robert McClenon's arguments above. I still think that ANI is a fine place to bring clear, well-formed cases for anything related to these articles, but these sanctions should help calm things down. Good thinking! Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it can only improve the environment. All too often things are reremoved or readded without discussion, and discussions are being ignored or answered with non-arguments. And i'm not talking about a particular "side" in this. If the article is to be improved, then it will require editors to cooperate, and seek consensus, instead of acting on their own, and a strong oversight may just force editors to do so. May end up in some blocks/bans - but if that is what it takes, then that is the way forward. --Kim D. Petersen 02:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How on Earth would that constitute a COI with regards to this discussion? --Kim D. Petersen 01:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a possible COI to the electronic cigarettes pages according to your User:KimDabelsteinPetersen#WP:COI statement. This is relevant to this discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we restart? How is that relevant to this particular discussion? Or are you claiming that i have a COI with regards wanting discretionary sanctions? Are you sure you are thinking this through? --Kim D. Petersen 02:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. I left a message on your talk page earlier. We can continue that discussion if you want. QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Weak support partially agree with KimDabelsteinPetersen. I also think that anything is likely to be better than some of stuff that has been going on at ANI recently which doesn't reflect well on any of the involved parties. However Striking my initial weak support for an oppose in light of comments from Middle 8 and Bishonen. Was never quite sure about this, but in light of those comments I agree and don't think that this would be the best way to proceed. Whilst there are probably one or two problem editors out there that no doubt need dealing with, I'm no longer convinced that ANI does not remain the better method for doing this. I also would have thought that getting the involved parties to work together would be just as important. Which would perhaps mean article restrictions in addition to editor restrictions such as a 1RR rule for instance.Levelledout (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notification. I started an ArbCom discussion. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground on e-cig articles. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(That request has since been declined.) HiDrNick! 12:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support E-cigarette is a battleground. It will remain so for a long time because of content disagreements and lack of discussion. The main article has been protected multiple times. When its protected very little discussion happens, and edits are stockpiled for the next round of problems. AlbinoFerret 03:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per AlbinoFerret. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Unless the tide changes, it looks as if this thread is moving towards a consensus in favor of community-imposed discretionary sanctions. I would like, however, to address the closer of this thread: please do not be tempted to think that closing this in favor of that consensus -- if that is what you find -- obviates the results of the sub-thread above concerning a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. That is, if there is a consensus in that thread for a topic ban -- and I believe there is -- it should be enacted, whether or not discretionary sanctions are approved or not in this thread. Failing to impose a topic ban if there is a consensus for one simply puts off the problem to another time, and possibly yet another repeat of this discussion. True, discretionary sactions would allow an individual admin to impose a topic ban on AlbinoFerret if the admin thought it was required, but the mere possibility of that occurring in the future should not negate a community consensus for a topic ban for AlbinoFerret here and now. BMK (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The difficulties with these articles are intractable at the moment and the editing environment is uncollaborative. Community-authorised discretionary sanctions will be insufficient, because of all the AGF and second chances and other handwringing that drives away editors with good judgment and maintains our high levels of Dunning-Kruger effect across the encyclopaedia, but they're probably better than nothing.—S Marshall T/C 13:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Where do editors report an editor who is causing problems when the community-imposed discretionary sanctions are enacted? QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that any admin can impose sanctions under DS, so I suppose you can either bring it to an admin of your choice, or you can post a thread on AN/I. BMK (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications & sanctions will be logged on a subpage of Wikipedia:General_sanctions. Since any uninvolved admin can impose sanctions, you can bring it up here or ask an admin directly. HiDrNick! 23:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, because this will not get to the root of the problem, which is the number of relentless obvious WP:SPA e-cig manufacturer advocates (one of whom has already been banned from Wikipedia, period) who have infiltrated the articles and made them impossible to edit constructively without constant disruption. The most egregious of the lot is AlbinoFerret, whose entire edit history from September 30, 2014 to present speaks for itself. The problem is not the "toxicity of the atmosphere", or the fact that the SPAs have made it a "battleground", but rather the problem is the (paid) SPAs themselves, and the solution is weeding out and eliminating (via permanent topic-banning, indeffing, or community banning) the clearly paid advocates. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Very weak oppose per Softlavender. I do think admin attention can be good at the article, but I don't think discretionary sanctions will address the core problem here. Sanctions are good for addressing acute misbehavior that's readily identifiable such as incivility, edit warring, etc. I would be concerned sanctions just end up banning whoever slips up slightly first without addressing the real problem. What's going on here is more systemic WP:TENDENTIOUS and advocacy-like behavior that isn't readily identifiable by outside editors without taking a close look at each user's overall behavior in discussions and cannot easily be summarized in a few diffs. That being said, I am overall neutral on community discretionary sanctions, but just with the caveat that the underlying issues will likely not be addressed by the sanctions, but hopefully stem the tide at best. If the sanctions are intended as an actual solution, I think that would become a distraction. Short of an WP:RfCU type look at certain users here (I don't think ANI is structured enough for that), ArbCom seems to be the only other option to really sort things out at that level at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has gone on long enough. This is something at least, so I'm changing to weak support. My above caveat on needing to really look at long-term behavior still needs to be considered though as an admin is going to really need to scrutinize a lot of prior posts to establish problems in the history of the articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reflected on this a it more. The core problem of advocacy or just POV issues isn't going to to be solved admin oversight, but either the community looking closely at individual editor behavior or ArbCom doing it. Direct admin attention seems to work for acute issues which aren't the main problem here, but not the tougher to pin down behaviors. Since that appears to be the primary problem here, I don't see discretionary sanctions justifiable or addressing the real issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The editors at this article are not the problem. It is the subject itself that is controversial. Having discretionary sanctions in this article would not be effective because a significant number of single purpose accounts edit at this article. Applying sanctions on an article where highly experienced Wikipedians edit as single purpose accounts is not effective in controlling controversy because the editors using them are not invested in protecting the reputations associated with those accounts or in using them long-term to build an online identity. It can be right to use WP:SPAs, and I am not critiquing the use of WP:SPAs or suggesting that anything inappropriate, like socking, is even happening here. I am only suggesting that the Wikipedia community gives a bit more weight and protection to established users with established accounts with varied history of participation, as opposed to limited use accounts managed by talented editors. Sanctions is a tool for controlling established accounts, and not for SPAs. Its use here would empower SPAs and disempower established accounts, which is not a desirable outcome in this space. Taking no action to control the e-cigarettes space is an acceptable response to the controversy. The controversy can persist in this space as it has been for months. Blue Raspberry (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure I'm understanding the logic of those who write that the behavior in the topic area is bad, or that the subject area is controversial and generates SPAs, but then vote to oppose discretionary sanctions which would give admins the tools necessary to deal with bad behavior (from anyone) and to reign in the e-cig advocates. This is especially odd to me because if community-imposed discretionary sanctions are not implemented here, it's more than likely that someone will request an ArbCom case, which will be opened this time because the community has failed to act, and the result of that will almost certainly be, among other actions, ArbCom-imposed discretionary sanctions. So, in the end, the probability of there being discretionary sanctions for the e-cigarette topic area seems pretty high, in my opinion. BMK (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll clarify, but based on where I've seen discretionary sanctions work, it seems to be when specific diffs can be pointed out as problematic. I don't think a single admin overseeing the articles would be suited for the specific behavior problems discussed here though that require a close look at long-term behavior. Looking over the definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS, how do you think an admin would identify tendentious or advocacy-like behavior compared to easier things to identify like incivility? To me, that doesn't really seem like a judgement call for an admin can easily make (I could be convinced otherwise), but rather for a comprehensive case about the editor to be examined either here or by ArbCom. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, an effective AN/I thread in a non-DS topic which will convince an admin to close it with sanctions to the subject party takes a lot of time and the input of a lot of people. An ArbCom case takes even more time, although the number of participants is typically smaller. Both of these methodologies are generally inefficient at taming a wild subject area -- in fact, ArbCom results can engender more hassles, although they tend to shift to the Arbitration Enforcement area. With discretionary sanctions in place, however, admins can more easily put a stop to misbehavior with non-draconian blocks and bans leading (if necessary) to harsher sanctions. It empowers every admin to use their best judgement under the circumstances, which means that more gets done, and gets done faster. If, as everyone seems to agree (but for different reasons) the e-cigarette subject area needs to be brought under control, discretionary sanctions are an extremely efficient tool to get that done. BMK (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Inasmuch as the Arbitration Committee has deferred to the community, at least for now, it seems this is the only reasonable way to deal with the probems. JodyB talk 02:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've already voted to support in your previous post. Why are you voting again? -A1candidate 09:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, my oversight. I've stricken it above. JodyB talk 10:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -A1candidate 23:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant to this discussion. Start a new thread if you'd like. BMK (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is relevant because it is evidence of the complete futility of these proposed sanctions. Feel free to disagree, but don't remove or modify my comments. -A1candidate 01:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not relevant because this thread is about providing admins the tools to deal with any editor who misbehaves in this topic area, and not about the current misbehavior (if it is that) of any specific editor. If you've still got a thing about getting QG blocked or sanctioned or whatever, even after the effort failed just above, and you think his current behavior warrants it, then start another thread, but don't try to hijack this one. BMK (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question If this passes, do people have an opinion on how long the sanctions should last? Presumably the topic should become less controversial with time as new and reliable studies come out, but I have no idea what that timeframe is. I think "indefinite" is kind of a default for this kind of stuff, but I thought it would be good to at least ask what people think about an expiration date. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC) pinging User:HiDrNick 16:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say six months would be the absolute minimum, but that a year would be more likely to be helpful in waiting for the research to catch up to the questions. BMK (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may not be necessary to have proposed sanctions. This was an overreaction to the above threads IMO. We can try one month if there is consensus for the sanctions. I think three months would be the most. QuackGuru (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A year is the default in most cases, and given the duration of the dispute already I say we go with that. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure where you're getting that conclusion from. Right now, just on pure count, I see 14 supports and 8 opposes, which is 64% (63.63). In any case, if there is no consensus for community-based sanctions, as you contend, then there will be no community-based sanctions, not for a month, not for any amount of time. BMK (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I oppose this without a sunset clause. (Note also that admins effectively have the ability to take these types of actions without DS.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC).
  • True, but most admins are loathe to hand out topic bans etc. without the support of discretionary sanctions either from the community or from ArbCom. (Incidentally, 1 year of DS is a "sunset clause", so why isn't your vote "support - 1 year"?) BMK (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the opposing position seems to be based on the fact that sanctions probably won't fix anything but the worst I can see them doing is not being used. They certainly won't make it worse. SPACKlick (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Community authorized discretionary sanctions will allow any uninvolved administrator to topic ban an editor who is disrupting the e-cig article(s) without first seeking consensus here at ANI. More accurately, if this passes it shows that there already is consensus at ANI for such a topic ban. And of course if an admin misuses DS we have procedures in place for dealing with that. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment based on Bluerasberry's comment and Doc James' oppose, I wonder if the best alternative might be to full protect the article for a good long while, processing new edits through consensus on the talk page. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Electronic cigarette is already fully protected until March 30, but there's also Safety of electronic cigarettes and Legal status of electronic cigarettes to consider. Certainly these could be fully protected as well, but that puts the onus on admins to judge whether every suggested edit has consensus behind it. Surely it's better to allow free editing of these articles, and let admins sort out who is being disruptive from who is being helpful in their editing? BMK (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Involved editor) I would support long-term protection of at least the main article and possibly forks as an alternative to discretionary sanctions. We have recently had issues with a user managing to get full-protection removed, almost immediately making large-scale changes including 16 other edits in 2 hours. Then when protection was re-applied, immediately trying to have it removed again (in fact they successfully managed to get the expiry date moved forward to March 30th this time despite opposition from two other editors including myself). Such desperation to have protection removed clearly demonstrates an intention to do something that can't be done with protection instated, most likely grossly violate WP:CONSENSUS. So yes, I think there's a clear requirement for long-term full-protection. At the very least very close long-term monitoring by admins against consensus and edit-warring violations is required but that would not be as straightforward as protection.Levelledout (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Full protection is, generally speaking, a step to be avoided if at all possible, since it's inherently contrary to the Wikipedia ethos of free editing. It also essentially freezes the articles into their current states, as getting a consensus to add or subtract something through the protection is going to be very hard to do, and admins should not accept any suggested edit which does not have a talk page consensus behind it.

Again, I'm not sure why opponents of discretionary sanctions are trotting out other possible solutions when it hasn't been settled whether this one will be put into effect or not. Tallying !votes once more, I see 16 supports and 9 opposes, which means that 64% of the respondents here are in favor of community-imposed discretionary sanctions. That's not a landslide by any means, but it is a healthy supermajority in favor. BMK (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose discretionary sanctions. Too often cudgel for the maintenance of House Point of View... It takes two to tango and I expect the anti-e-cig advocates are every bit as tendentious as the routed pro-e-cig peeps... Carrite (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what about the third possible group, those editors who wish to keep the article neutral and supported by reliable sources in line with MEDRS? What do they do when the pros and the antis are duking it out, making it nest to impossible to edit the articles effectively? BMK (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As written and how written (without any explicit sunset provision). Writing an explicit sunset provision only tells disruptive elements how long they have to wait before they can start being disruptive again. The language that this proposal was cribbed from was specifically designed to not have a sunset provision (i.e. indefinite in the same sense that we have indefinite blocks) because either the sanctions will fall into disuse and forgotten or a WikiHistorian will see that we still have the sanctions on the books and a simple consensus vote to revoke them can be accomplished at a later date when it's clear that the authorization has outlived it's purpose. As it stands right now the e-cig field is far too disruptive in its current state to explicitly state when the sunset will take place. I'd rather have positive action to deprecate the sanctions than positive action necessary to maintain them. Hasteur (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Vaguely worded. Elohim55 (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet of a blocked user. Mike V • Talk 17:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are, of course, free to !vote whatever way you wish, for whatever reason you wish, but this:

    Proposed: The community authorizes discretionary sections for all articles related to electronic cigarettes, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working within this topic if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to: page banning, topic banning, semi-protection, pending changes protection, or blocking any editor so warned. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.'

    is in no respect "vaguely worded." BMK (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with or without sunset, but my preference would be without, with a later discussion to determine if they have served their purpose or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 12:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Admins have enough tools to handle issues already; sanctions seem to promote additional drama more often. ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multi purpose Support/Oppose/Neutral This !vote may be !added to whichever !tally gets this borefest off this page the soonest. By the time we've finished adding DS to anything anybody finds remotely controversial at all we may as well just make it global and have done with it. So I guess that's "oppose" really. When all you have is a hammer, hey, get a bigger hammer. Begoon talk 17:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The only thing that discretionary sanctions do is give more power and discretion to administrators, ability to topic ban, and prevent their actions from being reversed. The topic bans can be issued sparingly by the community. Admins can already block disruptive editors and given the psychological effect of topic bans, I'd prefer that they be given only in community consensus. Admins already have the tools to deal with the disruption in the topic area. If admins can't block disruptive editors without discretionary sanctions, what's the point in the first place? Tutelary (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose strongly From going through the endless discussion it appears to me that there are corporate interests editing the various e-sig pages, paid employees of companies attempting to subvert Wikipedia's WP:NPV guidelines strictly for financial reasons. Imposing sanctions against legitimate editors who are attempting to curb what looks to me to be industry-paid editors are doing to various e-sig articles would be caving in to corporate interests who are pushing their money-driven agenda, and violating a serious Wikipedia guideline. Damotclese (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I restored this accidentally deleted comment which was originally posted by User:Damotclese. I deleted the archived discussion since it was unarchived. QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per Robert McClenon. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To those who oppose can you lay out the downsides of allowing admins more flexibility? While there has been at least one paid editing issue there are NPOV issues on both sides, competence issues on both sides, IDHT, WP:CAUTIOUS and WP:DONTLIKEIT issues on both sides. Stopping some editors from making the page incomprehensible, repetitive and biased in either direction could allow the page to be balanced and the writing improved by those editors who can do so.
Corporate interest in e-cigs isn't one sided. Traditional NRT companies have put out some shockingly bad science anti-ecig just as much as e-cig companies have spun pro-ecig results from dubious data. If I were the dictator of wikipedia I would burn all the articles to the ground and put two editors and an admin in a locked sandbox (for preference probably Doc James, KDP and S Marshall) and have them start again from the ground up. SPACKlick (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Civility Concerns re: Patroller Lukeno94 (with evidence)

edit
NAC: Colton Cosmic is banned by the community from editing Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed where Lukeno94 was speaking very aggressively and engaging with others in an edit war at Billy Mckay. He then went on to report one of those whom he was sparring, Khanyusufkhalil, on an inexplicable charge of vandalism (he points only to this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Mckay&diff=prev&oldid=654093706), and an entirely unexplained charge of sockpuppetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=654093949). I am concerned particularly because Khanyusufkhalil seem to be a non-native English speaker participant, and we don't just to drive such people off with hostile insider behavior. Here are Lukeno94's quotes, which I believe to be uncivil, or at minimum, unnecessarily aggressive. Caps added:

"Lukeno94 moved page Billy McKay to Billy Mckay over redirect: reverting move - STUPID reason for moving back in the first place, Wigan Athletic profile is clearly at Mckay."

"Lukeno94 moved page Billy McKay to Billy Mckay over redirect: Stop this STUPIDITY! Wigan profile says Mckay. BBC source recently says Mckay. Official twitter page of former club - NOT Mackay's - says, well, Mackay."

"(Lukeno94) Reverted to revision 654043229 by Lukeno94 (talk): Revert disruptive editing by an editor who is, right now, bordering on INCOMPETENT - evidence clearly outweighs their RUBBISH."

"(Lukeno94) Reverted 1 edit by PellèLong (talk): POV pushing in the extreme - it's a ref for the height, not the name. TROLL elsewhere."

All from the Mckay/McKay page history on 29 March (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Mckay&action=history). I don't know how violations of WP:3RR are calculated these days, but someone who does might check if Lukeno94 has done a 3RR violation. Other things of note, no-one else involved is speaking nearly as aggressively. Back to Khanyusufkhalil, I simply don't see any vandalism in his edit history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Khanyusufkhalil) and Lukeno94 doesn't explain his side charge of sockpuppetry at all. It's a serious charge, isn't it? Since Lukeno94 is apparently on a patroller track to adminship, perhaps now in his development would be a good time for an experienced admin to talk to him about treating people better. Colton Cosmic.

Can we have the diffs for the quotes you have mentioned, instead of us having to troll through a load of history to find them. Thanks. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On Billy McKay, I would expect User:Lukeno94 to probably claim he was reverting vandalism, which, as you know, is exempt from WP:3RR. As the fella says, some actual diffs would be helpful though. You should also have notified him on his TP of your AN/I report; that has now been done for you. Cheers. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, it is true I accidentally left out one for five minutes but the diffs are right there for you to click on. The quoted statements are all from the second link, which is the McKay/Mckay edit history for 29 March. I was preparing to notify him at his talkpage, Fortuna, but you raced over and beat me to it. Colton Cosmic.

User continues to censor Murder of Selena

edit

70.60.60.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) censored the sentence of a comparison of Hispanic and White American reactions to the Murder of Selena, which is sourced by several sources. The IP feels strongly against the notion of having any comments about a few members of a community that had a different opinion than that of another community; though looking at the sentence now it could have been worded differently to not have stereotyped White and Europeans as a whole. I have asked the IP directly on his talk page about the issue, he refused and undid my revert. I cannot revert or undo another of his edit so I won't violate the WP:3RR rule. Best, jona(talk) 14:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not censorship. It is a content dispute where you and the IP disagree on what belongs in the article lead. Your use of rollback in your revert here was inappropriate. The IPs edits are not vandalism as defined at WP:VANDALISM and that should have been the only reason it was used in that instance. You need to go to the talk page and discuss the edits not just revert. -- GB fan 15:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the IP was removing an unsourced POV statement, and thus was correct in doing so. And if the OP here uses rollback that way again, it should be taken away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say I agree with your first point. Remember that content in the WP:LEAD generally mostly reflects what's in the article so doesn't necessarily need to be sourced itself. Most of the content that was removed seems to be in the body of the article and sourced. The wording may or may not be problematic, it may be helpful to repeat there source and there is still legitimate debate over whether it belongs in the LEAD, but calling it unsourced seems unfair. In terms of the more general point, I concur entirely with GB fan. Unless I'm missing something, there's no discussion in the talk page about this. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could do with some admin assistance.

edit
Nothing more to do here, creator explained what they were doing and has fixed the situation, page deleted. -- GB fan 15:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Doing my rounds on huggle when I came across an edit to User:Doruk Babalık which redirected it to User:Sapiocrat. I am not sure if this is a legitimate alternative account, one of the most blatantly obvious sock accounts I have ever seen or something else entirely. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be deleted under CSD U2 because User:Doruk Babalık doesn't exist. Epic Genius (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what any of those words mean, but my Wikipedia signature links my name to User:Sapiocrat, and displays my name. Another user tried to link to my name in response, and used my displayed name, which did not resolve to User:Sapiocrat, so I added a redirect. If this was not okay, feel free to remove it. I would appreciate some advice on how to correctly form my wikipedia signature though, so that every user who wishes to link to me can do so easily. Doruk Babalık 14:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So it's simply an alternative name for your account? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sapiocrat, it may be better if you just created an alternate account named User:Doruk Babalık. Epic Genius (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Epic Genius Okay, thank you. Still getting the hang of all this. Apologies. Should I do so after the page User:Doruk Babalık gets deleted? I gather I won't get mentions of notifications that way though. I'll just change my signature. Doruk Babalık 14:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove the CSD request now, if you can create the account. Epic Genius (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, let it get deleted. Just changed my signature to display only my nickname. Sorry for all this trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapiocrat (talk • contribs) 15:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it WP:G7 and WP:U2 based on the above statement. -- GB fan 15:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User talk:Sapiocrat- just to let you know (sorry if you knew already) but under your 'preferences' page, you can change your signature with Wiki-markup whilst keeping your original username- so you can still have both if you want? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese) — Take Two

edit

Abusive user continues evading blocks and disrupting Wikipedia. SLBedit (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with User: Shivanshsinghrajpoot

edit
USER BLOCKED
User blocked for 60 hours for Disruptive editing by Anthony Bradbury. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not sure where to report this. Shivanshsinghrajpoot (talk · contribs) has been disrupting articles on Indian rail (mostly by adding unsourced material in all caps, see here and here for examples), despite being told not to by Widr, Mjroots and Anthony Bradbury. The user has also made zero talkpage edits as well, although English is apparently not their native language. The user's edits, while likely done in good faith, are highly disruptive and are a chore to clean up after. It would be appreciated if someone could take a look at this user, and help sort things out. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 14:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said on my talk page, this is looking like a competence issue. I'd like to try and work with this editor as Indian railway stations are a valid topic, but if he ain't going to co-operate then there's not much we can do other than an indef block. Mjroots (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the account was blocked by Anthony Bradbury. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 00:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block review

edit
Have you stopped blocking the admins yet? Misunderstanding cleared up and Magog the Ogre unblocked. Sam Walton (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Resolved
 – Block was based on a misunderstanding and has been lifted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please take a look at this block of mine (of User:Magog the Ogre) for personal attacks (see User talk:Magog the Ogre#Comment at AE. I've revision deleted the attack as it seemed quite egregious (so admins only sorry, [57]). The main reason I'm asking for a review is that it's a long term user and I want to make sure others agree on the seriousness (including if someone thinks it might have been a good faith joke/metaphor etc.). If there is agreement that either the block or revdel isn't appropriate please feel free to lift/remove. (I might not be available for a few hours, but I'll try to check in). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was equally aghast when I first saw the comment in question. The circumstances (long-term user and admin, clean block log) seem to favor a redact + warning, but the (IMO) comment itself is severely insidious enough that my own kneejerk reaction would'e also been RevDel + block. Unless it's a really shitty metaphor that went waaaay over my head, I think the block is absolutely appropriate, and so will be the unblock-request-with-apologies I'm hoping we'll be able to accept soon. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per Fut.Perf's enlightening comment, I did indeed miss the reference entirely -- I wasn't familiar with this apparently common analogy for a loaded question. I still think it's kind of a shitty way to make one's point, but y'know, to each their own arguments. Apologies to Magog for jumping to conclusions but I'm actually glad to be wrong in this case. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from the guy who may or may not have finished beating his wife: Future Perfect is correct about the meaning of the expression and I understood it that way. I thought that Magog's reply was unnecessarily rude, but I can take some rudeness and would have argued against the block if I'd seen it before it was undone. I might hold the record for surviving in the Middle East part of Wikipedia (over 13 years, almost 11 as admin), from which you can infer that I don't have a thin skin.Zerotalk 09:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
edit
Thief has promised to return them when he finds where his cat has hidden them. --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I note that at least three, and possibly four, pieces of the logo are missing, including on this very page. I haven't been able to identify the culprits, but must insist that they be community banned (if they aren't too good of content contributors to ban, of course). Any help or advice with this matter would be appreciated. It makes the site look bad to be unable to recover the missing pieces. Pakaran 10:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have them. I borrowed them a while back and forgot to return them. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oh, I fully intend on returning them as soon as I find out where the cat has hidden them. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Quest For Knowledge

edit

A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone tell him to not remove people's talkpage comments just because he thinks it's a BLP violation?

[59]

I reverted his asshole move and added a citation showing the problem with Curry's lack of understanding of statistics in that regard.

jps (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you issued a blanket putdown of a living person, I'd say Quest was right in removing it. BLP violations are not allowed on talk pages. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but WP:BLPTALK seems to say that it applies to unsourced or poorly sourced claims. Are you saying my source isn't good? jps (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, weren't you banned from ANI, Bugs? jps (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, he wasn't. BMK (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shame, that. jps (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A year or two ago, I was asked to cut back here, which I have. You, I've never heard of before, and given your gratuitous attack, I'd just as soon it had stayed that way. As to the actual issue, it was unsourced, i.e. no better than one editor's personal opinion. If he's provided a valid source, that could be different. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bugs: He was "Science Apologist" (and a bunch of other names, not all of which are on this list, apparently. BMK (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do recall that user ID, though I don't recall being on his enemies list. I'll just take it as an April 1 joke. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has Wikipedia really fallen so low as to say that editors cannot add opinions about living people to talkpages unless they're positive? Even if these opinions are verifiably held by reliable sources and they are directly relevant to issues of accuracy and fact associated with claims. On the talkpage? Has BLP zealotry become the orthodox faith of this website? jps (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was unsourced. If you've sourced it now, you're on firmer ground. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What BLP violation? Caden cool 02:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's one thing to say "X is a child molester" or to post unverified blog material alleging that, and another to say "X doesn't understand Y." I see no BLP issue here. This looks more like an effort to censor discussion. Refactoring talk pages should be done with caution. Coretheapple (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree more. Discussion of sources would be totally crippled if people questioning sources were constantly being refactored on the basis of trumped-up BLP issues. Coretheapple (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no BLP violation here, but I can see how it could be perceived as such. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this one of the April Fool's threads? I think I'm pretty strict on BLP issues, and criticizing the quality of someone's scholarship is not a BLP violation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is a violation, when it's done without a source. The refactoring was proper. When it was added back with a source, that was also fine. Ivanvector (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? This is not an article. This is a talk page. jps (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do a little experiment: "Tony Abbot has said stupid things." Is that a BLP violation?
Now: "Tony Abbot has said stupid things. [60]" Is that now suddenly NOT a BLP violation?
Do you see the silliness of what your position is? (Is that a BLP violation against Ivanvector since I didn't cite a source that said that "Ivanvector says silly things"?) Sheesh!
jps (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict): Ok but While "x says silly things" is not a BLP violation. "SPACKlick is incompetent at his job", "SPACKlick is unqualified for his job" or "SPACKlick doesn't understand something he earns money claiming skill at" is closer to the mark and should be blanked if remotely controversial (guess this could count as evidence for some of my claims, I'm at my job right now arguing pedantries of policy on Wikipedia) it should be blanked pending source. SPACKlick (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If *remotely* controversial"? I can understand that argument for articlespace which are visible to Google and the like, but a talkpage? Seriously, what possible reasons for that are there? Is a comment on a Wikipedia talkpage in context of a broader discussion really what we should be policing in such a fashion? jps (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree that there's a big difference between a talk page and a wikipedia article. No doubt it was potentially offensive, but I can think of many worse things that have been said about real people on talk pages, and if we were to set out to remove even 1% of them, it would be very difficult to operate. It does look to me like the comment was removed in an attempt to win the argument by censoring the opposition.Deb (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that talk pages of BLPs on occasion need to be refactored and even oversighted but only in clearcut instances. In the past I have seen situations in which BLP has been used in very much this fashion, as a cudgel, abusing and twisting the purpose of BLP. Coretheapple (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What cudgel you blank the comment <Courtesy blanked possible BLP Violation pending source> If it's valid comment a source can be found if not it remains blanked. That way wikipedia retains no liability for accidental libel. Where's the real harm in a slightly cautious approach? SPACKlick (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Okay, perhaps I'm taking a very literal and blunt interpretation of the policy, but it does say that it applies everywhere on Wikipedia (which includes user pages, talk pages, drafts, etc. that are not normally reader-accessible) - it's the first sentence of the policy. Any statement about a living person that is contentious must be backed up by a reliable source wherever it appears. If someone reverted then it's contentious. I don't see how this hampers discussion at all: if someone posts a source to a talk page so that editors can discuss its meaning and proper place in the article, there shouldn't be any reason to revert, unless someone takes an unduly contentious interpretation of the source or blatantly misrepresents it. While I agree it seems that AQ4K did so under the veil of the policy in order to censor their opponent, they were technically correct. But that brings to mind wikilaywering and is disruptive in and of itself.
Also, according to how I interpret the policy, calling my position silly is not a BLP violation because you attacked my position, not me personally; it falls under WP:V but not WP:BLP. Saying that I say silly things would violate the policy, but that statement is neither contentious nor unverifiable. Ivanvector (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Not having to crystal-ball and dig through history what the editor actually said, perhaps? Avoiding subjective reasoning on border cases, which leads to bad blood and disruption, just as in this case? Yeah, egregious BLP violations should be blanked, but this one does not even come close. It would be impossible to even discuss many things if this kind of BLP zealotry is applied (and, apparently in this case, abused). The same principle as for WP:RUC should be applied: one should have no business in editing substance in other people's talk page comments, except in the worst cases. No such user (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, if we're taking "very literal" interpretations: WP:BLPTALK says Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed (bold mine). Jps's remark was obviously aimed at making a content choice, i.e. suitability of the source. While his choice of words was slightly too blunt, making an opinion does not come close to a libel. No such user (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your point regarding WP:BLPTALK and I'll consider this in the future. However, publishing a false statement intended to bring disrepute on the subject of it is basically the definition of libel. Jps didn't say "in my opinion ..." (and shouldn't), they stated "it's well understood that ...". Personally, I would not have reverted that statement, but not being familiar with the topic I would have asked for a source for that statement. Ivanvector (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But reading the discussion, it's plain that the purpose was to make content choices. BLPTALK definitely is not to be abused but it wasn't in this instance. Coretheapple (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate block request of User:Saint Kohser

edit

If you see the userpage he is an admitted sock of a banned user TheKohs. The SPI was opened someitme yesterday but everyone has had their fingers up their bums. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course and an admin can rightfully block this user. And Fred, a veritable old god of the project, certainly understands this. However an admin can absolutely decline to use their tools if doing so benefits the encyclopedia. We're never required to use the tools as individuals, we're not a bureaucracy and our rules are flexible. I can't override Arbcom decisions, of course, but I can agree with and accede to Fred's perfectly reasonable request. Swarm we ♥ our hive 17:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have no way of locating the vandalism the user may have engaged in. If he is wiling to revert past vandalism it is productive to give him a day or two to do so. It is inappropriate to simply revert his corrections. Each needs to be examined so that nonsense can be taken out. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To Arbcom we will go then.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who id I attack, I said holy fuck. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • All that this ANI topic and RfArb do is to draw attention to a silly, malicious publicity gimmick by a banned user who wants to publicize his paid-editing business. I'd request that this be hatted and that the arbitration be withdrawn. Coretheapple (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:John from Idegon leaving inappropriate Talk templates, WP:BITE

edit
USER WARNED
Closed for the second time. Darla Vise-Eye - consider this a formal warning for your personal attack on another editor after you overwrote my previous close.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Warning: This is such a stupid editing dispute one would think this was an April Fools prank. I am a long-time anonymous editor who has recently created this account due to a new work situation. Recently, I made what seems to be the egregious mistake (in John's eyes) of copy-editing the Marquette, Michigan article to remove a particularly ludicrous statement ("Summers are warm, with the warmest months, July and August, each averaging 66.6 °F" - 66.6F being in no way what the average person would consider "warm"). John responded with a blind reversion and subsequent inappropriate templating (note that my edit, changing "warm" to "warmer", was correcting unsourced information, and given that the preceding paragraph details the winter climate, saying "warmER" can probably slide without a citation without running too far afoul of WP:SYNTH). I undid his reversion, and left a curtly worded talk message of my own. He then jumped to a Warning: Edit Warring twinkle-spam. His most recent contribution to my Talk page (after re-reverting my edit, this time under the auspices of bad grammar) is bordering on the incoherent. Frankly, at this point I'm at a loss for what to do, as he is clearly not even reading the article - I suspect all he sees is "red userpage newbie", and I am in no state to work with him on this increasingly-idiotic dispute. If the residents of AN/I deem "66.6F" to be "warm", then so be it. Otherwise, can someone please tell him to back off, and refrain from gunking up my Talk page with inappropriate nonsense templates? Thanks, Darla Vise-Eye (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me, Darla Vise-Eye, that this is a routine content dispute unworthy of any administrative action. As for your assertion that it is "ludricrous" to call an average temperature of 66.6 °F as "warm", I have to disagree with you. If that's the average, it will be a bit hotter during the day and a bit cooler at night. That's not hot weather and that's not cold weather, so "warm" seems just right to me. So why call it "ludricous"? Or is this an April Fool's joke? If so, it isn't very funny. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, if you are not a newbie, bite does not apply. you have made no effort at discussion, and your initial message to me was a personal attack, not the first from the look of your talk page. this is not the place for a content dispute, but substituting warmer is poor grammar. summer is warmer than winter by definition. and as Cullen pointed out, yes average temps in the 60s is quite warm. I'm more than happy to stay off your talk page as long as you don't continue to make poor edits on articles I follow. if you do, I will template you. and if you continue with all the snark you've been spewing, I'm pretty sure you'll find your way back here again. it's worth noting that the OP only has one edit so far that was not reverted. John from Idegon (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
it's worth noting that the OP only has one edit so far that was not reverted. - It's worth noting that User:John from Idegon can't tell the difference between the "current" tag and a revert. The only edit of mine that has been reverted is the one detailed above. Furthermore: Go fuck yourself, John. Someone please ban me indef - I can put up with people like John making mistakes (the very fact that he's reverted me for three completely different reasons shows he's taking a shotgun approach to an article he WP:OWNs), and I can put up with people like John being snarky, but I can't deal with both. Now I'm remembering why my own edits tapered off - no surprise Wikipedia's editing traffic has been on the decline for months, what a toxic, insufferable culture. Of course all my edits have been reverted, John - you're the one who reverted them. And lmao, 66F is not at all warm. The year-round average temperature of the entire planet, including barely-inhabited shitholes like Antarctica and Greenland, is 58F. Considering the places actually inhabited by humanity, 66F is not a warm summertime temperature by any means, you brain-addled cretin. This isn't at all about content - this is about editors like John creating an absolutely frustrating and insufferably toxic editing culture because they'd rather spam a random Twinkle template than actually discuss whatever their issue is. Darla Vise-Eye (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I was young, the lady next door called 60ºF "tee-shirt weather", and it wasn't just because of her personal preference: everyone started wearing light clothing. We all have our own ideas of how different temperatures feel... but that's all a matter of a content dispute. This is a clear WP:BOOMERANG situation; thread should be closed, OP should be warned or temporarily blocked. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mendaliv, that's because you lived in a cold climate and were acclimated to it. In a tropical environment like Hawaii, you become acclimated to the heat. As a result, 60ºF is heavy parka, gloves, wool hat, and scarf weather for us. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hebrew page name change

edit

I want to change the name of he:הרטה מילר but a redirect is preventing the change. Mcljlm (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm: This is for the English Wikipedia only – can I suggest he:ויקיפדיה:בקשות ממפעילים? Mdann52 (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor making bulk changes against consensus

edit

Serpren (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has for some time been making bulk changes to UK placenames. I informed him [69] on his talk page that per this consensus, it's very clear that bulk changes of this type should cease. This was in many cases mopped up by an admin (User:Redrose64), but Serpren has continued. I reverted him in a number of cases, but he has just reverted.

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

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

I now see he actually reported me for vandalism [70] although it's not showing on that page. He did not notify me of this report and even accused me of editing "for political motivations", a clear violation of WP:AGF, let alone being utterly wrong. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus Bretonbanquet refers to is "no consensus" as to style (therefore no mandate for bulk changes). However it does refer back to an earlier discussion and straw poll which showed a split consensus (once socks and meatpuppets were removed) between "England, UK/United Kingdom" and "England" (and similarly for Scotland, Wales, N Ireland) in geography leads. (In both discussions it was widely stated by those who usually know about these things that using both the home country and UK was redundant.) Consequently Serpren has some grounds for making their changes, though they would be well advised to stop and seek fresh consensus, since the strawpoll was a long time ago, and not well attended. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC).
Yes, as you say, the straw poll is from 2006 and consensus was split. The 2014 discussion to which I linked above also found no consensus as to style and that bulk changes shouldn't be made. This is my complaint; that Serpren is not abiding by that. Nearly all of his edits are changes of this type. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add, Serpren's haste to make these changes has introduced geographic or grammatical errors into at least a couple of articles ([71] [72]). Being so eager to add their bulk changes that they fail to spot any collateral damage is a fairly good indicator that their intentions are not necessarily honourable. QueenCake (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Well where I have added "England" inappropriately, you should feel free to edit it. However, I can see no refutation that the agreed consensus is the term "Cornwall, England, UK/United Kingdom" and will continue to add England where it is deserved/needed Serpren (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I will. So you are saying that you will ignore the consensus about not making bulk changes and you admit to openly editing against that consensus. You also ignore the point in the guideline about the "Cornwall, England, UK" consensus not being enforced unless making other substantive edits to the article, and you also ignore my question as to why you do not add "UK" to articles that say "Cornwall, England" in your supposed quest to fulfil this consensus. At the risk of failing WP:AGF, that looks very much like editing with a political POV, quite apart from editing against one consensus to wrongly enforce another. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a potentially-unlimited number of beneficial edits that a user could choose to make to Wikipedia. However, Serpren has elected to spend months making the same unhelpful edit to hundreds of pages, ignoring all opposition, frequently damaging the flow of a page's prose in order to stamp "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" repeatedly.
It would be naïve to the point of foolishness to assume good faith when a user is so devoted to deliberate disruption and announces his intentions to carry on causing further disorder. Surely a block on the editor is justified to prevent further wilful disturbance of the project. 82.41.197.51 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This single-purpose editor continues making controversial edits against consensus, at some considerable rate. He freely admits that he's going to keep doing it, regardless of what anyone says. Is any admin going to say anything at all? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that User:Serpren be blocked for disruption unless he will agree to stop making mass changes regarding England and the UK. A 2014 discussion found "No consensus for mass changes, and bulk changes of articles should cease." It appears that Serpren intends to violate that decision by continuing to make mass changes. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, admins – sorry I had to repost the whole thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bretonbanquet: I didn't read the whole thing, but I am curious if we can establish one revert per 24 hours rule on England and U.K. articles, in case if that user will start to revert as well. We already have this rule in place for WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Ukraine.--Mishae (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mishae: That's a good idea. Hopefully it won't come to that, but it's certainly worth considering if the problem continues. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Derek R Bullamore reported for unprovoked incivility

edit
Looks like the mastodons got hold and things went a bit over the top. I've dropped a word on User talk:Derek R Bullamore, and that should hopefully the end of it. No admin actions required for now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I recently made some politely and helpfully intended comments on User:Derek R Bullamore's talk page regarding MOS:ALLCAPS. Instead of being at all appreciative of having this MoS issue drawn to his attention, this apparently experienced editor instead responded with gratuitously patronising comments ending with "It would be a good thing if you stuffed yourself." which is another way of saying "go fuck yourself". No editor should have to tolerate this kind of incivility in response to trying to be helpful. Afterwriting (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If you have also been doing all this on other articles then it would be good thing if you went back to them and corrected yourself. Thank you." seems rather patronising, and I'm not surprised you got it thrown back in your face. Squinge (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although it "seems" patronising to you it was not. There was nothing patronising at all intended in my comments which were only intended as helpful advice. If I make any MoS mistakes then I appreciate being told so. As should all editors. Afterwriting (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment was addressed to a contributor with nine years experience and 125,000 edits to his credit, and you really can't see how you were talking down to him in a condescending manner as if he was an ignorant newbie? And your first response to an unfavorable reply is to file an ANI complaint? I suggest you reflect on your own approach to interaction with others and decide whether it might be wise to withdraw your complaint. Squinge (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just an observation: Any time you correct a fellow editor, I don't think you should expect appreciation and gratitude. I'm not saying it never happens but it's not the first reaction most people have. Liz Read! Talk! 14:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Patronising or not there's no call for an acceleration from "hey, could you fix this?" to "get stuffed". Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is an appeal to ANI as a first recourse, rather than a little introspection and a friendlier approach, really the best way to deal with this? If people think it is, then I despair. Squinge (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April fools - Take two

edit
No admin action requested or apparently necessary. Sam Walton (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia is getting to be like the Puritans abolishing Christmas in the seventeenth century. There's a discussion on the Village Pump complaining about the term "talk page stalker" which has always been in the context of a nice furry jaguar padding through the jungle and has only offended editors when other editors stir things up. The proposal is to redirect to "talk page watcher". Seems to me to be a throwback to George Orwell and "1984". For example, at the Village pump discussion one editor has said

Hunting animals, hunting people. Yes, that's completely the same.

Unbelievable.

Yesterday, [[Category:Requests for unblock]] had a large red notice above the list of appeals saying

This list is out - of - date. Click on User talk: ... for more information

This led to the user talk page of an editor whose handle consists of two words and will be familiar to you, but as my memory is not what it was I cannot provide the name since the history of yesterday's surfing has been wiped from my browser. The talk page carried the usual banner seen by IP editors, "You have new message from another editor. Click this link to view." So I clicked the link and this message came up

You have been April fooled. See the number of people who have been fooled in previous years.

There then followed a list of years with numbers beside them (in the low hundreds) which is presumably an automated tally of the number of clicks made by unsuspecting users in the years cited. This jape is no doubt an irritant to users who have been blocked but I cannot see that the "Emperor's new clothes" prank discussed above is more blameworthy.

Every year at this time I see editors being hauled over the coals at this page being reduced to making grovelling comments on the lines of "Yes, I shouldn't have done it, I just did it for fun, I'm very sorry and I won't do it again". I don't think behaviour here is any worse than that of the media (newspapers, television). One Saturday, April 1 in the 1980s (so not 1984 therefore) the London Guardian ran a story about a Brazilian watch manufacturer which had just produced a model which gave the time and direction for prayer to Mecca anywhere in the world on any day of the year. As I happened to be free and not far from the newspaper's office in the Gray's Inn Road I went round there. The concierge telephoned the journalist in question who admitted the story was a hoax and a profuse apology was made. I don't think anything further happened.

Getting upset about this sort of thing is counterproductive. I do vandal patrol and some of the crazy vandalism that some people introduce into Wikipedia just makes me laugh. A happy and peaceful Easter to all of you. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Wikipedia:Rules for Fools? It lists some of the RfCs that have been started about April Fools mischief. It's always been a contentious topic. As for the "talk page stalker" discussion, I'll leave that to people who seem to care about this. But I do agree that having some perspective is important, both for the editors and the readers. Liz Read! Talk! 11:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to get to "meta" on the OP, but I find it a bit ironic that the response to people starting long threads over trivial matters that shouldn't be contentious is then starting a long thread about starting a long thread over trivial matters. If the original complaints were trivial, and didn't need the attention they got, further complaints about the complaints are doubly trivial. Just sayin'. --Jayron32 15:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, err, what's the incident that requires the notice of an administrator? —Tom Morris (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to the characterization of the talk page watcher discussion as an April Fools' joke. While you may think it's funny and no big deal, I assure you the issue is a very serious matter, which multiple editors have debated in that thread which has been open since February, and it is a much more detailed proposal than a simple redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're using synthesis to impugn Liz. "Characterisation of the talk page watcher discussion as an April Fools' joke" is a product of your imagination, as is your suggestion that any of us "think it's funny and no big deal". 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. The IP has issues with my edits, occasionally portraying them out of context. The "hunting animals, hunting people" quote in the original post was a direct response to their rather farcical comparison, "I think that you and NeilN are overthinking this. All the hurt I've seen relates to the description "wikistalking" and similar. Can you provide an actual example of an editor complaining about a picture of a big cat and accompanying stalking reference? I mean, plenty of women go on safari and I can't see any of them getting upset about the hunters talking about stalking the big game" --NeilN talk to me 17:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the 1930s German schoolchildren played happily with their Jewish classmates and invited them to their homes. Then along came the Hitler Youth and the German schoolchildren started telling their former friends they were bad people and they were not allowed to talk to them. If you can't see that hunting people (genocide) is not the same as hunting animals (collecting food) there's no hope for you. You've been asked (and failed) to provide evidence that there was some demand for this before you and others started going about saying how appalling this template was and it must be deprecated. You appear to have jumped into the issue of redirecting WP:STALKING to WP:HARASSMENT and used it as a lever to create disruption in areas which were working just fine. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Aubmn and sockpuppetry

edit
Either sock- or meatpuppetry, used to give the impression of greater support for a view and reduce appearance of edit-warring. Blocked for two weeks. Mildly, when you return please also heed advice from other editors about using a less dramatic tone in content editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aubmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been busy on the article Marie Antoinette, showing some clear signs of ownership (1) as well as some dubious citation practices by adding extensive information without changing existing citations, yet claiming that the existing citations are covering the drastic changes.

At several times IPs from Lebanon has showed up at crucial points to participate in edit wars and showing support for the edits when Aubmn edits have been challenged: 1, 2, edit summary: "It is the first time I read this article since 1 year ago, it is much better completed ,with source other than Fraser, physics facts only 10 words in thousands of words"). Aubmn was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aubmn&diff=prev&oldid=651180804 warned about editing while being logged out, and again when it continued. Yet today a third Lebanese IP shows up at the page pretending not to be Aubmn and supporting their edit warring: 1, 2. The first edit suggesting that I go to talk page, even though I had already posted on the talk page (to which neither Aubmn or their many IP iterations has bothered replying).

This usage of IPs as edit warring tag team is clearly an abuse of WP:SOCK and as they have been warned for it in the past, perhaps it is time for some sanctions until they understand the policies regarding that issue? --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saddhiyama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SAID WIKiPEDIA IS NOT RELIABLE ON MARIE ANTOINETTE TALK PAGE, REVERTED ME AND ANOTHER EDITOR THREE TIMES IN LESS THAN TWO HOURS IN SPITE THAT WE ASKED HIM ALMOST BEGGING HIM BEFORE EACH REVERT TO GO TO THE TALK PAGE FOR COMPROMISE AND CONSENSUS IN ADDITION ON MARCH 3O I SUSPECT SOCKPUPPETRY ON HIS PART BUT I CAN T ACCUSE HIM WITH CERTAINTY BECAUSE I RESPECT UNKOWN EDITORS; Saddhiayama has already broken Wikipedia rules as he removed major informations without trying to find consensus on the subject talk page although he was asked after each revert by me and other people to go to the talk page to find consensus and compromise but he persisted in his reverts, in addition he reverted me and other editors 3 times in less than 2 hours, I' m a very positive editor who was trying to communicate with a lot of people to make this article better, the talk page about size prove that although I contributed a lot to this article adding major information's and removing massive copyrights violations, I always worked with other people even giving them informations and sources about the subject. A lot of people use Wikipedia, this article is read by more than 3000 persons everyday, I 'm know working on the talk page to find a compromise. Should I believe Saddhiyama used sockpuppetry because two days ago an unknown ip made a lot of changes to be followed directly by his intervention and reverting me. What is clear Saddhiyama did not go to the talk page first and he reverted me and other editors three times. Anyway I 'm ready to work with him on common ground like I do with all editors.Aubmn (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "possible WP:Sockpuppeting"; he is WP:Sockpuppeting. And anyone with common sense knows it, which is also why he's been warned about it more than once. Flyer22 (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And regarding the "possible WP:Sockpuppeting" part of my post above, I was responding to this heading; Aubmn had highjacked the thread, and I misread it as Saddhiyama's heading. Flyer22 (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aubmn (talk · contribs), this is inappropriate; you did not start this thread, so you should stop highjacking it. There is no need whatsoever for two sections at WP:ANI addressing this matter. You are highly WP:Disruptive and should be blocked for it. In my opinion, you should be indefinitely blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have "possible WP:Sockpuppeting" but we do have Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets when socking is suspected but not verified. Liz Read! Talk! 12:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Flyer22, I didn't see the edit you reverted that made the reference to possible sockpuppetry so the context of your comment was not clear. Liz Read! Talk! 12:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone wanting to know about Aubmn's problematic editing at the Marie Antoinette article; start with this section, and keep reading, or skimming, on from that point. WP:Copyright violations and other messes. Flyer22 (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even though that article is on my WP:Watchlist, I got fed up with Aubmn's editing and left NebY and others to deal with him; sorry about that, NebY. Flyer22 (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer as usual is polite and positive, she wants to block an editor who finished a major article, who is always positive and who removed thousands of copyright violations in Marie Antoinette article, today I 'm working in a consensual spirit on Napoleon(see Napoleon talk page) another major article, I 'm changing it in a massive way with the collaboration of other positive editors not like Flyer who was negative with me from the beginning although I acknowledge my mistakes because I didn 't know all the rules about copyright laws, I was positive in correcting all my mistakes and in removing thousands of copyrights violations who were in the article before my contributions.I proposed to work with Flyer only to be insulted, see MA talk page.Aubmn (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a she, your characterization of my involvement is false (as anyone is free to investigate), and I reiterate that you should be indefinitely blocked. At least until editors are certain that you are no longer a threat to Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the he, I changed it to she, I didn 't know excuse me.Aubmn (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Flyer22 (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
edit
USER BLOCKED
User blocked for 31 hours for Edit warring by Ymblanter. Further investigations for BLP violations may be in order. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:David Coburn MEP is currently under investigation at WP:AN3#User:David Coburn MEP reported by User:Nomoskedasticity for edit-warring (27 reversion so far)- there currently doesn't appear to be an admin looking into the case. In addition, an edit summary here implies they may wish to take legal action. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not an actual legal threat, but that is some seriously bad COI editing. Ivanvector (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that an editor cannot edit "with impunity" may suggest that they may take any number of different actions, not limited to legal action. They may make a big deal about it in the press or complain about the editor at ANI or any number of other things. I don't think this is clear or specific enough to count under WP:NLT. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure, so thought bringing it here would be safest. Either way, could someone go to the edit warring board. They're now on 28 reversions, and I think most of he 10 people who've reverted their COI edits don't want to anymore for fear of breaking WP:3RR. Also, they've been informed multiple times about COI/removed sourced content/adding unsourced content/contacting [WP:ORTS]], and they are under investigation for sockpuppetry too. Hopefully someone will eventually block them and end this madness. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point the edits must constitute mere vandalism and therefore not be subject to WP:EW? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the user has been blocked for edit warring, so that issue is resolved. There may be other ones, particularly with the username; I'm expecting the user will post something to their user talk page shortly about the block, and we'll proceed from there. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be worth looking at the article for BLP violations. From a cursory review I'm finding a few potential ones. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American Nazi Party

edit
IP blocked for 31 hours by Nakon. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can I please get a block on the IP editor User:173.29.227.107, who thinks that the American Nazi Party was far-LEFT wing and not far RIGHT-wing? This kind of idiocy is so... idiotic that it's tantamount to vandalism. Any admin is invited to block me for edit-warring if you like, but I'm going to be up and around for a couple of hours, and I have every intention of not allowing this vandalism to remain in the article. BMK (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User has been blocked for vandalism, no action necessary for your account. Nakon 05:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. BMK (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

28 successive revdels on this page on March 28?

edit
Revdels of an errant edit can involve successive posts. (non-admin closure) Liz Read! Talk! 12:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can an admin please check and explain the revdels of 28 successive posts on this page on March 28 UTC? The 28 posts (from here to here) were by 10 different editors on 6 different threads. None of the 28 revdels seem to show up on the page's log [73], so this is entirely mysterious and seems to be some sort of error. It seems that most of the revdels should be reverted. Perhaps the error came after Zhanzhao requested on March 28 "can any admin help me remove permanently my last few posts where I named the social media site and the time of posting? Sorry, I'm not at my best right now and may have outed myself", but even that does not show up in the log I posted, and if that occurred, a lot of other unrelated posts by unrelated editors got zapped as well. Odd. Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions have been suppressed and are not visible to admins. Nakon 05:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then can an WP:oversighter please look into it and see what happened? Obviously there was no reason for 28 random edits in a row on different threads to all be revdelled and oversighted. There was some error here, or something that should be explained. Softlavender (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The most likely reason was that an oversight-able edit was made and 27 subsequent edits were made to the page before it could be suppressed. Unfortunately, there's no way to excise the data from a revision, so the entire block of edits had to be suppressed. This is rare, but the Oversight team will suppress all of the edits regardless of how many interim edits have been made. Nakon 05:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate on Nakon's point: if some bit of offending text was made by an editor, every revision which contained that text needs to be suppressed, regardless of which successive editors made whatever comments to whatever threads on the main page. Removing only the first edit is meaningless; if further edits preserved the offending material, those would have to be excised too. Yes, it does ruin the attribution (in the page history) of certain comments (though the comments stand and the signatures still indicate who made them). Sometimes such things need be done. --Jayron32 05:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that all 28 completely unrelated posts on unrelated topics by unrelated editors did not contain offending text. Why can't the two or three "offending edits" be oversighted one at a time, separate from the other 25 or 26 unrelated edits? Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not possible due to limitations in the Mediawiki software. An edit makes a copy of the previous content of the page along with the new content. Regardless of the unrelated topics, the edits still contained "bad" content which was required to be removed. Nakon 05:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Nakon, those 28 edits DID contain the offending text. Every addition you make to a page doesn't remove text. It just adds to it. So when someone (even unknowingly) saves a page with bad content, those saves still contained the bad content and had to be excised. --Jayron32 05:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I see what y'all are saying. You're saying that iterations of the entire project page which happened to contain the offending information somewhere inside had to be removed. Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The intentional insertion of a falsehood on yesterday's main page

edit
Clearly, the proposal of a desysop is not going to happen here, not least because there is no consensus for that to happen. If people think the consensus reached at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools' needs to be revisited, feel free to propose that at the relevent location. This thread has passed it's usefulness now, so closing. Mdann52 (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yesterday's main page prominently claimed that in the year 528, "China's only cross-dressing emperor ruled for a single day." [74] From discussions at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors [75] it has become clear that this assertion is not only unsourced, but "slightly fudging it to make the hook sexier". Or in plain English, an outright lie, intentionally added to Wikipedia (apparently by an admin, though I'm not at this point entirely sure that the was the originator of this falsehood). I can see no reason why this should be seen as in any way different from other forms of vandalism – the fact that it was done for April Fools doesn't alter anything, as far as I can see. Legitimate April fools hooks may mislead – but the linked article will make the misdirection clear. In this case, the article says nothing at all about 'cross-dressing', and accordingly our readers will have no way of knowing that the supposed 'fact' was pulled out of thin air for no legitimate purpose whatsoever. If it was indeed done by User:Howcheng, as the history seems to indicate, I would have to suggest that we should seriously consider whether someone making such a gross error of judgement should continue to hold admin tools. Deliberately misleading readers, and leaving them with no indication that they have been misled, is a fundamental breach of trust, and I can see no reason why it should be tolerated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the earlier discussion, I share your disappointment. The agreed-upon April Fools' Day twist is purposely ambiguous wording that gives readers the wrong impression (until they read the article) despite being 100% true. This claim appears to have been flat-out false, which is unfortunate and unacceptable.
However, I regard Howcheng as one of our best administrators and don't believe for a second that he had any ill intent. This seems like an isolated lapse in judgement (and nothing more) – certainly not grounds for desysopping. —David Levy 00:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be simply a misunderstanding of what the word "cross dress" means, taking it to mean "wear women's clothing" which is of course true – as long as the person cross dressing is a man. Here the intended joke seems to have been that this was the only emperor who wore women's clothing – because she was a woman.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no legitimate definition of "cross-dressing" which includes a woman wearing a woman's clothes, so the hook was an outright lie. BMK (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A misunderstanding of the meaning of a word is not an outright lie, no.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that further there was a gender/mixup involved duing which the infant empress was presented as a boy and crowned as if she were male. So I think some serious AGF is warranted here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 'emperor' was a child less than two months old – and we know nothing about what she wore, only that she was falsely declared to be male. Furthermore, when someone says that the hook was "slightly fudging it to make the hook sexier", there is no room for a 'mixup' or misunderstanding that I can see – it is a statement that a falsehood was intentionally placed on the main page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure the world actually looks that black and white to you. To me it doesn't for which I am quite thankful.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When someone says that the intentionally 'fudged' something to make the page 'sexier', I take them at their word. Call that black and white thinking if you like – I call it basing my judgement on the evidence available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What action would you have Wikipedia take? I think you're missing the distinction between "Malicious and willful attempt to do something objectively bad" and "Good-natured fun that was slightly ill-thought-out and went a tad awry". One can acknowledge the hook was wrong and perhaps should not have been posted, and still not demand action or claim that others acted in bad faith. Not every mistake in judgement is a capital offense, and sometimes we can acknowledge the poor actions of others while also acknowledging it isn't a big deal. --Jayron32 01:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it was wrong, it is an isolated case and I agree that it is not necessarily bad faith. In the spirit of yesterday having been April Fool's Day, I guess we were all fooled. Epic Genius (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: The OP stated I would have to suggest that we should seriously consider whether someone making such a gross error of judgement should continue to hold admin tool both indicating they acknowledged it was a mistake, but to the OP it isn't a big deal. I believe the OP to be angry. I also believe the OP made the proposed action (removal of admin) clear. You have to understand, as Chbarts says below, there is a bit of a civil/human rights issue triggered here involving transgender and genderqueer folk. This mistake was (to us) along the line of talking about someone being the first black actor and then showing a picture of a man in black face. Just some perspective. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, it was deliberately transphobic, and could only serve to prove that this project is extremely unfriendly to trans people and dismissive of their issues. The refusal of the editor User:Howcheng to acknowledge this and fix the issue is an example of how trans-exclusionary this project can be at times.—chbarts (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap, y'all are making mountains out of molehills here. I'm happy to cop to stretching the truth a bit on the blurb, when all that we really know about the incident is that the Empress Dowager declared that her granddaughter was a boy. But now I'm going to have to do something that I didn't want to have to do and out myself as someone who is leaning transgender. I cross-dress and I identify myself as a cross-dresser. I don't see how this is offensive, when the term merely means "person who wears clothes that are typically for the opposite sex". I don't plan on transitioning to female, so what other word is applicable here? "Sissy fag"? "He-she"? So when you say this project is extremely unfriendly to trans people and dismissive of their issues you are 100% in the wrong. I am extremely sensitive to these issues because I am in that category myself. So F you and the horse you rode in on and grow a sense of humor, jackass. (Apologies to the other editors reading this, but it really gets my goat to be lectured to by someone who has no idea of the circumstances and is simply making assumptions.) —howcheng {chat} 04:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a handy tip for you: Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and all, don't stretch the frigging truth, ever. The fact that an admin would think it was allowable to do so, even in a DYK hook, is incredible to me. I don't agree that you should be desysopped, I think perhaps you should be banned from any editing involving the contents of the encyclopedia (broadly construed) for a short amount of time -- say a week or so -- but be allowed to continue to use your admin bit. And I trust that underneath your complaints above, you feel some measure of guilt and remorse for your dissembling, or I would be pushing for a desysop.
Many, many editors work very, very hard trying to make Wikipedia as accurate and factual as possible. We've got enough problems with inadequate sourcing, deliberate misinformation, advertising and promotion, point of view pushing, and sneaky vandalism, without people "stretching the truth" for a lame joke. BMK (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order: It was OTD, and it's the April Fool's edition, when all the blurbs have a long history of being intentionally misleading. In 1572, did the Duke of Alba really lose his glasses? In 1999, did the Northwest Territories of Canada carve their inhabitants into two pieces? No, of course not. You've been here since 2009, so you can't honestly claim that you didn't know about the long-standing tradition of having silly and somewhat misleading content on the Main Page on April 1. OTD doesn't do this any other day of the year. If you want to complain about this practice, fine, but don't go around preaching "admins should know better" when the same sort of thing has been going on for years, predating my involvement. So I'll apologize for not being clever enough to come up with a better joke, but not for trying maintain the spirit of the April Fool's Ma Page. —howcheng {chat} 05:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've been here since 2005, and I don't give a shit whether it was OTD or DYK, and I don't give a shit about such a stupid "tradition" wherever it occurred. The thing I give a shit about is building a factual, accurate and useful encyclopedia that serves our readers as best it can. I suggest that the "tradition" end right here and now, and also that you take a somewhat different attitude to the extremely justified criticism you're receiving. You really don't seem to think you made any kind of error in judgment, and if that's the case, than I could well begin to agree that you're not fit to be an admin, who are people whose judgment we must trust. Stop reacting, please, and do a bit of thinking about what you did. BMK (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hiding behind a point of order when someone has pointed out multiple times that what you did was wrong and hurtful is contrary to the spirit of building an open and inclusive project.—chbarts (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I don't see anything about gender identity whatsoever here. If you're insisting that anyone who has ever dressed up as or otherwise been presented as the opposite gender (including drag queens and Shakespearean boy actors) is transgendered, you're causing a far worse problem than anything you might be trying to solve. (Hint: "cross-dresser" is only trans-exclusionary if it's applied to a transgendered person for the purposes of denying their gender identity). --Carnildo (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore I'd like to point out that Chbarts never once explained how the term "cross-dressing" is transphobic, and instead simply just repeated the assertion over and over, as if somehow we were supposed to be able to read his or her mind. I would have been perfectly happy to address your concerns, but you never bothered to tell me what they were. —howcheng {chat} 05:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'll see that I have explained.—chbarts (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's trans-exclusionary to say that presenting someone of one gender as another involves cross-dressing when no cross-dressing actually occurred. It's equating gender identity to clothing, which is degrading and minimizing. Had there actually been cross-dressing, this wouldn't be an issue.—chbarts (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I swear you have gone out of your way to be offended here. This is a story of an 50-day-old baby girl. It does not involve her own gender identity. At that age, she has no real sense of self and is barely even holding her own head up. I apologize for being combative in my response here. It's just frustrating when you could have explained yourself hours ago, and I never would have felt the need to out my own proclivities, which involves me risking my standing in my community. But as they say, you can't put toothpaste back into the tube. Besides, gender identity for someone like me is heavily tied to clothing. —howcheng {chat} 05:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal attacks notwithstanding, do you admit that what you did was wrong, and will you at least claim you won't do it again?—chbarts (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Howcheng: Stop digging your hole deeper. Stop posting for a while and go over what happened. Figure out why people are mad and disappointed at your action. Here's a hint: it doesn't really have anything to do with gender issues or whether the joke was funny or not. BMK (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This must not happen again. If it can be dealt with by a civilised apology and promise to avoid the area in future, that would be great. If not, I would suggest a desysop may be in order. --John (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What we need is more humour like this on April Fools' Day. Now that April 1st is over this thread can be closed. QuackGuru (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I kind of hope this is some kind of dadaist April Fools' joke, because if it's not, it's a massive overreaction. What's next, we torture Howcheng's entire family to death for the horrible crime of extrapolating slightly on an April Fools' DYK hook to make it more interesting? Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
      • We are not primarily a humorous project. I am not a fan of behaviour like this, which crosses a line. If it is likely to be repeated, action needs to be taken to prevent such repetition. Hyperbole will not help us, and neither will trying to brush the matter under the carpet. --John (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Insulting a whole group of people and then claiming you're just joking is not behavior we should tolerate. Worse is having what you did wrong explained to you and then refusing to acknowledge that there is, or even could be, a problem with your actions. That is something willfully bad, and it is evidence of bad faith.—chbarts (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to read some more Aprils Fool's jokes. Can you point to me the other issues and evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. :P --TMCk (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When were you elected a spokesperson for this group of which I am a member? I certainly don't recall getting that memo. I am sorry that you perceived there to be an insult in the blurb. Even after your explanation, I still don't see it. —howcheng {chat} 07:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eish. I was happy to find an April Fools' item on the main page, all the more so since it took a bit of puzzling to figure out what it referred to (i.e. got me to attentively read an article I normally wouldn't have). It certainly wasn't the best trick I've seen this April 1, but it was fine for the day. I suppose there could be a discussion about whether this kind of tradition should be kept up (i.e. is Wikipedia too trusted and/or stuffy for a bit of fun by now?) – although I'd argue that treating readers as hyper-sensitive hothouse flowers sells both them and the project short. In any case, Howcheng has nothing to apologize about. Elmidae (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wants to be humorous on Wikipedia can joke around to their heart's content on the talk pages of their friends. It should never invade article space or the front page. Never. Ever. Those who think it's fine for fun and games and "stretching the truth" to be part of the public face of the first source of information for millions and millions of people are just simply, utterly mistaken. That's not what we're about, and it should stop, now, forever. It's time to start a new tradition of taking what we do here seriously, and getting our jollies elsewhere. BMK (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) think John's point is this – people are allowed to be funny, and equally people are allowed to find the same humour unfunny or even offensive. In either case, neither view must interfere with writing an encyclopedia. The contentious hook has been and gone so I suggest we agree that mistakes happen, remind howcheng that factual accuracy has to trump humour, put this behind us and move on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if Howcheng would actually acknowledge that, because he hasn't so far. He's "cop[ped] to stretching the truth" and apologized for "not being clever enough to come up with a better joke", but, so far as I am aware, he hasn't actually said that he had a lapse in judgment. I think that at least some significant portion of the community needs to hear that. We cannot simply assume it. BMK (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem. Infants are often dressed based on the gender assigned at birth and a play on words that they were cross-dressed and/or misgendered is not transphobic. The hook that the person is an infant sets the tone. It becomes obvious when the article is read. --DHeyward (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Poor howcheng. Only Emperor for a day and nobody even liked his frock. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this can be reasonably called offensive or inaccurate, If the child wore clothes traditional for girls while being declared a boy that could reasonably be referred to as cross dressing. If the child wore clothes traditional for boys while being biologically a girl that could reasonably be referred to as cross dressing. It is not disputed the child was biologically a girl, it is not disputed that the child was declared a boy and it is not disputed that chinese childrens clothing was not traditionally gender neutral, therefore the child could reasonably be referred to as cross dressed. I think April Fools needs to stop, not just on wikipedia but worldwide, however it is still a tradition, and one that wikipedia engages with and this otd ambiguous "joke" is just poor humour not poor taste. SPACKlick (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing about the semantics of what "cross-dressing" means is missing the point. Just accept that other people were genuinely surprised by the link, and that at least from their point of view, the hook went against the principle of least astonishment that good linking should adhere to. Or, if you prefer, WP:EASTER (yes, irony intended). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fully disagree. The semantics of cross dressing was entirely the basis of the initial complaint. OTD on April Fool's is traditionally all about violating the principle of least astonishment, however the link was cross dressing emperor and linked to the article about the emperor. That's far from an easter eggSPACKlick (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
edit

I think it is also worth noting that the entry which made light of the Battle of Okinawa (and to a lesser extent the Battle of Five Forks) was also in extremely poor taste. I am not a spoilsport and have no problem with DYK hooks talking about an elephant named Osama or Russian a billionaire named God. But a line must exist somewhere, and in my opinion joking about the devastation of a battle, on the anniversary of the event, takes the frivolity too far. I know Howcheng is a diligent volunteer an On this day, because I have seen his work there many times before. I am certainly not baying for blood. I just wish to put this on the record so that a similar mistake is not made in the name of humour next year. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that I didn't write either of those hooks, although I did schedule them. Both blurbs have made previous appearances and if there were complaints about them in the past, they're buried in edit histories or archives. There's nothing about them on WT:Selected anniversaries/April 1 so it was reasonable to assume that it would be similar this time around. —howcheng {chat} 07:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe could ask howcheng to apologise to all Chinese people (individually) for his faux pas. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

And not a peep about Did_you_know_nominations/Dr._Young's_Ideal_Rectal_Dilators being forcibly withdrawn. I feel cheated. EEng (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Competence is required' issues with User:Mishae

edit
Blocked for one month, per discussion here and the completely unacceptable Nazi comparison. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mishae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long-term Wikipedian who started editing in 2009; he's been around for long enough that he should know, broadly-speaking, what to do (and what not to do), and how to engage with other users, and the broad-strokes idea of what policy permits and prohibits and where to go if you're not sure. Despite this, Mishae is consistently incapable of engaging with other users in a productive manner, and makes endless newbie-like mistakes that drain the energies of other good-faith contributors.

In February 2015, Mishae decided there was a policy that said it was preferable to have a dead link than a link to an archived version of a page, because that's what he thought "you can cite offline sources" meant. The same month, he made an edit that altered content that he marked as minor; when a user asked him to please mark such edits as major edits, he informed them that people are actively prohibited from templating experienced users, and kept leaving them messages over and over again until the user had to ask Mishae to leave. Mishae responded by opening up a thread on my talkpage in which he explained that, as the more experienced user, he should get to be the one templating people.

Mishae has also run into nearly endless copyright problems, and again demonstrated a refusal to admit fault when they occur; in December 2014 he was told an article of his was a copyright violation and tried to justify it by saying that it wasn't a copyright violation, it was close paraphrasing of a copyrighted source. This was followed by copyright violation cautions and notes on 24 February and 1 March of this year, and preceded by a warning on 18 December. That's four distinct articles in a 3-month span, with no real learning between their creations. That's while not understanding how references work despite having, again, been editing for six years.

The final straw, however, was how Mishae has been treating User:Kingofaces43. Mishae decided to remove the Wikiproject Insect tag from a large number of pages. Kingofaces43, seeing this, did exactly what we'd ask any user to do; they politely asked Mishae to stop and opened a discussion about it on the relevant talkpage so people could discuss what the best approach here, was. And then warned Mishae again, because while the discussion was ongoing, Mishae continued making the changes. And then a third time because, with the discussion still going on, and after two warnings, Mishae continued making the edits. At which point Mishae admitted his edits were potentially disruptive, called Kingofaces43 a troll, and asked me to step in - which I promptly did to explain that the edits were problematic, with Mishae taking away from that: "thank you! I'm glad my edits aren't vandalism".

I am, at this point, completely exhausted in dealing with Mishae, which I would mind less if he wasn't also draining energy from other users attempting to engage in good faith. There is a consistent pattern here; Mishae overestimates his own knowledge, patronises other users when they correct his mistakes, denies that they are mistakes, and aggressively insists that he is right even when it's clear to everyone else in the conversation that he is wrong. This is deeply taxing, and from a newcomer would be potentially understandable, but is not tolerable in someone who has been here for over half a decade. Mishae adds value to the encyclopedia - but when he is wrong, he sucks in a lot of time and energy dealing with it, and consistently fails to learn from his failures.

  • I would like the review of this user and their contributions by other people, additional perspectives on their attitude and competency from people who have dealt with him (or who are coming to this for the first time, here), and I would like the ultimate question to be around making a competence block. This has gone on for long enough. Ironholds (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mishae has been doing complex gnomish changes that are completely wrong-headed, as in the example of the Insects project. See User talk:Mishae#Wikiproject Insect and see if you can make heads or tails of his reasoning. Somehow, he needs to stop doing this kind of thing, but it may not be easy to persuade him. Unfortunately a competence block would be the obvious answer. EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mishae's editing was also questioned in the WP:PLANTS archives. He edits quite rapidly and the information added is often wrong, misleading, or hard to follow. Mishae has shown some willingness to change his behavior, but it took far too long to convince him that removing spaces and newline characters wasn't a worthwhile task and was actually disruptive (and now that I mention it, I noticed a few days ago that he was at it again, though in a less disruptive manner that left the structure intact, e.g. diff). He edited thousands of articles in that way, placing the infobox text on just a few lines which made it harder to edit them. After the AN/I discussion about this, he made little effort to retrace his steps and undo the damage. He is sometimes combative and has trouble communicating with other editors, often perceiving insults where there are none. I have seen many editors try and fail to facilitate discussions with other editors who come to his talk page to ask a question or make a suggestion -- they often burn out rather quickly. After so long and so many issues, I do not think that any amount of coaching will produce better edits or improve interactions with other editors. Mishae gets into trouble mostly when he's trying to perform a large number of gnomish edits. The only way I could see his continued participation in the project as a benefit to it would be a restriction in the number of edits he could make in one day, thus forcing him to focus on broader improvements to articles. Gnoming is certainly beneficial but not when done hastily and carelessly. I agree with other editors here that a competence block may be the only solution to prevent further disruption. Rkitko (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before anything is done here I'd like to see what Mishae has to say. Caden cool 02:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cass where did I say that? Anyway I thought it was understood that you were not going to follow me around anymore? Caden cool 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I shall go wherever I like and talk to whom I like. This unwritten rule of "not following you around" is understood by nobody other than you; get over yourself. CassiantoTalk 22:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it up Cass and it wont be long before you are blocked again for personal attacks or maybe this time it will be for harassing and stalking. God knows you have a big block log already. Guess it will just get bigger at the rate you are going, right? Caden cool 23:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you taking the moral fucking high ground with me Caden when you are saying things like this and this to BMK. It appears you are winning no friends here so run along, there's a good boy. CassiantoTalk 00:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank everyone for taking time to discuss my issue. I understand that my behavior was disruptive and I am deeply sorry. (It was partly due to my condition.) Working on the project is an important part of my life and I would like to be helpful. I think that I should cut down my gnomish edits and focus on creating quality contents (3-4 a week). I'm also able to make contributions in archiving of dead links, with which I didn't have an issues, and even was awarded for it. I understand that everyone is very busy but it would help me if I could contact someone if problems arise.--Mishae (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like you to contribute productively, but the examples you pick don't say much about your willingness to understand what the problem is here. The problem is not the edits - the problem is the attitude you take when people try to talk to you about them. And the two examples you've chosen - quality content contributions and dead links - would be more meaningful if it wasn't for the fact that the quality content contributions are described in the very first message in this thread, as creating copyright problems, and the dead link work is surfaced as an example of the attitude you take when contradicted by individual editors. This is not giving me the impression that you grok the problem, here. Ironholds (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ironholds: At the very top of the thread you said that where to go if you're not sure. You know, I tried to invite user @Koavf: for a discussion on my talkpage, unfortunately he never replied. Back in 2014 I tried to ask user @Worm That Turned: (or was it @Kudpung:) for some guidance when it came to my comments, and got nothing in response. As of now Kudpung's status is busy, but when I tried to ask him back then, he was online. I also tried to reach out to @Ryan Vesey: but none of the above editors were available. As for copyright that one that I did in March 2015 was just a bot error, for which I shouldn't be blamed since it was bot reading reference posting as copyvio (I can't invent a link, can I)? As for the rest, yes I admit, it was my fault, but I asked a user for assistance and he helped me. I also would like to note that I never had an issue with a contributor about dead links. Please understand that I am trying to follow the rules and promise not to be confrontational in the future.--Mishae (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...yes, you did. You got in a dispute with an editor because they kept adding links to an archive site you were unfamiliar with, and you decided that the policy around using offline sources meant deadlinks were preferable to archives you didn't know. If you can't remember it, it's, again, in the first message in this section. And, yes, you reach out a lot, but I note that this often comes after you have got in a dispute, with an attitude of "let me call in my older brother, he'll sort you out", and not to avoid disputes in the first place. Ironholds (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mishae's a tough case and perhaps I shouldn't be commenting on it because I've been away so long, but I really wonder if there's something that can be done. It seems like (and seemed like back when I was more familiar with the issues) that Mishae's main problem isn't his edits. His main problem is that he responds poorly to any questioning of his edits. The question I have is does he respond at all? The big problem that he had two years ago was that he consistently made edits where all he did was remove spaces. Is this still occurring? If not, it shows that he is at least responsive in some manner. Either way, WP:COMPETENCE is still an issue. Mishae has expressed a desire to make only substantial edits for 3-4 weeks. I think something like a topic ban from any namespace other than his user space could help solve this problem. Allow him to do nothing but create articles for a while and perhaps he'll focus more on creation and less on the gnomish edits that often result in problems. from I know we don't make punitive blocks, but in situations like these I think punitive blocks can be preventative. This was certainly the case with me, I was blocked for ten days and as a result came back as a productive editor. Perhaps one or both of these options could be a helpful short term solution. Further, we should be more clear with Mishae that further problems after this will result in a longer month to year long block or a ban. Ryan Vesey 00:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi @Ryan Vesey: I personally decided that I should focus on archiving and content creation/improvement (like major editing) rather than gnoming around (unless archiving is partly gnoming?). Perhaps WikiProject Insects was the final straw in my gnomish editing. I don't like the way that you propose topic ban, since when I did archiving I didn't got in any trouble and even was awarded. I can be trusted with my article creations but I need some guidance in creating copyvio free and grammatically good article (that's when I asked Ironholds, and got redirected to a different editor who helped me clean up copyvios). I once created a great article with @Animalparty:, and you know, I didn't have a single issue with that user. I also didn't got into any arguments with @EricEnfermero: when it came to creating Panos Kalnis article. So, as you can see, I am trying to improve gradually. Unfortunately different editors treat me differently: Some issue me a warning in such a tone that I accelerate. Is it something that I can try to work on? Yes, but I need someone to be present so that when I do get into an argument, I wont be alone. I do occasionally ask for help when conflict arises. Problem is, is that when I ask someone for assistance, I don't get it. I'm glad that you came back, and I am sorry that you see me like this. :( As a side note; I think topic bans are for vandals who engage too much into content addition/removal without consensus agreement. Correct me if I wrong though. :)--Mishae (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as @Rkitko:'s diff goes, I was thanked via notification by @Benny White: for it. With that said, I think that user Rkitko should stop complaining about such minor occurrences. As a side joke, people who issue such concerns and do it often, end up being old faster than others. :) I hope that Rkitko will not hold a grudge against me for this joke.--Mishae (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • We had some difficulties on the Kalnis article. After I fixed some grammar and took out what I felt were a couple of non-notable/unencyclopedic assertions, you reverted and described the edit as "a complete vandalism" in the edit summary. We came to a good understanding and I didn't hold any ongoing grudge, but I am surprised that you would use the Kalnis article as an example of strong teamwork. In general, academic BLPs can be a difficult area. There is confusing terminology in that area and any of us could make a mistake, so that makes it important to remain open to feedback from other editors. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @EricEnfermero: O.K. Perhaps I supposed to have said one of the strongest. I'm glad that you don't hold a grudge, and I need to point out that the reason why I called his edits as a complete vandalism was because I saw him removing over 500 bites of content. By removing such amount he gave me a reason to believe that vandalism have occurred, but after that we had peaceful discussion and issue got resolved. So, in short, some editors are easier for me to talk to then others. Plus, its not easy to communicate with editors when some of them are away and don't even have an alternative on how to reach them. I would like to ask if its possible for someone to give me one of the editors Skypes, which will benefit this project a lot. That way, if I will have an issue with someone, I can paste a link into Skype message and notify an editor for immediate response that way, even if he will be away.--Mishae (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I hope you don't mind a comment from me, Mishae, but in the current dispute you had @Ironholds: trying to help you on your talk page while the argument was hot. But you didn't listen, you just carried on insisting you were right and argued with him too. Can you see why that might argue against your idea that having someone to turn to for help could solve your problems? Squinge (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mishae: For what it's worth, I haven't known Mishae to be a vandal or someone who is deliberately trying to make the encyclopedia worse. I don't know that I have the time to assist in this particular case, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

            • @Ironholds: Where is the diff of this: In February 2015, Mishae decided there was a policy that said it was preferable to have a dead link than a link to an archived version of a page, because that's what he thought "you can cite offline sources" meant. I remember it differently. I remember that I removed dead link instead of archiving, but now I got more experience with it and am confident to continue my good editing. Please stop making statementsa which were one time-only and bring them up here, as I was some kind of a vandal that came to destroy this project. Even if it did happen, I do remember that there was an instance when I removed archived version probably because that archived link was dead, because I was confused, a simple nudge in the right direction did helped me. And now you are bringing it all up again.--Mishae (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mishae, here's how you know I don't think you're a vandal:
  1. I didn't just have you blocked at AIV;
  2. I said, in the opening section you keep implying you've read, that you add value to the encyclopedia;
  3. See (1, 2).

And yes, I misremembered; you did remove the dead link over using the archive. I'm not sure how that's much of an improvement. And yes, the nudge in the right direction helped you, and yes, I am bringing it up again, because the attitude you displayed in that conversation is part of a very wide pattern that's attested to by multiple users in this discussion. If you genuinely don't think that patterns are valuable in indicating a direction forward, I...really don't know what to say to you.

If what you needed was a simple nudge, I would nudge. I have nudge; I challenge anyone here to take a look at my talkpage archive and tell me I haven't consistently been providing nudges to you. But however many I provide, there are always more things to do, and they can always be traced to the same core problems: that despite vast editing experience, you consistently misunderstand or are ignorant of the most basic policy, and see no need to inform yourself before responding in disagreements, and that your attitude with other users is competitive, hierarchical and has a chilling effect on their contributions by making it actively unpleasant for them to interact during disagreements. Ironholds (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not saying that you called me a vandal, but users Rkitko, EdJohnston, and Blackmane brought up negative impression on me saying nothing positive. I'm not looking for encouragement, but I just feel that they feel that they are fluffy and nice and I am a monster who shouldn't be a part of this team. As for core problems, everyone have them. I could not think of a single editor who wouldn't be without core problems being present. For me its especially difficult. I know that a normal person can hide his core problems and pretend like nothing happened, but for me its harder. Having a disability is not an excuse, but living with it is not easy. Mind if I bring @LRD NO:, @RGloucester: and @Dkreisst: to this discussion? Also I had a constructive editing with user @Animalparty:: on an article called Gonzalo Giribet.--Mishae (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to stay out of this ANI being in the thick of attempting to work with Mishae, but the situation doesn't look to be improving. Mishae is still engaging in sniping and battleground behavior [76] [77], claiming WP:DONTLIKEIT when an editor disagrees with them instead of actually addressing what the issues are [78], it's not me it's you, etc. It doesn't appear this editor can edit in a collaborative manner when they want to do something that others disagree about and resorts to lashing out instead. WP:IDHT seems prevalent when actual questions are posed as to what a specific problem is and how to address it while this editor seems to have a narrow "This is what I want" type of and how dare you think otherwise focus instead.

I made it clear at fist I didn't want to seek a block for Mishae when I warned them awhile ago now [79], but given that there's actually a lot of history of this behavior with it persisting up to now even with warnings, I'm not sure if there are really any other options at this point. Topic bans or interaction bans wouldn't seem to be the right scope either. I'll support a block if others think that's the course to go to prevent this toxic atmosphere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingofaces43: I argue with you only because you don't hear it. I brought legitimate examples why the template should be removed, yet you continued to argue that my comments weren't relevant or can be solved the other way. Users @AshLin: and @Gug01: supported my idea, and yet you decided that it should be your way still. Moreover, he accused me of drama, and adversarial behavior, and yet how does he behave? Look at his support of a block in this discussion. To me, user Kingofaces43 is an editor who likes to support blocks on any editors that he finds undesirable. Tell me why you want this template to be present, right here, in this discussion? Because of entomologists that are blind and stupid in your opinion to find an insect they are looking for? Because that was one of your reasons. As for toxic atmosphere that was only between you and me. Maybe we just don't understand each other? Either way, you see it one way, I see it different way. I can be wrong too but not in this discussion. :)
I've heard you plenty fine, and I've been trying to work through the problems you've been bringing up, their validity, and how to address them calmly and by the book. Hearing does not mean accepting what someone argues for, but acknowledging why they brought it up and seeing how it needs to be addressed. Sometimes that's going to mean addressing the things you see as issues an entirely different way, or not seeing them as something that's a valid concern. You're still approaching this too hot-headed with the "weren't relevant" common as it seems you're still not getting it that some of the things you are bringing up aren't decisions to make at the current Wikiproject, but at the other one. We don't make decisions at one Wikiproject for another. Misinterpreting comments as some slight to you is not helping the situation. You're trying to fight your viewpoint in moreso than trying to actually work out what the actual problems. The rest of us are handling it respectfully regardless of what we think, but you are here because you are not doing that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mishae: & @Kingofaces43:. My POV is neither for or against either your stands. I keep the focus on the article rather than people. Imho articles of WikiProject Beetles which are definitely relevant to the parent WikiProject Insects should have both tags as both editors tacking Coleoptera and Insects overall will be improving those articles. In the matter of species articles, I hold the opinion that adding WikiProject tags may not tangibly help the article. So its an intermediate position though I had not meant it to be a via media. I was opining having been requested by Mishae. As such, if I do have to take a side, I stand with Kingofaces43's POV as adding Insect tags may improve the chances of the article for improvement. AshLin (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AshLin: What a bald move! First I read your comment, and I assumed that your POV was neutral, now I am seeing you siding with him too. Why? Were you paid by him to be on his side? I'm very disappointed.--Mishae (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mishae:, I'm not on his side or your side but only on the side of what is good for the encyclopaedia. Please be WP:CIVIL. There is no excuse for your accusing me of being bribed by @Kingofaces43:. Desist from personal attacks or I'll start a separate ANI on your misbehaviour. AshLin (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I probably didn't knew it was a personal attack, sorry, but threats of separate ANI is not better for me or you. Unless you just want to punish me for every fart I make, and this is not good. I maybe overreacted, but you have no right to threaten me with another ANI, one is enough headache for me as it is.--Mishae (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should apologize to Kingofaces43 for my behavior, and hopefully a block wont follow. So, if its possible, please let Kingofaces43 know that I am sorry for any issues that I have caused. I will now wait patiently for decision.--Mishae (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I think the community really needs to weigh in. There's no doubt you're approaching this in a good faith manner, but actions done in good faith can still be disruptive. That's what this posting is primarily about, so apologizing, while helpful, isn't going to necessarily close this. We need to figure out out how to solve this problem by figuring out how to solve the persistent behavior issues to address the key point here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for admins. Mishae is continuing to edit war by replacing tags on a massive number of articles. What's the best way to stop this edit warring when it's clear they won't listen? They've been warned about this on their talk page that they need to get consensus for these widespread changes at the Wikiproject first (which there isn't yet). They've ignored that warning on their talk page at least three times now. Is this kind of behavior something that WP:AIV is better suited for considering the number of edits the user is making? See: [80]. I'm not sure where the best place is to address this more immediate issue while attempting to discuss general behavior or even reach a consensus at the Wikiproject. There aren't clear reverts since I just warned them to stop rather than attempting to revert all the mass changes, but would this be more appropriate at AN3? Mishae is going through a massive number of articles where I'm thinking some admin tool might be needed to restore to the previous versions rather than someone going through and clicking undo in each case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User @Kingofaces43: still assumes that I am vandal. @Koavf: I'm still treating like a vandal and this editor above is even trying to convince the admins to block me even if I contribute constructively and not violating 3RR rule! I'm shocked of accusation of edit warring too, and would like to ask admins to block the above accuser to participate in this debate!--Mishae (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not calling you edits vandalism, but disruptive the way you are doing them. I mentioned the vandalism board because they often deal with mass edits done by users. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Mishae: I'm making this comment as an entirely uninvolved editor. I hope you understand what I am going to say. The issue isn't vandalism. If people are still using that word in the past few minutes, I apologize for them. It is not evident you are intending to harm Wikipedia. Still, good-faith edits can still be unproductive. The issue here, as I see it, is that the results of your actions (rather than the intent) is highly problematic. Multiple people are telling you "slow down and stop doing XXXX" If you keep doing XXXX, that's a problem, even if you mean well. When people say "Maybe you should stop doing that because you aren't doing it right", your best course of action is to listen to them and stop doing whatever it is you were doing wrong. The issue is not vandalism, so defending yourself against that is a non-starter: you wouldn't be blocked for vandalism per se, because this isn't a vandalism issue. However, saying that doesn't mean you won't be blocked. There's other reasons to be blocked besides vandalism and 3RR. You can also be blocked for repeatedly ignoring the good faith requests of others to stop some pattern of editing and discuss before continuing. When people say "Hey there, slow down because I think you're doing it wrong", and you just ignore them, that's also not good. Please listen to these other editors when they ask you to stop doing something, and politely ask them back why they wanted you to stop. They'll explain what you did wrong, and so long as you don't do it wrong again, we'll have no further problems. The issue here is that you've been told exactly that numerous times, and you simply ignore people and keep right on plowing through like a bull in a china shop. You need to heed when other people ask you to talk about things before continuing. Refusing to discuss the problems with your own editing is a still a major problem, even if it isn't vandalism. --Jayron32 04:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Mishae: You're treating me as a vandal? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Koavf: No. Why are you asking that?--Mishae (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Jayron32: and Koavf: I first would like to thank you both for understanding my condition. Since my condition prohibits me to understand stop or else such as explanation as you provided do help me a lot. I do however think that my edits were not in violation because Wikipedia:Ignore all rules states that if a rule prevents you from improving an encyclopedia then ignore it. Meantime, Wikipedia:You Can't Follow All The Rules, All The Time states that It's a good time to apply the WP:Ignore all rules policy and focus on how the proposed change makes the article better regardless of what the rules say. And that was exactly what I did at WikiProject Insets talkpage. Yet despite numerous attempts only 7 editors showed up for discussion 3 of which said that they are against the change, 2 (including me) were in support, and the rest undecided. I proposed the idea to do a vote. That never happened (probably not yet).--Mishae (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I find that statement confusing. "Stop or else" is a pretty unambiguous request. It does not need to be parsed for deeper meaning. Unlike the long, rambling diatribes I tend to write, if people say simple "Stop", then I don't see where that would be confusing. Simple statements like that should be more likely to generate a reaction from you, and not less. If you refuse to respond to simple, unambiguous requests, why would we think that more nuanced discussions would be within your ability to comprehend? Honestly, if the easy stuff doesn't get your attention, the more subtle, nuanced, longer discussions would not strike me as even worthwhile. Please also read WP:NOTTHERAPY. This encyclopedia doesn't exist to provide an outlet for any "condition". We're here to build articles, and while the community does have a tolerance for new users learning the ropes, ultimately the end results of your actions are all that matters. It matters not whether your bad editing is due to intent or inability, at some point the community is going to lose patience. "Conditions" don't make Wikipedia articles better. I have no idea what condition you have, and if I knew, It wouldn't change one iota of how I feel you should be treated. Wikipedia is about results, and whether your lack of good results is due to intent or lack of ability to produce them, matters not. Your condition may get you some bit of concessions from other aspects of your life, whether it is your schooling or your employer, but this is a volunteer service with an expressed mission, not a service with paid therapeutic staff who have the means to deal with "conditions." Whatever condition you have, I don't envy you for it, and if it causes you any amount of problems in your life, I can pray for that to cease. But it matters not if you simply can't produce good results after reasonable allowances for learning the rules around here. That's what WP:CIR means: ultimately, we need you to be able to learn to follow simple behavioral expectations. In the end it doesn't matter why you are, or aren't, following them. People are giving you clear, unambiguous instructions on how to do so. If you ignore them, you have nothing to blame except your own choices. (after you added additional text to your comment) Furthermore, IAR doesn't mean "do whatever you want" It says "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia. People told you directly your actions weren't improving the encyclopedia. If you continue doing whatever you were doing, that's not ignoring rules. That's just being disruptive. --Jayron32 04:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Jayron32: How about you will stop tossing WP:NOTTHERAPY around here. I'm not saying that because I have a condition I can do whatever I want, I mentioned it because this is what prevents in communicating with people in general, including here. Yet, I would like to contribute, but seeing that majority of editors against me because of my disability (and I need to shut up about it too), are seeing me as a disruptive editor simply because I have difficulty communicating, makes me wonder if contributions are worthwhile to this site? I'm seeing that many editors live this project for various reasons, and new editors are hard to come by especially if you will continue to treat all of the editors like scum. This project was rewarding, and would have been more beneficial if not for this discrimination.--Mishae (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thank you for self-editing your original comment, Mishae. I'll not drag you over the coals for what you had originally said, which was beyond-the-pale. Still, not a single person is discriminating against you. Not one. Discrimination means we're treating you differently than we'd treat any other editor. We've not done that at all. We've given you due diligence, and indeed have spent an inordinate effort coddling you and explaining to you how to fix the problems you've been having. If saying "Hey' you should really listen when others say you may be doing something wrong" is discrimination, then you've just redefined that word in ways that I have never seen before, and we have nothing further to discuss, given that we clearly don't speak the same language. Vaya con dios, my friend, because no one here is apparently capable of helping you. --Jayron32 05:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: Firstly, I don't speak Spanish. Second, I didn't say that "Hey' you should really listen when others say you may be doing something wrong" is discrimination. I said that throwing WP:THERAPY at me was an insult. By doing that you are shutting my mouth and that's not nice for such a project as this. I assumed that Wikipedia will different then most, but I guess I was wrong. I donated thousands of articles only to be insulted by numerous editors left and right. I wont be surprised if this project will one day cease to exist, just because everyone is focused on blocks rather than content. Projects that treat their editors with blocks are no better than Nazi Germany, and that's my opinion. Yes, despite that feeling I found a few good friends, but majority of the community is just an angry mob. I personally feel sorry for @Jimbo Wales: who I thought is responsible for the project but it turned out that he is just a money grabber, a cash cow, whom I tried to politely intervene when no admin was around. If a founder is not responding, this is not a community, this is Donbass an anarchic state which probably just like this project will cease to exist. Again, I am sorry for everything, and I am sorry that editors wasted so much time on something that will never be acknowledged by future generations.--Mishae (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the longterm evidence and the frustration of editors who have tried to engage with the editor, I'd say that a time-out (block) for reflection, of considerable length, is in order -- so that the editor learns to hear and respond. Sometimes the only cure for a long-term intransigent case of WP:IDHT is enforced longterm time away from the project. When they are allowed to return, then can see if the behavior persists or if they have learned to listen to and heed other editors and follow wiki protocols and gain consensus, etc. This seems to be a case of heedless headlong repeated disruptive behavior (mixed in with some content creation). Other people have attempted to address and resolve the problem behaviors in various instances and by other means, and it hasn't worked. Now needs the WP:CIR enforcement until corrected. Softlavender (talk)
"The problem is is that Wikipedia have so many rules and guidelines that I just use Wikipedia:Ignore all rules most of the time, because in my opinion it is applied to my edits. If its not, then for what it is used?" This is exactly why you should be blocked for WP:CIR. ADMINS: Now that we have a blatant admission that the user has no plans to either listen (much less respond) to other editors' input or to learn and/or abide by Wikipedia's policies, could we please get an indef WP:CIR block of this user (with WP:STANDARDOFFER)? Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: Your screaming for a block is of no good intention. It sounds like I can't say anything. I need to assume that being normal in this case is being assertive and humiliating. I think Wikipedia is a site in disguise. It pretends to be a site that everyone can edit, yet everyone who edits it get blocked. It pretends to be a site that is inclusionistic, yet it bans every undesired editor and even shuts his mouth if problem arises. The founder of the project is not responsive either.--Mishae (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I overreacted with my above statements. What I was trying to say that people should take in considerations my good edits and I don't like when people scream for indefinite blocks without reading over my contributions. I wrote 3000 articles for this project, so I am definitely not a vandal that should be blocked indefinitely. I hope I will be forgiven.--Mishae (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a shame that we have an editor anxious to contribute to the project, but does so in such a way that the results become a time-sink for other editors and, thus, a net negative for the project. I understand the CIR concerns, and maybe a block will be needed to make the point to Mishae that he really needs to listen and understand the advice people are offering. I honestly hope it need not come to that. Mishae, I realize that you may have disabilities which make it more difficult for you to communicate, but please try not to respond to other editors with hostility – most of the people commenting here are genuinely trying to help you, and to find a way for you to continue contributing to the project in a way that keeps your positive contributions, but eliminates (or at least minimizes) the negative side effects. Maybe someone(s) would be kind enough to offer to be a mentor to Mishae, or we could institute something akin to ARBCOM discretionary sanctions, whereby short slow–down blocks could be easily imposed on this user as needed. I think he at least deserves a little more WP:ROPE before an indef, but the fact he's continued to make the WikiProject Beetle for WikiProject Insect substitution makes me wonder why he wont stop digging. I dunno, the whole thing just makes me sad. Mojoworker (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mojoworker: Its a shame that over the whole 15 years Wikipedia have not developed a single help line for such folks like who want to contribute here, but get misunderstood. Only after a specific editor with condition is being called vandal or troll or whatever unjustified name there is, and only after an AN/I discussion, do some editors realize what they have done. But frankly, majority of times they don't even feel sympathy or guilt if such editors get in trouble. Wikipedia is a good project, but it would have been better if editors would help such folks get on their feet rather than tossing WP:THERAPY. I'm not as problematic as people here assume me to be: I write and edit many articles (mostly archiving). And so far was awarded 20 awards for article creations, archiving, and welcoming of new users. I also used to have mentor who was @Koavf:. Unfortunately when trouble used to arrive, he was not there to help me, and he even don't have time for me now, despite coming back this April for his Justin Knapp day.--Mishae (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block proposal

edit

This has gone on long enough. The issues with Mishae are raised clearly above, and demonstrated further by this thread; while the subject of an AN/I discussion about your competence, it's a really bad idea to accuse other users of being bribed to disagree with you and perpetuate the edits that you have been repeatedly told are disruptive.

Mishae's response has been the aforementioned accusations and disruptive edits, and to state that his condition as an autistic person means that he is incapable of understanding "stop or else", and that the volume of rules on Wikipedia means he actively ignores them rather than read them.

I propose that:

  1. Mishae be banned from editing Wikipedia for 1 months;
  2. After this period, he should be allowed to return in an unrestricted fashion;
  3. If the behaviour that has necessitated this thread continues to make itself known, we can discuss more indefinite sanctions.

I am sympathetic to the condition, and have myself had shrinks debate (in my younger years) whether I fit somewhere on the spectrum - but if it's an active block on understanding "please don't do this", well, that's a competence issue. And I am appreciative of Mishae's many contributions to the encyclopedia, but a large number of contributions does not permit someone to act as a drain on the enthusiasm and mindset of others without consequence. Ironholds (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would support a block, if that gets Mishae to engage in productive discussion, but 6 months seems excessive. He's been blocked several times, but looks like 48 hours was the longest and that was back in 2013 (a couple of indefs since then were reversed in about 15 minutes each). I'm hopeful that something like one or two weeks would be enough for him to reflect on the advice that's been offered him and take it to heart, get on the WP:CLUETRAIN, and cease lame IAR type arguments that fit his preferred outcome. I'd support a provision for a quick jump to the 6-month ban if problematic behavior continues. As I said above, the whole thing makes me sad. Mojoworker (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1 month? Ironholds (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this ban because Ironholds did not disclose the fact that Kingofspades was not exactly an angel towards Mishae. Calling Mishae a vandal more than once was rude and I understand how that would make any editor unhappy. It should have been mentioned by Ironholds in this thread but it wasn't. I also get a bad vibe from the whole thing and therefore I oppose. Caden cool 19:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I linked the diff in which the vandalism comment came up, and made mention of it. I'm not really getting the nature of your oppose, I'm afraid; this is not to do with that specific example, it is to do with a broader pattern of behaviour that is extensively documented here, both through diffs and the nature of Mishae's responses. Can you expand on what you mean by "bad vibe"? Ironholds (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly in this thread here did you mention that Kingoffaces was rude to Mishae? The link you gave doesnt show you saying that. Caden cool 20:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...no, the link is a link to the diff of Kingoffaces referencing vandalism. As my message says. Ironholds (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, once again, where in this ANI report that you filed do you mention that kingoffaces was rude or unkind or uncivil or whatever towards mishae? Your dif is a dif posted by kingoffaces that does not answer my question about you. Caden cool 20:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't, but then, I suspect you know that. I probably should've listed it, yes, but I have some expectation that people will do research prior to making decisions about users' editing permissions, so... I'd still like to know what you think of the rest of the situation, or what you mean by "bad vibe", if you've got the time. Ironholds (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you should of listed it on ANI but you chose not to. Because of that I oppose. What I mean by a bad vibe is based on a gut feeling. I never ignore it and always listen to it. Caden cool 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's just telling you that it's time to eat. BMK (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcastic Ken? Now, you know what you can do with that, right? Caden cool 22:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm.... sauté it in a little butter and serve it with a fresh green salad? BMK (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever Barbie. Time to dye that fake hair of yours brown and drop the dumb blonde act. Caden cool 23:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Hair"? Oh, yeah I remember that with great fondness. BMK (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't actually address any of the rest of the ANI post, but alright. I'll remember that for the future; "any oversight which could've been corrected by the objecting user at any point in a multi-day discussion should instead be held in reserve as a rationale to oppose, rather than being used to actually inform the conversation".Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you could take the time to say on ANI that Mishae called kingoffaces a "troll" well then you could of taken the time to say that kingoffaces was basically calling him a vandal. Keeping things to make one editor look better than another is never a good idea. Thats what you did here as far as i'm concerned. Caden cool 22:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Caden: did you just accuse me of deliberately fabricating or twisting evidence to bias the conversation? Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not. Caden cool 23:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like, then, either an explanation of what you mean by " Keeping things to make one editor look better than another is never a good idea. Thats what you did here as far as i'm concerned." or a correction. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't ever called Mishae a vandal. I've referenced that some could consider such widespread edits without consensus after repeated warnings vandalism-like (needing the same tools to address the large number of edits, etc.), so my warnings were intended to alert them to that. I've been pretty respectful during the whole process while tolerating a lot of incivility. I can't pick out anything where I would specifically be unkind or rude in my posts, but there is also a difference between one user being rude and another taking offense. The degree at which the latter is occurring here seems to be the primary issue. If an editor can't approach another civilly about an issue without backlash like this, it's a problem. I have been considering the behavior highly disruptive though. It's a very strange case that is not vandalism, but my asking about the vandalism noticeboard was related to how to deal with the widespread edits since those folks deal with that in actual vandalism cases as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You didnt need to say it. You referencing it said it for you. It speaks volumes and it left Mishae believing you were calling him a vandal and that's the impression I got too. My mind is made up and it aint changing. I still oppose. Caden cool 22:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (uninvolved non admin) A month off to learn more of the rules and procedures sounds about right. If Mishae could find a mentor perhaps the block can be lifted. But that would take Mishae agreeing to follow what the mentor said. AlbinoFerret 20:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm the one who's been mentoring him, and I opened the discussion :/. Ironholds (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm open for mentorship with @Ironholds: after the expiration of a block, but I guess he wont take this offer kindly since I already wore out his patience.--Mishae (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You guess correctly. I don't deal with people who are either anti-Semitic or, more probably, contemptibly lacking in any sense of proportion, decency or empathy. Pick whichever you feel best applies to you. Ironholds (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support block of at least one month; more if the behaviors persist. The user shows no sign that they understand they have done anything wrong or that they will change their ways -- this cannot be allowed to persist. It seems the only way forward is a block of at least one month. If that doesn't have an effect, then an indef block with WP:STANDARDOFFER. Softlavender (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Frankly, a block for a month will turn out to be useless, as this editor is obviously incapable of understanding the rules of this place, and the social mechanisms that make it (barely) work. He will ultimately have to be indef blocked per WP:CIR. However, in the spirit of WP:AGF and WP:ROPE (a somewhat ironic combination), a block for a month is a reasonable first step. BMK (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree so too to these terms. One month will be enough for me to read and understand basic stuff, plus I really needed a break, and should have asked for selfblock instead of this. In the mean time, is it possible for someone to give me their Skype number so that I can use to ask him/her about such and such guideline? Many thanks in advance.--Mishae (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I had never interacted with this user before yesterday. I tried counseling them and advising them on how to avoid the problems they are having. Within a few hours, I got called a Nazi twice (redacted the first time, allowed to stand the second). I'm washing my hands of this. --Jayron32 00:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Jayron32: Firstly, I didn't called you a Nazi in particular, nor koavf, :) I called certain actions by some users of this discussion though that way. There is a difference. When people scream for a block, that to me is identical to the Nazi junta yelling all Jews must be gassed. So to me, being blocked is same way as being killed, especially when it comes to being blocked indefinitely. I hope I made it clear now? If you got offended by it, I am sorry, didn't ment to hurt your feelings. I supposed to have spaced that so that it will not be assumed that I called you that. :)--Mishae (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Mishae, you've certainly fulfilled Godwin's Law here. This situation has come about entirely due to your own doing. You have been repeatedly told "stop your disruptive behaviors or else", and you have consistently replied that you do not (or refuse to) understand "stop or else", and so this block is the "or else". It seems like from your attitude that even the one-month block is not going to be effective, and that you will eventually be indefinitely blocked. If you would like to avoid that fate, then cease your self-justifications and promise to stop when experienced editors tell you to stop. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: But it could have ended up as civil discussion if you wouldn't have screamed for indefinite block.--Mishae (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I should have told you all that earlier but my gnomish edits were careless due to an adware in my startup which reoccurs often and I don't know why. Despite numerous of removal it comes back every 3 days. Hopefully this nuisance would be addressed in the future discussions.--Mishae (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what?! I missed Mishae's comment, it seems. Because if I'd heard that he was comparing being blocked to being killed as part of a genocidal campaign by racist authoritarian dictators I would have pushed for an indefinite block from the get-go. In fact, can someone explain why Mishae is not currently blocked for that? Ironholds (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ironholds: I think you need to read above comment. More over, what's so bad about this comparison, if that was my feeling at first? After you make this comment, please understand that Wikipedia is not a dictatorship (although its not democracy either). O.K. Is it because you are part Jewish you took offence to it (I seen you photograph, no offence?)? If so, it was just my view of user Softlavender comments, nothing more, nothing less. Like really, having a gag in my mouth is identical top Nazism, sand your comment is another gag, therefore I wont apologize. I compared users' actions not users themselves. Is that clear? I don't see anything wrong in my POV.--Mishae (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did I take offence to it because I'm partially Jewish, as evidenced by how I look?! What the HELL do you think you're doing making those kinds of comments about other users and making those kinds of comparisons? Alright, this is a moot discussion. Congratulations; with your attitude and interventions, you've successfully progressed from being blocked for being actively incompetent to being blocked for being an actively incompetent racist. Enjoy your mandatory, all-expenses-paid vacation. Ironholds (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hoaxer from the Bronx, targeting music articles

edit
Taken care of by Diannaa. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I thought maybe a particular hoaxer from the Bronx had ceased disruption a month ago, but I was proven wrong by this edit today which added a hoax musical collaboration to the Quincy Jones biography. (Note that Quincy's biography falls under BLP guidelines.) The hoaxer has been active for more than two years, using the following IP addresses:

I have performed a bunch of research to undo this person's long-term disruption, while retaining any reasonably useful bits.[81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95] I don't care to see any more of this nonsense.

The most recently active IP was blocked for one week in February then for one month one month ago. HJ Mitchell and Materialscientist enacted the blocks. Can we stop this person again and increase the block length? Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3 months. Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP pushing white supremacist POV

edit
IP blocked for six months by Jayron32. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

User has previously been blocked for edit warring on the article National Alliance (United States) (about a white supremacist group), to assert that they're back under the new leadership of William Williams (by an individual who, according to -ugh- Metapedia, has ties to North Carolina, where the IP geolocates).

They've posted a (copyvio-filled) rant on the talk page against the ADL on the talk page, advocated citing white supremacist sources to the exclusion of sources like the Anti-Defamation League or the Southern Poverty Law Center, spammed recruitment links for white supremacist groups, doesn't seem able to understand WP:NPA, has no interest in learning to identify or cite reliable sources, and continues to push a white supremacist and antisemitic POV on articles after being repeatedly warned against doing so.

Can we not only get a block, but also arrange something so editors can just go to AIV and link to this discussion in the future? Alternatively, can we just take advantage of the static nature of the IP, and put it on a really long block? The person using it is at least one of Williams's lackeys (if not Williams himself). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism by User:192.34.174.178

edit
Blocked for a year--Ymblanter (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

192.34.174.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) The IP has a history of vandalism, had been gone for a while, but its return is just vandalism. Jerodlycett (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:70.59.21.174

edit
Blocked for 48 hours. Sam Walton (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My impression is that this user has repeatedly attempted to change the Supremacism article to validate supremacist propaganda and among other things whitewash the Ku Klux Klan. In addition, he has left a disgusting insulting message on my talk page. Assistance would be very appreciated. Thank you for any help.

[96] [97] [98] [99] [100]

[101] David A (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not even sure if this is an insult or not; it doesn't make much sense. I do agree that the IP should be blocked for the article edits though. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he did state that just because I like harmless animation shows, I am somehow "Masturbating to anime porn". David A (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kent Hovind

edit
Article AfD closed as snow keep, obvious puppet accounts blocked. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

edit

User:CBombWorthy41 has made an implied here. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding the edit correctly (and the actual diff for it is this), CBombWorth41 is reporting that a person named Kent Hovind on a video on YouTube says that edits (presumably to the article Kent Hovind) have to made according to that person's demands, or that person will include Wikipedia in a lawsuit. Unless CBombWorthy41 is Kent Hovind, that's not a legal threat, it's a report of a threat of legal action made off-Wiki. I doubt that there's anything actionable in this, unless I'm misunderstanding the situation. BMK (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, seeing as they are one of many SPAs at this AFD discussion making the same threats, they are least guilty of being meat puppets.Flat Out let's discuss it 02:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Has made a legal threat here. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again about Kent Hovind, which is at AfD. I do indeed think that the statement "Wiki will be held accountable for false and libel comments" made by LoneStart1776 is a legal threat and should be dealt with as such. BMK (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Has made a legal threat here Flat Out let's discuss it 02:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is also about the Kent Hovind AfD, I've combined them together.
In this one, WikiUser2k15 throws around the word "slanderous" a lot, but there's no mention of legal action that I can see, more of a call for Wikipedia to do the right thing as seen by the commenter. I'd say it's borderlinem but not actionable. BMK (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

All three of these accounts were created today. Two of the three have just the one edit reported here, and the last had 4 edits, all to the AfD. These are clearly SPAs created for the purpose of commentingabout Pastor Kent Hovind. Whether they are Horvind himself or followers is irrelevant, since they're either WP:Sockpuppets or WP:Meatpuppets. Considering that, the edits that I characterized as borderline or non-actionable take on a new coloring. All of these accounts should probably be blocked for meatpuppetry, and violation of WP:NLT, in my opinion. Let's see if any admins agree. BMK (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your nomination of Kent Hovind for deletion was a pretty stupid thing to do. We don't delete artciels because we don't like what the person says or stands for, or because we do like it, we delete them because they don't meet our standards for notability. BMK (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, it was a procedural nomination. It should be noted that there is canvassing[102] on the LoneStar1776 YouTube channel, asking people to "vote" for deletion by pasting text including the phrase "libel and defamatory". (Click on the "show more" tab in the info section.)BiologicalMe (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Am I wrong, or shouldn't an OTRS request that mentions legal matter be referred to WMF Legal, and not provoke an AfD? Seems like that kind of response only encourages legal threats. BMK (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the email of course, but what are the chances the guy pointed out specifically what he thought was wrong? Also what are the chances that what he did point out wasn't using a reliable source? I think 0% total on that. I think the AfD was more to poke fun than anything. Jerodlycett (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reviewing this with the OTRS team now. Nakon 04:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The guide on legal:

Implicit threats of law suits - OK to act on them? Yes. OK to respond? Yes, and attempt to handle. For implicit threats of law suits, such as "there may be legal concerns about ...." or "Blah blah blah is libel!" with no actual threat of a law suit, you do not need to send it to the LCA team. Doing so will only slow handling down, as it will be a week or two generally before it is reviewed and it will then be sent back to OTRS. Instead, send it to the Quality, Courtesy, Vandalism, or Schools queue as appropriate.

Cheers Flat Out let's discuss it 04:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but you also don't open an AfD, validating the legal threat, and empowering the person who made the threat. BMK (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After review, this article's AFD has been closed as a SNOW keep. Nakon 04:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Habilemonkac and Foreign volunteers for nursing for the German Red Cross during World War II

edit
Blocked as sock of Sju hav by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Habilemonkac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit warring to paste the text of an article to User talk:Jimbo Wales: [103], [104]. He's also removing the CSD tag for this article: [105]. His talk page shows this article has been created and speedy deleted in other forms, e.g., Foreign volunteers for nursing for Germany during World War II: User talk:Habilemonkac. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previously warned user: User_talk:Habilemonkac#April_2015, now notified of this discussion: [106] JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Habilemonkac (talk · contribs) made his debut at Wikipedia by twice removing a Speedy Deletion tag from an article created by Sju hav sock puppet Creambreek. He went on to start pretty much a copy of that article. Both those articles have now been deleted; one as speedy deletion as created by a banned user and the other through an ordinary ADF process. He has now created a third article on the same topic which I have nominated for speedy deletion per G4. Habilemonkac has twice removed SD tag for the article, despite being told that he is not allowed to remove such tags for articles he has created himself. Iselilja (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring to remove WP:CSD tag from subject article [107]. WP:CSD states The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Notes & warnings to User talk:Habilemonkac have no apparent impact on user’s behavior. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editor crossed 3RR line. Reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Habilemonkac_reported_by_User:JoeSperrazza_.28Result:_.29. Close here? JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Standard Offer request for Munjanes

edit
Unblocked. Nakon 16:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I am relaying a user's request for accepting the Standard Offer from the UTRS queue. On an initial review, Munjanes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not created any new sockpuppets since June 2014. Per the standard 6 month guidelines, it appears that this user may eligible for the Standard Offer. The user's request for unblock is reproduced below:

Thanks for your consideration, Nakon 03:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll not act unilaterally yet, but I Support an unblock per WP:STANDARDOFFER and WP:ROPE. I see no evidence this isn't sincere, and perhaps he's grown up in 6 months. I'm good with unblocking him, and if no one beats me to it, after sufficient opportunity for others to comment, I probably will do so. --Jayron32 04:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you (or anyone) unblocks, please either update the user through UTRS (#13276) or let me know so I can send an update. Nakon 04:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unlesss, I sm missing somethings the user in question is a sock of User:SuperNepoznat, so why would the unblock apply to the sock over the main account?--67.68.208.170 (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the user wishes to disown the master account, I don't see any reason why their "newer" account can't be used instead. Nakon 05:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Nakon, we don't force users to any particular account (or even to a single account, WP:SOCK lists many good-faith reasons to maintain multiple accounts). The block/ban was placed on the person. If the person wants to return to Wikipedia, and if they ALSO get consensus to be allowed to do so, there is no prejudice towards doing so under any one specific account. If they want to use any particular existing account, a new account, or no account at all, IF (and this is a big if) they are allowed to edit again, then there are no specific restrictions on which account to use to do so, no more so than any other user in deciding how, and which, and for what reasons, to use an account. It would be a matter of good faith for the OP to stick to a single account (given the WP:SOCK violations before), but it isn't our place to decide what their username must be. --Jayron32 05:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a reblock is easy if necessary; hopefully it won't be. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - worst-case scenario, we let back in someone who resumes their disruption, and the admins who will undoubtedly watch them like a hawk will pull the block trigger again. Best case scenario; we have a good-faith contributor. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor is changing rules to fit his ideology

edit
BOOMERANG
OP indeffed by JzG. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 18:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Malik Shabazz is following me around – and changing the rules as he goes along. if he does not like the opinion piece then he says opinion is not valid. When I seek to remove opinions, he blocks it. Same goes for sources. Not fair and I seek help as its not within Wikipedia rulings. Richie1921 (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Diffs? Examples? You're not really going into any detail. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw the pair of them edit warring over the page and protected it. I left them both a short note to go to the talk page. Richie1921 you forgot to notify Malik Shabazz about this, see the notice above. I've done it for you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Richie1921, please read WP:BOOMERANG. You've violated 1RR at New Israel Fund (in fact, you may have violated 3RR there) and you've been edit-warring at Fenton Communications and Richard Edelman. As I recommended two hours ago, please read WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:BLP. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Malik Shabazz: You described "garbage sources" and speaking rude when inviting rules. What you call "edit warring" entails me removing items unsourced here:Fenton Communications also you call it edit warring when you say PR Week is not a worthy source when I post it, yet when someone else does and I remove it you object – here: Richard Edelman

Richie1921 (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richie1921 has surprising knowledge of wikipedia for a new editor. Even brought someone to an administrative board. So far he/she has done nothing except disrupt multiple articles. I suggest that an uninvolved admin watch him/her and hit the block button at the next transgression. Zerotalk 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no strong views about Malik Shabazz but I have known her/him from Talk:Israel make positive contributions that have met approval of all editors. S/he is shown to be confrontational but I have not researched the justifiability of interventions taken. The side that I have seen of Malik is of an editor that can invest into developing solid content. GregKaye 21:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richie1921 was blocked for edit warring, based on a review of contributions to date, which are entirely inconsistent with a new user, as noted above, I have upped to indef. We don't need more warriors in this subject area. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archiving matter at User:Proxima Centauri's talk page

edit

After Proxima Centauri made this edit (which I reverted) to the Murder article, I decided to look into his talk page edit history because I remembered interacting with him before and that he'd received a lot of warnings for inappropriate editing; I wanted to see if he'd gotten any recent warnings. To my surprise, his talk page edit history has been mangled because he archives that edit history to a talk page archive by using WP:Move; see here and here, for examples. I've never seen archiving like that (if I have I don't remember it or I didn't pay much attention to it before), and I view this as problematic because archives, which are WP:Subpages, can be deleted. Along with them, would be Proxima Centauri's talk page edit history, which documents his past problematic editing. If he did that knowing it would make his talk page edit history such a mess, I have to state that it's ingenious. That talk page edit history should be combined, not disjointed, not made so that it is complicated tracking down that past history. NeilN, for example, is no longer shown in his talk page edit history even though he has commented on his talk page before. I think I've commented on his talk page before; I currently can't be sure; I scanned through his archives to see if I have, but maybe I overlooked something. Or maybe he deleted what I stated there, and that edit history no longer shows up because he archived what was currently on his talk page. This is what his talk page edit history looks like now. I think that one of the WP:Moves also caused his user page/talk page (or maybe just the talk if that's possible) to be taken off my WP:Watchlist; I don't remember de-watching his talk page. I would use the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool to track down my interaction with Proxima Centauri, but it's currently not working.

Would a WP:Administrator be willing to WP:Histmerge these edit histories? Proxima Centauri can obviously be informed on how to appropriately WP:Archive. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is against policy as I've seen other experienced editors archive this way but it makes looking at history a real pain in the neck. --NeilN talk to me 20:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that the archiving was done in this exact way with those other editors? I view it as highly problematic in the case of problematic editors, for reasons I've stated above. And now I again remember my interaction with this editor; it concerned the Homosexuality article. I remembered this weeks ago when his username popped up; see Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 23#Edit reverted on evolution and User talk:Proxima Centauri/Archive 4#personal attack in Homosexuality article talk. Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, look at RHaworth. Searching is bit easier since they have a search field but the talk page history is gone. --NeilN talk to me 20:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not required for editors to archive their user talk page content. I know some long-standing editors who simply delete comments once they are read.
I've run into the same problem though. I KNOW I've made comments on some talk pages but when I've looked for them months later, they are absent from the talk page history. I even asked an admin to see if they had been deleted but no, they just don't show up. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[ WP:Edit Conflict ]: Liz, per above, it is the talk page edit history that I am focusing on. And in the case of this type of archiving, that editor's talk page edit history can be deleted.
NeilN, I feel that regarding WP:OWNTALK, which is currently clear about the importance of talk page edit histories and that user talk pages are almost never deleted, I need to propose some new language at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines to address this type of archiving. If an editor requests that their archives be deleted, it is unlikely that the WP:Administrator will check to see if all of that editor's talk page edit history is combined with those archives. By the way, the reason that I knew you'd commented at Proxima Centauri's talk page is because I saw you in Proxima Centauri user page edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no good whatsoever coming out of disjointed talk page edit histories of this type. For one, it makes searching difficult. For two, editors can have their talk page edit histories deleted, which is usually a no-no. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 6) Not that I think any of this is done in bad faith, I think perhaps it's time we made a policy about this. WP:OWNTALK indicates that users may remove and/or archive notices and other conversations from their own talk page, saying "conversations can always be retrieved from the page history", but if the page is being moved to an archive subpage then the history is fragmented, meaning that even with an archive search like RHaworth's, it would make it necessary to scour the revision histories of multiple pages to find a notice that might have been removed either before or after archiving, unless you knew exactly where to look, and that could fairly easily be abused to conceal past misdeeds (again, not that I think anyone here has that in mind). For what it's worth, I don't seem to have the same de-watching problem that Flyer22 observed; I watch RHaworth's talk and was not affected by his recent archiving of the page, though he could be using admin tools to pull that off. Ivanvector (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Help:Archiving a talk page/Other procedures; this is described as an increasingly uncommon approach, but until fairly recently was explicitly listed at WP:ARCHIVE as an acceptable way to archive a user talk page. I know of several long-term editors who still archive this way. The subpages do not qualify for speedy deletion. If their talk page was on your watchlist, then the archive remains on your watchlist after the move, and the new talk page will be watchlisted too. If you edited their talk page, your edit remains in the history of the archived page, and still shows in your contributions. There are advantages and disadvantages to all archiving methods, and this does have some advantages. I don't really like how it works myself, but it is not against policy or guideline. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector and Floquenbeam, thanks for weighing in. Per what Ivanvector and I stated above, I still think that this way of archiving is problematic and we need to reexamine its acceptability and state something about this at WP:Talk and WP:Move. Floquenbeam, I did not mention WP:Speedy deletion; I simply mentioned deletion. I stated above, "If an editor requests that their archives be deleted, it is unlikely that the WP:Administrator will check to see if all of that editor's talk page edit history is combined with those archives." Do you think that's not not likely to happen? I cannot help but think that it is likely to happen. I've seen something like it happen in the case of Sportfan5000 (talk · contribs), a WP:Sockpuppet of the banned editor User:Benjiboi; see this section. That WP:Administrators can see/retrieve the content is not the point; the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are not WP:Administrators. As for the de-watching matter, perhaps I accidentally took that page of my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Sportfan5000, though, User talk:Sportfan5000/BLPlist was deleted by Tokyogirl79 at "06:48, 22 March 2014" because it was the "talk page of a deleted page." So not quite the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think accidentally deleting talk page archives is possible in a vanishingly small number of cases, and if it does happen, we can undelete when we realize. Not worth messing up lots of other people's archiving systems that have been used for years (how, for example, would you suggest that current archives be "fixed"?) I understand the frustration with the history being a patchwork, but again, this is a manageable problem, not worth the disruption to others. At the very least (and I am not supporting this) if we decide this is no longer an "approved" method, we should grandfather in everyone doing it already. Interesting note: a case could be made that copy/paste archiving violates licensing... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not speaking of "accidentally deleting talk page archives"; I'm speaking of deleting talk page edit histories along with the archives and no one being the wiser that those archives contain the editor's entire talk page edit history. Even in the case of WP:Vanish, the talk page edit history is not usually deleted. I also am not stating that productive editors who currently use this style should stop; since this archiving style is not standard, there are likely only a few (or as mentioned above, several) editors who archive this way. Proposing that editors do not archive this way will not affect editors on a large scale (I mean current editors). In my opinion, problematic editors absolutely should not be archiving this way. Yes, we can get into the discussion of what is a problematic editor, but that can be worked out at WP:Talk. In the case of Proxima Centauri and other editors I can point to, their WP:Block log does not indicate their problematic editing; their talk page edit histories, however, do. As for how I suggest that the current archives be fixed, I already mentioned WP:Histmerge above; the edit histories can be restored to the main talk page, and the archives would be fine. As for "a case could be made that copy/paste archiving violates licensing," how so? Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Licensing requires attribution. Unless you omit the signatures, you've included the attribution that the authors themselves used. But when archiving isn't required, there's no reason to object to a less common mode of archiving. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend, per what Ivanvector and I stated above, I can't agree that this is not a method of archiving that shouldn't be objected to. I will be addressing this matter at WP:Talk, sooner or later, and I will advertise it via the WP:Village pump. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert in this by any means, but my understanding is that attribution is satisfied as long as the cut-and-paste edit refers back to the page where content was originally contributed. This is the case for almost all cut-and-paste archiving (Lowercase sigmabot III's entries all read "archiving entries from <source>", for example). Ivanvector (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22: Wait: Are you suggesting that when an editor who archives this way is (through some mechanism) deemed "problematic", then their talk page archives should be histmerged? And that all non-problematic editors, new and old, can continue to use this method to archive if they want to? In that case, I've misunderstood. I still don't think it's worth the trouble, but I've no objection if there's a consensus for it. As for the copy/paste archiving theoretically violating licensing, note (again) that I don't actually think it's a problem myself, just that (in theory) the archive has a bunch of content on it that has no history associated with it. I've seen people argue before that this is a disadvantage to copy/paste archiving. As long as the edit summary clearly indicates what page the content came from, I'm sure it's fine (especially practically). That's probably a side-issue I should have left out, in order not to sidetrack. My point was supposed to be that all archiving methods have advantages and disadvantages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam, I'm suggesting that we state that people generally should not archive this way, or rather should not archive this way (without the "generally" added in), and that this is especially the case regarding problematic editors. I am not stating that "new and old, can continue to use this method to archive if they want to." I'm stating that I don't see a need to disrupt the archiving style of the few (or several) productive editors who archive this way. It's similar to how the top of Rms125a@hotmail.com's talk page currently states, "To anyone who has a question about my username please be advised that I will not be changing it, although I did change my signature. Thanks for your understanding.
NOTE:
Robert is one of the few editors who is not obliged to change his username, as his account was created many years before the rules were changed - Alison ❤ 02:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)." Like I just told Nyttend above, "per what Ivanvector and I stated above, I can't agree that [this method of archiving] is not a method of archiving that shouldn't be objected to. I will be addressing this matter at WP:Talk, sooner or later, and I will advertise it via the WP:Village pump." Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. Once again, there's no requirement that a user archive his talk page. Given this fact, if he decides to do it, let him do it as he wishes: don't harass him about it, and don't attempt to prevent others from starting. If you want to do something about the situation, first try to get consensus for mandating that all users archive their talk pages. And definitely don't attempt to force a histmerge. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ridiculous in the least; you are failing to get the point, as this is not about there being "no requirement that a user archive his talk page." And I have not engaged in any WP:Harassment on this matter. Once the discussion about this topic is started at WP:Talk and advertised, we will see how many agree with you or me on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basically it's: "It's up to you whether or not to archive your talk page to subpages but if you do, use the cut and paste method, don't move it. Editors already using the move method can continue to do so." I can get behind that. --NeilN talk to me 23:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because Ottawahitech just thanked me via WP:Echo for this edit, I looked at his contributions and saw that he'd, days/hours before I made this thread, questioned RHaworth at RHaworth's talk page about "wip[ing] out [talk page] revision history"; so I take it that Ottawahitech feels similarly to the way that I feel on this matter. RHaworth offered an explanation there for the way that he archives, however. And, like I stated, I'm not looking to have RHaworth change his archiving style; I feel that, in one way or another, we should note at WP:Talk and WP:Move how this type of archiving can be problematic and is therefore less desirable than other forms of archiving. And, as seen, Help:Archiving a talk page/Other procedures was pointed out above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason my name is being thrown around? I got an alert message. Quis separabit? 23:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rms125a@hotmail.com, read above; I was simply giving an example of a new rule vs. a past rule, or rather a new way of doing things vs. a past way of doing things. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This practice is kind of annoying but attempting to discourage or prevent it is pure distilled laboratory-grade WP:CREEP. If you need to search, why not just use "prefix:User talk:Proxima Centauri", just like the archive box search field would? Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis, WP:CREEP is an essay, not a policy or a guideline, for a reason. And I only suggest altering a policy or guideline when I think it should be altered. I have been clear above why I feel the way I do about this archiving practice. To state more on that would be needlessly repeating myself. Again, this will be discussed at the WP:Talk guideline page; I will start a discussion there about it soon after this WP:ANI thread is clearly done. Flyer22 (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, WP:CREEP is too often referenced when it shouldn't be. And if it were a policy or a guideline, I don't think that my suggestions in this regard would be a WP:CREEP violation. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually prefer this method of archiving for other editors. The primary disadvantage is that is means everything has to be archived at once. But for a user talk page, this is often acceptable. And it has a big advantage namely that the edit history is still on the page where the edits are now visible. Makes it easy to look through the history. Nil Einne (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RHaworth stated similarly to Ottawahitech (see my "23:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)" post above if you haven't already) about that perceived advantage. In my opinion, the disadvantages (including WP:Newbies or otherwise significantly inexperienced Wikipedians not knowing much about locating previous discussions) accompanying this archive method outweighs any positive it has. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been using the same archiving technique as Proxima Centauri for some time now. I feel it is tidier if the history for the edits visible in the "top copy" of the archive page should be found within that page. Also, if I used archive bot style archiving, my user talk page would have an history about 15,000 edits long and who would want to plough through that? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Realisticly newbies or inexperienced Wikipedians are not going to be able to locate previous discussions except in the actual archives since they don't know how to use edit histories, heck probably don't even know they exist. So this is more of a reason to require archiving, which we don't for various reasons, than to mandate a pratical style. Actual many newbies won't even find the archives even if there are very prominent links to them. On the other hand, we can't forbid archiving and require all messages to stay on the same page either because they also won't find them on very long pages. So there's really no solution for the unfortunate problems that newbies will face. So I'm not seeing any real disadvantage in the point you highlighted. Perhaps there will be a tiny number of people (who you could probably fairly call inexperienced wikipedians, but not newbies!) who can figure out how to use an edit history, but not find the proper edit history, but the number isn't going to be very high. As RHaworth also hinted at, for pages with lots of edits it's likely there are far more editors who will actually be able to find what they want using this archive system, but not be able to find what they want with a more traditional archive system due to their inability to figure out how to find the right date. All in all, I think it's fair to say that this method seems to have the best ratio of advantages to disadvantages (in terms of relative weighting) when it can be used. It's just that it's not suitable in the majority of cases to due the problems selectively archiving. Nil Einne (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I WP:Patrol a lot, and I see WP:Newbies and other significantly inexperienced Wikipedia editors figuring out how to use the edit histories very quickly when it comes to reverting. It shouldn't take much for them to figure out how to use the edit history to locate a previous discussion (though, yes, I have seen WP:Newbies and other significantly inexperienced Wikipedia editors not even know how to revert, except for manually re-adding their material). The edit history of a talk page gives us the option to search for a previous discussion via the "Edits by user" function, which helps me easily and quickly remember if I commented on an editor's talk page and see when that discussion took place; this, in turn, helps me easily find the archive that the discussion is likely in. And the edit history of a talk page gives us the option of searching by year and month. So there is never much difficulty in locating past discussions via the standard archiving procedures, which is why editors above have described the non-standard way that is mainly being discussed now as "a real pain in the neck," "annoying," and so on. I don't see any good reason not to caution editors about archiving in a way that makes it more difficult for others to find their past discussions. Ivanvector, with his "21:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)" post above, described best how I feel about this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit break

edit

User:RHaworth wrote above:

I have been using the same archiving technique as Proxima Centau

It is one matter when you archive your own talkpage, but quite another when you force this method on other editors.

I would greatly appreciate an WP:Administrator WP:Histmering my user talkpage to the way it was before it was tampered with (there may be other editors who may need this type of help) Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ottawa, please agree that at 580k bytes long your user talk page was hopelessly overdue for editing. (Indeed, I think that at 80k bytes long the page is still too big but I will not insist.) So please agree: a) that the present "top copy" of the page is OK and b) that I may arrange for the archive bot to do regular archiving in future. If you accept those points, I am perfectly happy to move the page history back. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rhaworth said (when I think he was addressing me): I think that at 80k bytes long the page is still too big
If you really must disrupt editing to make a point you can try archiving User:DGG’s talkpage. In the meantime can I please get back to my regular editing pattern which requires someone who does not automatically assume I am a wp:problematic editor:
Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the point of our showing log entries if you don't read them and even more to the point, what is the point of you having a user talk page if you don't read the messages on it? The log entries at Tina Huang v. Twitter clearly show that I did delete the page but then changed my mind, restored it and did something else. My comment in this thread on your talk page clearly explains what I have done. Histmerge also done. The only saving grace of DGGs talk page is that he clearly does think about archiving but I can see no earthly reason why threads from 2011 should still be there - I shall have a word with him. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Awesome5860

edit
24 HOUR BLOCK
Awesome5860 blocked for 24 hours by Nyttend for EW. (non-admin closure) Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User repeatedly inserts irrelevant image into Polandball article (picture of a fictional country, most likely a promotion of the author's own imagination). He has been told by numerous editors in diffs and on his own talk page to cease and desist, or at least open up debate on the article's talk page. None of this has been followed through, and it is at least disruptive that we have to undo him all the time. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours; he reverted four times in slightly more than 24 hours, and that's obviously edit warring. It's been a couple of hours since his last edit, but he's seemingly taking several hours between edits, and one of his reverts followed the most recent warning at his talk page. Nyttend (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Carter and Ret.Prof

edit
I have issued a three-month topic ban to Ret. Prof., based on the evidence, opinions and behaviours shown below. This seems to me to be a moderate action given the unusually extended period of his documented refusal to accept consensus. He's welcome to appeal, and I recommend any discussion around such appeal focus explicitly on how he intends to reduce the very obvious disruption he has been causing and not stray into yet more descriptions of why he alone is right, and why everybody who explains to him that he's wrong is horrible and should be banned. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because JzG participated in the discussion below, at his request, I have reviewed the discussion and endorse this close. Furthmore, POV pushing is often difficult to recognize or prove with a handful of diffs, so I don't find the objections to the topic ban to be convincing. The problem is when a user pushes, and pushes, despite repeated objections. Ret.prof's behavior in this thread is indicative of the problem. That said, this discussion has had relatively few comments and I would welcome the Arbitration Committee to review the dispute. Jehochman Talk 00:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ret.Prof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm bringing these two users before AN/I to propose a three-month topic ban on the Gospel of Matthew. More for Ret.Prof, as his arguing over this page go back Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 8 over a year. The specific issue that brings this up is the fighting over each other, not the content, at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Gospel of Matthew: 50 CE. The topic ban should allow cooler heads to prevail. If not then a permanent topic ban will be needed. I'm not personally involved, I went to the NPOV/N to see if I could contribute, but didn't feel like getting involved in the fighting. I don't believe diffs are needed here as just reading the content on NPOV/N will show the fighting. I'm hoping that these two can contribute usefully to other areas if they get a topic ban here. Jerodlycett (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

edit

Proposed topic ban of John Carter

edit

I propose this as the editor has repeatedly used threats of AN/I as his argument on NPOV/N. Jerodlycett (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • There can be no topic ban without evidence. It's not reasonable to ask people to read NPOVN to find what is on the OP's mind. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Observations About Two Editors and a Call for an RFC, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Confusion, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Response to PICO which made up >80% of the NPOV/N when I posted. As in the majority of it. If you had actually read any of the NPOV/N that I linked to you would have realized this. Jerodlycett (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless of the merits of your case, a snarky attitude won't endear you to your fellow editors. I can see you are frustrated, Jerodlycett, but you should expect questions like Johnuniq's. It would help if you provided specific diffs that support your argument that an editor's conduct is inappropriate. The mere fact that people argue is not grounds for a topic ban. Liz Read! Talk! 14:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it is also reasonable to see at the NPOVN the clear evidence of dishonest representation of fact by User:Robert McClenon, and repeat that the comments he described as "personal attacks" in no way qualify as such by policy and guidelines. Questioning someone's competence is not a personal attack, and I think no one with any awareness of the pages WP:NPA and WP:CIR would say that, particularly considering how frequently the latter is used here. Robert's ill-informed, prejudicial, and rather incompetent judgments aside, I am unaware of having made any statements which qualify as personal attacks. I have been less active do to work through the early days of the week, but am in the process of putting together a page in user space detailing the lengthy history of disruption, POV pushing, and other problematic behavior of the editor in question, which was started yesterday at User:John Carter/Ret. Prof. And, yes, Ret. Prof is one of the two people who came to mind as one of the worst examples of a certain type of problematic editor, as discussed at User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet. Although I have not yet gotten all the data together, and probably won't until the weekend, this comment from a member of the Mediation Committee on his user talk page, Andrevan, here, indicating that individual himself has been basically convinced that Ret.Prof's edits have been very problematic, is I think to be given much more attention and regard than Robert McClenon's grossly unfounded and I believe demonstrably baseless accusations at the NPOVN. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Liz: Yes, I am frustrated. [108] [109] [110] [111] are the diffs for this. Jerodlycett (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is worth noting that the "evidence" of my misconduct contains only a single comment from me, the first one, which makes it really questionable how any of the others can reasonably be counted as "evidence" against me. Also, the first one, the only one from me, contains no direct or even indirect mention of any individual, but refers to a page I am developing for "discussions of this type," and I cannot see how it can reasonably be counted as a persona attack as per WP:NPA. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for pointing that out, didn't realize that I used the wrong type of diff in the template. Jerodlycett (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • It would still be useful if you could indicate what comments in those statements you believe qualify as "personal attacks," because, honestly, I don't see any. I realize you are new here, having been I think one of the first people to have contacted you, but if you are going to accuse people of personal attacks it really helps to show things that truly qualify as "attacks"? John Carter (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has now come by my talk page with this: [112] [113] which as I stated in my followup comment smells of WP:HOUNDING to me. Jerodlycett (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are entitled to your opinion. However, I believe the accusations of personal attacks Robert McClenon made at the NPOVN, without any evidence, and the fact that he has maintained a rather obviously self-righteous tone thereafter, while at the same time seemingly ignoring his own false accusations, which I believe themselves reasonably qualify as personal attacks, gives me cause to question his basic ability to apply guidelines or act in accord with them. That is generally considered not hounding. Before you make any further accusations of the above sort, might I suggest that you perhaps read all the guidelines? John Carter (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: In respect to WP:COMPETENCE, Ret.Prof has a history of providing quotations which did not verify the contents he sought to add to the edited articles. A minimal competence as an editor would require that one responsibly uses references (footnotes). So I understand why John Carter accused him of incompetence (the claim isn't novel). I did not check if this is the case now (in the most recent dispute), since noticeboards debates with Ret.Prof tend to be rather tiring, and other editors tend to get irritated by his stubbornness. Of course, as a civil POV-pusher it was difficult to get him administratively sanctioned. What amazes me is his claim that old issues were resolved, in as far as he is concerned, while according to his own statements he had quit pushing those POVs because of being subjected to bullying (see his edits of his own user page every time before taking a several months break). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - While RP isn't "incompetent", his intermittent tendentiousness (with episodes of running away) is very much of an extenuating circumstance. As Tgeorgescu notes, RP has provoked JC, who is an easily provokable editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robert, as has been indicated at the NPOVN, your rushes to judgment and rather obnoxious insistence on presenting your at best dubiously founded opinions as fact would be trying to anybody. I believe anybody, when faced with someone basically lying about them to their faces, as I believe you did at NPOVN, would be as disgusted with it as I indicated on your user talk page. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There is simply no way that there is a valid case here. No evidence has been presented that there is disruption requiring this sanction. The rationale behind the request isn't valid either. And I say this as someone who recently clashed with John, if I can remember correctly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. John is defending the wiki against POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose. Users adding POV, fringe theories and OR, and continuing to do so months after consensus has already very clearly turned against them, should be threatened with being brought to ANI. I haven't looked into the latest iteration of the Matthew dispute in much detail, but the evidence presented here indicates if anything that John Carter has been doing what needs to be done more on articles that are prone to POV-pushing by users who at best have no idea how Wikipedia sourcing works like Gospel of Matthew, Daisaku Ikeda, Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchūkai. Given what John Carter and the rest of the community have had to put up with from Ret.prof, saying the latter has CIR issues is not a violation of NPA; frustration might even have driven John Carter to call Ret.prof a "jackass" or equivalent I would still say not to punish the one putting up with abuse and getting overly frustrated. (And no, the irony of defending JC from bad-faith accusations of "personal attacks" when he has made exactly the same accusations against me was not lost on me.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Edited: 09:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban of Ret.Prof

edit

I more strongly propose this as he has a longer history of fighting. Jerodlycett (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • There can be no topic ban without evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I stated, the arguing goes back to Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 8. It starts at the first topic there and continues through all the archives to the present day. If you would read what I provided you'd see the evidence. Jerodlycett (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not realistic to ask editors to read through four pages of talk page archives (Archives 8-11) to find the evidence to support your proposal. Liz Read! Talk! 14:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's just it, the entire set of archives is the evidence. Every single thing on there has Ret.Prof arguing with someone about something. I don't know how to make myself clearer. There is four archives of arguing brought on by one editor. That's what I meant by read it and see. If you can make it through four archives of fighting and can say that there's no evidence, then so be it, but please at least read them before saying there's no evidence. Jerodlycett (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jerodlycett: You appear to be a new editor that does not understand the process. Whether you are right or wrong, you have to provide "diffs" to specific comments so that other editors can evaluate the comments.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ubikwit: I ran into an issue. I'm not sure how to provide a diff for Old revision of Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 8 as it's the first thing on that page. I can provide [114] [115] [116] for that first archive page. I'm busy tonight but I will try to provide the diffs for the others tomorrow so you can read the diffs. Jerodlycett (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jerodlycett: You can access the edit history via the current Talk page. The diffs for those discussions are to be found here.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ubikwit: Thank you. I'm already exhausted with this issue, so I'm going to step away for the night and come back tomorrow to sort through all that and find the diffs. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response by Ret.Prof
edit

Over the past couple of years I have run into conflict with a small group of editors. See *ANI - An Incompetent editor who pushes fringe views. When the ANI against me failed, I made a request for mediation. The mediator did an excellent job and all the major issues were resolved. See History of Major conflicts I truly believed I could now continue with normal editing.

There remained one minor point in need of classification. Diff 1 The response to my NPOV concern was:

  1. To wrongfully close it before any uninvolved editors could weigh in, (after only one hour and 49 minutes) Diff 2. This was "not appropriate" nor were the "premature unilateral threats of punishment" Diff 3.
  2. Quite a number of behavior concerns were raised about me. However, I did NOT retaliate, but explained this notice board was not the place to raise concerns about an editor's possible violation of Wikipedia Policy. Diff 4

I further suggested in good faith we try to work things out. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The group of editors he has been in conflict with includes basically everybody who has ever worked on the same content. And it has been of a frankly and obviously consistent nature, that of promoting a fringe view of the essential Jewishness of early Christianity, something he has indicated a "conversion" to in user space rather dramatically. His conflicts are actually not really with other editors, but with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, which, basically, do not support the insertion of the material which seems to concur with his own religious conversion. He is, and pretty much has been from the beginning, an SPA with no interest but finding some way to support his own personal views here. Honestly, if I could find any Christian groups of the present time which held the same beliefs, as I have indicated I think more than once, I would have started an article on that subject already. The fact that I haven't found such a group says a lot about how dubiously notable the belief is, and the fact that Ret.Prof has been arguing for material supporting the rather obviously minority speculations regarding this topic from, pretty much, the beginning of his editing here, makes the possibility of a site ban as an editor who has exhausted the patience of the community an I believe reasonable outcome. John Carter (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, John, you provide an impassioned statement but you neglect to provide diffs that support your claims of conflict and disruption. I think for admins to take any action, you will have to supply more than your assessment of the situation. Liz Read! Talk! 16:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, without diffs this just sounds like a contentious content dispute.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I am working over at wikisource today to (with luck) finish the division of a dictionary of the Book of Mormon into separate pages. I expect that to take some time, but as I also said above I should have it finished today or tomorrow, and, if this thread is still alive on Saturday, which I rather expect, either a link to the evidence page and/or a full list of that evidence will be presented here. But, honestly, considering how long I've left it hanging, finishing the Dictionary I mentioned comes first in my own eyes. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fighting
edit

The basis for this proposed ban is a long "history of fighting". I will over the next few days bring substantial evidence to show this is not the case. Rather the facts I will present shall firmly establish that I am to be harassed, until I am "driven from this encyclopedia". The evidence will show that I am "a mild-mannered user", have been "bullied", "belittled" and for whom WP is "no longer a hospitable place". Diff 5 Diff 6 Please note that I have been advised that arbitration is now in order. - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RP's characterization of himself as a "mild-mannered user" is literally true and self-serving and irrelevant. He is characteristic of a type of "mild-mannered" user who cannot edit collaboratively. As to being "belittled", RP belongs to a type of editor who sees all disagreement as belittling. If RP actually thinks that he wants arbitration now, he doesn't understand that arbitration would not vindicate him. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a ban, it's a topic ban I proposed, and for your own good. I saw the history of fighting since last January. Can you say anything about that? If you need to use arbitration, do so. The reason I think it would be good is because you are obviously upset enough to assume bad faith. You were accused of being cowardly for trying to take a break to cool down. If it's forced on you, no one can accuse you of that. Jerodlycett (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words and help. I will ponder them. - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, he has already attempted arbitration, and made and withdrawn a request for it previously, presumably I think because he realized his reasons for filing the arbitration were basically complaints about attempts of others to adhere to the policies and guidelines he has pretty much ignored when they disagree with his personal opinions from the beginning of his time as an editor here. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
??? I withdrew the request for arbitration as a good will gesture to pursue informal mediation. With help of the mediator we resolved all our conflicts. Working to resolve issues is a good thing and for this I am to be banned for fighting??? Please note that the 50 CE date is a minor issue. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Working to resolve substantive issues is a good thing. Working to resolve tendentious insistence that one's own favored material be included is also a good thing, and I believe that, given the time requested to finish sectioning an encyclopedia at wikisource, I will be able to come up with enough evidence regarding the long-term problematic behavior of one individual here to make it easier for others to see why I think there are sufficient grounds to request a topic or site ban. using noticeboards in such a way is, in fact, one of their primary purposes. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other propositions

edit

If you have other propositions please place them here for all to consider. Jerodlycett (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that you actually provide some evidence. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing occurs as a part of the process of a group of editors with differing points of view coming to a consensus. Unless you have evidence of WP:NPA or WP:TE, I don't see the rationale for a long topic ban. Liz Read! Talk! 14:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Also taking diffs from 2014, which led to consensus and an end to conflict cannot be a used as a basis for a topic ban. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, it is worth noting that Ret.Prof had been on one of his now rather regular breaks since 2014, as can be seen here. It is also worth noting, as per that page, that, from the time of his break from wikipedia on October 19, of 2014, his first subsequent edit to wikipedia, on March 10, 2015, was to the NPOV noticeboard putting forward the argument about the dating of the Gospel of Matthew, pretty much, so far as I can remember, on the same points that had lost in the previous discussion. The fact that he had taken a break of about 5 months in which he did nothing does not really serve as a true indicator of anything, other than the fact that he apparently sought to resurface after five months arguing, basically, the same points. I am going to ping @Andrevan: again here for his input regarding what he thought the prior discussion was about, and, if I don't get response by Saturday hopefully at the latest, will add the links then or as shortly as possible thereafter. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I was originally going to suggest only one month, but something snapped and I suggested three, and created this other props section. If I'm correct in my view that Ret.Prof has a history of fighting, and John Carter's comments were inappropriate then I believe that they could actually both get a ban for their actions. I don't feel either editor is in need of a ban. I also narrowed the scope of my proposal to only the single topic, rather than a broader category such as Christianity. Honestly one of the main reasons for this AN/I is because they need arbitration or mediation, and I don't think either of them will ask for it. I'm truly hoping that the end result of this AN/I is that the issue[s] get[s] resolved, without needing to resort to any ban at all. I just don't see it happening due to pent up anger/frustration, and hopefully a ban will let them come back calmer. Jerodlycett (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jerodlycett says that "they need arbitration or mediation". That is vague, since arbitration and mediation are two significantly different approaches, the first for conduct issues, the second for content issues. Also, mediation has been tried, and has failed. Neither of them would be wise to ask for arbitration, which would be likely to impose sanctions on them. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As to Other Propositions, see below for the recommendation for community general sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition

edit
Going nowhere fast. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wow, this AN/I is so very ill-conceived, lacking in evidence that I suggest the following:

  1. John and I agree not to edit the Gospel of Matthew for three months and allow others to form a consensus re the NPOV debate re the 50 CE date.
  2. John and I agree to accept that consensus.

This AN/I should never have been brought forward! - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not put words in the mouths of others, particularly me, Ret.Prof. I believe the discussion should continue, or at least not yet be closed, until and unless the evidence from others regarding the I believe the matter of possibly sanctionable behavior over the long term is put forward and examined. John Carter (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointed with your response...but had to give it a try! - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An Assessment and Characterization

edit

As User:Jerodlycett (J) notes, conflict over Gospel According to Matthew has been going on for a long time, at least since February 2014. The primary issue is when the book was written, or, more precisely, how to word a neutral statement as to the range of scholarly opinions as to when the book was written. There also is a fringe viewpoint, evidently held by User:Ret.Prof, that the book was originally written in Hebrew. (The existing manuscripts are in Greek, and almost all scholars believe either that the book was written in the Greek, or that the book was composed in Aramaic and almost immediately reduced to the existing Greek.)

A Particular Type of Difficult Editor

edit

User: Ret.Prof (RP) belongs to a class of single-purpose editor whom experienced editors sometimes encounter in Wikipedia. Such editors typically view and portray themselves as mild-mannered, but can be extremely troublesome, sometimes in a cowardly way. Such an editor edits in a defined area (the defining characteristic of SPAs) with a particular agenda and exhibits some of the following characteristics:

  • The editor’s view is often considered fringe.
  • The editor is civil but stubborn, and pushes their viewpoint, and does not compromise, but either advances new arguments or rewords the same arguments.
  • The editor frequently whines that other editors (possibly forming a cabal) are seeking to have him banned (whether or not there actually is such a sentiment, by a cabal or otherwise).
  • The editor is not concise, and responds with walls of text or rambling screeds that amount to a filibuster of discussion.
  • The editor interprets criticisms as personal attacks, then on being challenged, interprets the challenges as personal attacks. Eventually the responses to criticisms frustrate other editors to the point where there are personal attacks.
  • The editor eventually responds to criticisms by stating the need to take a (possibly extended) break from editing, thus interrupting and suspending any attempt at resolution.

Editors like RP are not uncommon in Wikipedia, and are difficult to deal with because they seem to be mild-mannered, which they are, but they are persistent and make collaboration difficult.

Editors such as RP are sometimes accused of lacking in required competence. That argument is fallacious, but is also irrelevant. The competence essay is an essay, not a guideline, and so, in itself, is not really a basis for blocking or banning editors. Also, the competence essay is meant to apply to editors who lack a command of the English language, or who are otherwise unable to reason or communicate. It is not really meant to apply to editors whose English is sound and who can reason and communicate, but simply persist in communicating incorrect conclusions. The argument, offered among others by User:John Carter (JC), that RP is incompetent because he lacks an understanding of basic policies is off the point. I have no reason to think that RP does not understand basic policies such as NPOV, which is the core policy of Wikipedia, but at the same time is a difficult and subtle policy over which reasonable editors disagree. The problem with RP is not incompetence; it is tendentious editing compounded by a bad attitude toward disagreement.

J proposes a topic-ban against RP on the Gospel of Matthew. A topic-ban on a single-purpose account is of course the equivalent of a site ban, but may sometimes be necessary.

An Alternate Proposition

edit

J wrote: "If you have other propositions please place them here for all to consider." Since this article has been the subject of failed efforts at resolution for more than a year, I have an alternate proposition, and that is Community General Sanctions, under which any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor who, after being made aware of the sanction regime, continues to edit disruptively. These sanctions may include topic-bans of varying duration, restrictions on reverts (e.g., 1RR), or blocks. Community general sanctions will very likely result in RP being topic-banned, but simply topic-banning him is not a substitute for general sanctions, because edit-warring and disruptive editing have occurred between other editors also.

Some of the editors who have clashed on this article have threatened, talked about, or proposed arbitration. Arbitration might result in topic-bans, interaction bans, or site bans against certain editors. It would also be likely to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which are similar to but more formal than community general sanctions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to An Assessment and Characterization by Robert McClenon

edit

First let me say Robert is a good faith editor. He is respected and well spoken. Yet, he and others like him in authority pose a great threat! Having carefully read his comments it is clear that he has not carefully read my diffs. No scholar let alone me, would agree with his introduction and I would go far as to say that he has been negligent in his Assessment and Characterization of Ret.Prof.

1. The editor’s view is often considered fringe

edit

All actions against me alleging fringe have failed including Incompetent editor who pushes fringe views AN/I, WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard etc., because my material is always backed by several mainstrean reliable sources which by definition is not WP:FRINGE . Furthermore, Robert has failed to support his accusations with diffs or other evidence.

2. The editor does not compromise

edit

Not true. My edit history shows that I have compromised many times! Diff 9, Diff 10 Also, once again Robert has failed to support his accusations with diffs or other evidence.

3 The editor frequently "whines" that other editors are possibly forming a "cabal"

edit

Not true. I never "whine" nor do I believe there is a "cabal". I do have some concerns about a small group of editors misbehaving. See Diff11, Diff 12 , Diff 13 Diff 14 Also, once again Robert has failed to support his accusations with diffs or other evidence.

4. The editor is not concise, and responds with walls of text

edit

When I first started a Wikipedia, I on occasion wrote walls of text like this. >>>>>>> Diff 15, LOL, But not anymore. I now think in short sound bites. Also, once again Robert has failed to support his accusations with diffs or other evidence.

5. The editor interprets criticisms as personal attacks

edit

These many criticisms of Ret.Prof include being an "incompetent editor who pushes fringe", "rudeness","disruptive editing", "POV pushing", "Tendentious editing", "taking breaks", "single-purpose editing", "running away", "being nonsensical to the point of incomprehensibility", "editorial cowardice", "not behaving in a constructive way", "arrogance" "being woefully illogical", "problematic edits" and "Self-aggrandizement" to the point of "being truly bizarre." Indeed, he is not a "real professor" and is the kind of vexatious editor who drives away good editors" Thus he is "no longer welcome" to edit at Wikipedia. I used to take some of these as personal attacks... but I have now come to understand that etiquette at Wikipedia is different than at a university. The biggest difficulty I now have with these criticisms, is the lack diffs or other evidence.

6. Taking a (possibly extended) break

edit

See below & Diff 16 I promise not to take any more breaks! LOL...I think it is clear why arbitration is needed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community General Sanctions

edit

The Gospel of Matthew should be subject to Community General Sanctions. It might be necessary to extend the sanctions further to other articles about the first-century origins of Christianity, which frequently wind up in arbitration (e.g., Ebionites, Historicity of Jesus, but, since the topic area does frequently wind up in arbitration, the ArbCom can extend the sanctions when it sees necessary.)

  • Support as proposer. Fourteen months of quarreling is too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support an active Sword of Damocles may help keep discussions calmer. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rush to Judgment: you have not given me time to present my evidence! Also there is a lack of evidence to support your allegations. I think you have proven only one thing: Why Arbitration is necessary! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One of the major reasons for requesting a ban is that I am in violation of Wikipedia's policy on Running Away and Editorial Cowardice. It appears that there is no such policy and this was simply made up. Also you failed to produce any diffs to support your claim. The truth is that Whenever I am charged with wrongdoing, I stop editing immediately. I seek advice from Admins and Bureaucrats and do not resume editing until the issue is resolved. In those cases where I am mistaken or 'mess up' I promptly apologize and rectify my error. These false allegations would never hold up at arbitration or any fair hearing - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The second major allegation against me is Tendentious editing. At least this policy exists. However it is broad, and you have not indicated which part I am in violation of, nor have you presented any Diffs etc. to support your accusation. Simply existing, does not make one a Tendentious Editor. This kind of nonsense would be allowed at arbitration. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem: This notice board has been dominated by a small group of editors, which makes it difficult for a single good faith user to get a fair hearing. See Arbitration. -Ret.Prof (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as rush to judgment. Robert has once again to my eyes shown a remarkable degree of pomposity and arrogance in making this attempt at long-winded pontification. As I have already said, rather prominently above, I am in the process of preparing the data on Ret.Prof's history to add here, for the purposes of allowing others to evaluate it and consider whether a topic ban or site ban of the editor is appropriate. This attempt to pre-empt the material I have already indicated I will present shortly above raises very serious questions in my eyes regarding just how highly the editor involved places his own opinions, particularly in relation to matters of evidence, and, well, basic manners. I regret to say that, however highly he might obviously hold his own opinions, they are still just his opinions, and as has been indicated recently at the WP:NPOVN noticeboard, he has a demonstrable history of making at best poorly-based and possibly incompetent judgments in his opinions. Robert, in all honesty, the project functioned quite well before you became an active editor, and it does not really need your making these long, and, ultimately, redundant pontifications you seem so fond of making. If you do not have the good manners to apologize for grossly misrepresenting facts, as I believe you clearly demonstrated at the NPOVN, at least have the good manners to allow others to do what they said they would do before making these presumptuous rushes to judgment of yours. And, just as bad, your dare I say self-important presentations of your opinions tends to encourage others, some of whom seem to start new threads or subthreads as a matter of course for virtually every post, such as the subthread immediately below. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support IFF Ret. Prof is not topic-banned. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Simply not enough evidence presented for banning anybody! - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

edit

I am very disappointed. In 2014 I truly hoped that we could work out our differences. I carefully read Wikipedia's policies. I focused on the common ground, assumed good faith and tried to be polite in all circumstances. I trusted the mediator and truly believed we had worked out all our differences on various topics from the Hebrew Gospel to the Oral Gospel tradition. I accepted all the compromises and it would be fair to say I met them more than half way. After working things through I made the decision to move on and edit other areas of interest including Jesus and the Talmud, Josephus and Celsus. I spent most of my time working on draft edits on my user pages.

Although personally I supported the 85 CE date for completion of the Gospel of Matthew in Koine Greek, I noticed a great deal of mainstream scholarship that argued for the 50 CE date. In good faith I brought my concern to the NPOV noticeboard for clarification. It was merely an attempt to understand the importance of NPOV at Wikipedia. I planned to use the consensus reached as a guide for my future editing. Immediately my request was wrongfully closed. After the closure was reversed, the focus became my behavior and that I would be taken to AN/I to be banned. I was accused of fighting and other violations. I stated that accusations re personal behavior were not appropriate on the NPOV noticeboard page but was overruled! I believe these allegations to be false. I also believe I was working in good faith to reach agreement on some difficult scholarly issues presented in the reliable sources. Furthermore, I believe a careful review of my edits IN CONTEXT will substantiate my position. This needs to be done by unbiased arbitrators and if the decide my conduct is worthy of a ban, then I will accept it without bitterness. Therefore, I am requesting Arbitration.

When I retired, I felt I could be of help to Wikipedia. I truly believe in the project. I think if my edits are carefully reviewed, they will show that I have tried to improve articles by adding updated scholarship and making sure they were written from a NPOV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick fix for the lack of evidence

edit

If not enough evidence was presented, I suggest reopening the case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Incompetent editor who pushes fringe views, since the problems mentioned there did not go away. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that there is a lack of evidence. However, Arbitration is a better way to go rather than to reopen Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Incompetent editor who pushes fringe views Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close

edit
  • Come on people, have you seen the length of this thread? It's blatantly obvious that nothing here is going to have any action taken, and it's seriously doubtful that there is even any reason why action should be taken. If I was an uninvolved admin, I would have closed it myself; of course, I'm not, so all I can do is recommend that the warring parties withdraw, or some uninvolved roaming admin just closes the thread. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not opposed to this closing. It's just going to devolve into more fighting. I think Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WikiBullying is the correct spot in this case, but I couldn't bring it there myself. @Lukeno94: think you could ping an admin letting them know the OP of this agrees with closure? Jerodlycett (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There is a lack of evidence and the legitimate concerns can be best dealt with at Arbitration - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks by User:Caper454

edit
Blocked for 31 hours by Bishonen. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Caper454 making personal attacks You represent all that's bad about Wikipedia warned user on their talk. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my statement. This user is an asshole. Go ahead and block me, really don't care. I've been editing here for a decade but it just isn't worth it anymore. Caper454 (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further outbursts [117] Mlpearc (open channel) 21:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a background to this, Mlpearc? Not that I think any sort of background would justify that kind of personal attack, of course, but your query to them, Worth getting blocked again?, is a little surprising, considering their only previous block was in 2008. Anyway, I was going to say it's good that you warned them and they should be merely kept an eye on since they haven't edited after your warning, but as I was typing this post, this edit summary turned up. Blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the block, I already posted that summary above. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove revision required

edit
Sorted. Sam Walton (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could someone remove the revision of File talk:WessexBankStatement.png that includes someone's bank details? Cheers, Stephenb (Talk) 08:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC) Also [[118]] and possibly others Stephenb (Talk) 08:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked by me, and edits oversighted by someone else. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unacceptable behavior by IP/editor

edit
RESOLVED
IP blocked for harassment, user blocked on grounds of block evasion. (non-admin closure) --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

94.244.129.207 who is likely SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava editing while logged out, posted this coming off a 24-hour block. --NeilN talk to me 14:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that edit was right after this one (notice the last sentence). --Taivo (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked the IP for a week for harassment. I am pretty sure the IP is SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava, however, I do not feel confident enough to indef the user (their edits conform with WP:NOTTHERE, but they never logged in after I posted a warning).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This edit should prove that User:SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava is the IP and is using the username to avoid the block on the IP. --Taivo (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Account indef-blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before this is closed off, please note that a SOCK going by Jim wales jr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is carrying on with his/her harassment on the talk page in question, even referring to the previous comments as "my proposition for you to go your ancestors is actual". As further evidence, compare this comment on their IP talk to a comment left on another editor's own talk here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indefblocked as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal for a community ban on User:Sandbox for user warnings.

edit
NO ACTION NEEDED
It's indeed unfair how the community mistreats its users. Bad. Bad indeed. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First warned in 2008 [119], this user is a persistent threat to the encyclopedia. Racking up hundreds, even thousands of warnings over 7 entire years of vandalism, User:Sandbox for user warnings needs to be immediately community banned for life. As you can see at Special:Contributions/Sandbox for user warnings, this editor is a vandalism only account, with absolutely zero productive edits to mainspace, while having hundreds of warnings! Ban this editor immediately, as User:Sandbox for user warnings has done absolutely nothing worthwhile for the encyclopedia. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't these jokes ever get old? --Jayron32 02:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and propose closing this request immediately. This is just a joke that no one is going to believe. McDonald of Kindness (talk • contributions) 19:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Whisper of the heart rejects talk page and ignores consensus

edit

I am not here to discuss who is right or wrong in terms of the content dispute, but I would like to see some respect for the rules on consensus and using talk page for discussion. I think when you come into an established article and make a big edit that is not accepted then you are supposed to seek consensus and not revert until your fingers are sore. Well last year User:Whisper of the heart was directed to discuss things at article talk pages following a block for his unwillingness to do so. Nothing has changed, the problem last year was with Visa requirements for Chinese citizens and now it's with the Visa policy of China. He reverted twice diff and diff. In my second undoing of his edits I wrote "maybe but you have to seek consensus on the talk page for these changes as there isn't one right now" to which he responded with a revert saying "I have been there already, but it seems that we need more people to join this topic.". Well, first of all he hasn't been there - Talk:Visa_policy_of_China#Public_affairs_passports and second of all when you make edits which are disputed I think the correct course of action is to seek people to support the consensus change and not for others to seek people to vote on keeping the consensus (sounds logically flawed anyway).

(Content dispute itself if you care is whether all ordinary or P passports should be in the same group or not. This users fails to understand that China does indeed issue "passports for public affairs" as in it could be sen as a separate passport type (would have to know the passport code to know for sure, is it P or PS/PD) but when it comes to other countries they don't issue a different "passport for public affairs", instead it's a normal passport with a simple endorsement placed on one of the stamp visa pages in form of a sticker or stamp by home country, more akin to a visa, only that is issued by a home country instead of the destination country.)

So whether he is right or not, I think he needs to take the proposed edits to the article talk page instead of undoing relentlessly.

Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are both at 2RR and are edit warring so I left a EW warning on both of your talk pages. Maybe Whisper of the heart will heed the advice and move to a conversation on the article talk page. I'm not sure if you are seeking further action from an admin. Liz Read! Talk! 14:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thatnks Liz, but really no need to warn me, I know where I am exactly and that's why I filed it here. If there wasn't the two reverts then there would be no incident to report, but if there were more than that I would be making a violation. It's how it is, I wish there was a more effective way to deal with this but the reduced number of active contributors on Wikipedia has led to this.
Anyway we might need further admin action because I expect this user will not revert back to undisputed version and engage in the talk page to seek the change of consensus. So what happens then. If he does react positively, then great, I am just asking what if he doesn't. If he is unwilling to go to the talk page when he is not satisfied with the version that is up in all likelihood he will be even less likely to go on the talk page to discuss it if "his" version is up.
Also, the version that is now up is no longer the disputed version because someone else walked in and undid the edits of "Whisper of the heart" but whether he will accept this remains to be seen. I just want to know, what happens if he doesn't.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction of deliberate factual errors

edit
Page protected. Amortias (T)(C) 16:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is some activity on the Visa requirements for Indian citizens which is read by over 60k readers which I think should be dealt with. I tried filing an incident report about vandalism but it turns out the IP address making these edits belong to some large University so the talk page that is full of warnings and blocks was not taken into consideration. This also of course makes it difficult to communicate with them. Not that there is much to communicate about as this is all a blatant case of deliberate introduction of factual errors. Regardless I used official templates to warn this IP address about not introducing deliberate factual errors, to no avail.

Issue:

The article has a table for various countries and they are colored green, red or yellow based on whether they require Indians to obtain a visa or not or perhaps if they can obtain a visa on arrival. One of them is for the United Arab Emirates and according to all sources including the one in the article visa is required for Indian citizens (thus in table it says "Visa required" and the table cell is red). All of the transit without a visa, pre-arranged visa pick-up, substitute visas etc. especially those that don't apply to one specific nationality are only mentioned in the notes as those are special cases. This is the source in the article Visa Information for United Arab Emirates: Holders of Normal Passports from India, Timatic. International Air Transport Association and here are a few other official sources that obviously don't list India as a visa-free country Visa Information, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, United Arab Emirates; UAE Visas, Emirates, Visa on Arrival, UAE Visa Application Centre, UAE visas with flydubai. Of course one of the problems is he changed the cell data without changing the source so there is very little to discuss here as the source says what it said yesterday and the day before. As the matter of fact United Arab Emirates provides visa-free access only to a few gulf countries while the rest of countries with easier access are considered by the UAE to be free visa on arrival countries - Visa policy of the United Arab Emirates. If you look at any other article of the rest of the world countries like for Chinese or Pakistani citizens, you will see it says "Visa required" in red even though the rules are the same as for Indian citizens.

Indian passport is notorious for not giving visa-free access to many countries so it is obvious that these additions constitute deliberate introduction of factual errors.

Diffs:

I waited for 2 days, edited the article back to correct version hoping he gave up but it happened again

Conclusion:

The link he provided in the notes section - UAE residents welcome plans to grant Indian visas on arrival to 180 countries is about the other direction, it's about India which recently introduced a visa on arrival regime for the UAE citizens which is all now in the Visa policy of India and Visa requirements for United Arab Emirati citizens. But this user probably can't differentiate between the Visa policy of India and Visa requirements for Indian citizens, which is a common problem but not an excuse to let the errors remain in articles.

I hope this was detailed enough for some action to be taken. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request logged for page protection. Amortias (T)(C) 12:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page is now protected so this report can be locked.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:The Fat Rat of Chepstow

edit

User:The Fat Rat of Chepstow made this [120] problematic edit to Hungerford massacre, describing the shooting as a "war crime." I reverted it and left [121] a message that I had done so. At 21.21 [122] the user replied and within 3 minutes had gone to my most recent edit - on Technological singularity, a page he had not edited before - and altered my edit [123]. Not only was his edit incorrect, it was clearly retaliatory, and demonstrates a lack of competence or understanding, describing Wally Pfister as "just the director". I corrected the edit, and left a message [124] explaining that a movie's director is generally considered the author of a film. He reverted the edit again [125] with the sumnmary "What you personally consider is by the by. The writer is the author, and the director directs, that about wraps up your petty theory" and terminated the discussion about the change [126]. Apart from obvious CIR concerns - glancing through their contribs - it is impossible to reach consensus when an editor refuses to discuss, and I have no intention of edit warring or mud wrestling with them. Please would somebody point out the error of their ways. Keri (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that when a single person is (perhaps simplistically) regarded as the author of a film, that single person is usually the director. It's not unusual for this attribution to be challenged. (See in particular Richard Corliss's Talking Pictures.) The series of edits starting with this one is odd, because Fat Rat doesn't point to any argument for saying either that the writer of the screenplay of the film Transcendence is its primary author or that the writer of a screenplay is normally the primary author of the film. (I'd never previously heard of the film. A glance at the article suggests that it's damned for its screenplay and praised for its direction.) Aside from its intrinsic pros or cons, this edit by Fat Cat has a bizarre summary: What you personally consider is by the by. The writer is the author, and the director directs, that about wraps up your petty theory. It's hardly a matter of what Keri considers (beyond Keri's estimate of the applicability of Auteur theory, to which Keri has just politely pointed); nobody has disputed that the author writes and the director directs; and while auteur theory may be simplistic, neither it nor Keri's edits are petty. Fat Cat should cool down before editing. -- Hoary (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As regards Technical singularity, I've self-reverted and have no aspiration to restore my author-based revision. With regards the rest of the accusation, I shall get onto this in the next few hours, I believe WP:BOOMERANG is in order here so I need a little more time than I have at this second. Regards to all. FAT RAT (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very poignant Keri, point taken now on with the extended report. @Admins: it appears I made a mistake at Hungerford massacre when I likened the incident to a war crime, not claiming that it was a war crime but noting its similarity. It was either that or an act of terror but as my edits generally reflect, I am not what you call a "political expert" and frankly I don't wish to get involved in those oversubscribed areas. Now sure enough my edit was incorrect and needed to be reverted, Keri found the revision and had the choice of reverting in an orderly fashion (such as this instance where I was previously reverted when making an inappropriate edit), it only needed an undo+comment to the effect of "not actually a war crime", and that was all. For Keri this was not enough, he needed to breach WP:CIVIL by addding the impertinent remark silly edit. Ordinarily that does not even explain to uninvolved editors why the revert was completed, and in all honesty, had it not been for my own fact-checking albeit late, I would have been tempted to revert. But yes, on reflection, maybe war crime was an exaggeration. Sorry for not knowing the difference. Anyhow, even the rude remark on the summary was not enough for Keri, I would have noticed it anyhow as I do actually check my own edits to see if someone has reverted and if so why, but Keri had to breach WP:CIVIL a second time by pointlessly writing to me on my talk page calling my edit "daft", and yet again, NOT giving an explanation. Fortunately at this, stagte, I made my own investigation and concluded that my edit was wrong. But since I acted in good faith, I chose to explain why I did what I did. This explanation (both parts) makes it toally clear mine was a case of WP:AGF, but the editor to insult me twice with daft and silly chose instead to snub the good faith intention with a third insult, hypoerbolic "interpretation" instead of saying something like, ok, we've cleared it up, I take it you'll know better for next time. I contend no part of his behaviour was acceptable here and something needs to be done to discipline the editor who wasted no time in reporting me here. --FAT RAT (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor bug in the post-upload page

edit

After submitting a file for upload this table of links is displayed. The text for the "Plain form" links is the same, but the links lead to the local form vs. the Commons form. Should the link text be improved perhaps? -- Dandv(talk|contribs) 21:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it a bit. You can request edits on protected pages using the {{edit protected}} template. Probably a better option than posting here, as sometimes there will need to be prior discussion before implementing, and the talk page is the best place for that to happen. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
edit
User indeffed by FreeRangeFrog. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A user says "Do not warn me again unless you are prepared to engage legally." Can this person be blocked per WP:NLT, please? Blue Raspberry (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • First off, you need to alert the subject to this discussion, per standard policy. Suggest you use the template provided for this purpose. That said, this is clearly a single-purpose account or WP:SPA who has just crossed the line. Can he blocked for the edit summary in question? Yes. Will he be? The odds are pretty high, I'd say. Jusdafax 01:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for obvious legal threat. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scalhotrod is deleting referenced material on the subject Szekely Land

edit
BOOMERANG
OP blocked for 48 hours by EdJohnston. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scalhotrod is deleting referenced material on the subject Szekely Land, but he is keeping unsupported material on the page. For example, he is keeping material claiming that "Szekely Land" suggests autonomy (without any explanation or reference), but he's deleting referenced material explaining that the old name was Szekely Seats and the origin of this name. Also he's deleting material saying that Transylvania united with Romania on 01.12.1918 (National Day of Romania, info also on Transylvania wiki page, original documents of union available in the Museum of Alba Iulia). To all this he's replying that everything is bullshit and referenced to Mein Kampf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idsocol (talk • contribs) 20:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is subject to pending changes, I've unaccepted the change by Idsocol (talk · contribs) so that it can be reviewed by someone else. Since then, Amortias (talk · contribs) has rejected the proposed change by Idsocol. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Idsocol your current actions are in breech of WP:3RR you would be wise to self revert. Amortias (T)(C) 20:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you made an alliance Scalhotrod, but I think that my addition was delated without any support by both of you, against wiki rules, so we'll see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idsocol (talk • contribs) 20:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3RR breech reported here. Amortias (T)(C) 20:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent sock making same changes [127] Mlpearc (open channel) 20:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Defintie quacking noise identical edit , new user, only one edit at this page but knows how to use undo. Wont mention this at WP:EW but will link to this case for consistencies sake. Amortias (T)(C) 20:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sudden influx of edits relating to Dalits

edit
Resolved, nothing more to discuss at this venue. Sam Walton (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

They're not doing any really bad (although they are making a lot of newbie mistakes) but there is something odd going on around Dalit-related articles right now. Within a very short space of time, we've got:

and I think some others all hitting such articles. I'm having to clean up big time.

Abecedare has noticed Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston/MIT DALIT WIKIPEDIA HACKATHON, which they rightly say might explain the spurt of activity. They added (on User talk:Bishonen) "See also this write-up. As usual the effort is noble in its goals, but may have practical issues with insufficient guidance, excessive zeal etc (don't know whether that is the case in this instance)."

I need some help, please. Ideally, someone should contact the co-ordinator of the event and ask them to slow down and/or explain overcategorisation, focus, MOSTIES etc. And someone should either delete or redirect Category:Dalit Leaders, for which we already have Category:Dalit leaders. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(cross-posting from Bishonen's talk-page where the discussion started) There is a livestream of the event here. Watched 2-3 minutes of it and am slapping my head in frustration. Could have been so much better organized with some guidance of best wikipedia editing practices. Also categorization is a particularly poor project to undertake especially when you have access to some of the best library resources in the world (student in Boston/Cambridge-area universities can borrow from any of the area's 40+ university libraries) that can be used to source and expand some vital articles. Only a few edits have been made to the articles that said to be the focus: Mangu Ram Mugowalia, Gogu Shyamala and Chokhamela. Such an utter waste!
Pinging @Dalithistorymonth and Bkamapantula: in the hope that they'll take the constructive feedback onboard and reirect the hackathon focus. Abecedare (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what admin action can be taken at the moment especially since the hackathon is scheduled to end soon. But do hope such well-intentioned efforts are better guided in the future. Abecedare (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another is Thirdeyefell (talk · contribs). Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:DALIT-BAHUJAN needs to go and it seems that Svs5425 (talk · contribs) is another in the mix. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cjudge (talk · contribs) and Addtowikiiii (talk · contribs), while Sanghapali (talk · contribs) has created Category:Dalit History when we have Category:Dalit history. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose and aims of Wikipedia are to encourage participation from all voices. We are a group of academics and activists from MIT, Harvard, and other Boston area organizations that are trying to increase the representation of the marginzalized Dalit community within the pages of Wikipedia. We are working to edit pages that had contained content that had been incorrect, misrepresenting, or derogatory about Dalits in general. We have also tried our best to include sources and cite scholarly material. We would appreciate support and not condescension from the Wikipedia community. If you would like to support or discuss this issue please direct message us. Phlamingo642 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but are you familiar with WP:COI? - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:COI applies to such broad identities as dalits. There are potential issues of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but from what I have seen the actual edits made don't even rise to that level. The main problem seems to insufficiently guided newbie edits (for example the webcast shows the moderator adding this edit sourced to an activist website, which is certainly not one to set as an example; recommends googling to search for sources to support the content one wishes to add; and, also recommends categorization, which trips up even experienced editors not familiar with the byzantine structure and rules). For now I'd say that some (good-faith) edits of the above-listed users require to be reverted and categories like Category:DALIT-BAHUJAN renamed/deleted, but no admin action in the form of blocks/page-protection is necessary.
@Phlamingo642: et al I for one don't doubt your and other organizers' intention, but as I said before I do wish you had obtained some guidance from some more experienced editors working in the area. If you wish to discuss editing issues, or have any questions about how we can help, I'd recommend you to post on the India project noticeboard. Abecedare (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) +1, Abecedare said what I was about to say. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have had to revert just about every edit I have seen thus far. Just look at the state of my contribution history. - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since they were almost all brand new accounts (some just hours old), I gave them the welcome links along with a pointer to the Teahouse. At least one editor has gone there to check in. I guess the question is how can organizers get up to speed before these events happen? Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I offered to help this group at the Teahouse but have not yet had any inquiries. Perhaps they have stopped editing for now and are drinking tea. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The hackathon ended about 2 hours back. I left a note on an organizer's talkpage in case there are future activities planned. I believe Sitush has already reviewed all/most the edits; I'll take a look at the remaining, if any, myself (there is a online master list of edit's made; not linking since it contains real names and contact info; another avoidable error IMO, borne simply out of inexperience). Mark as resolved? Abecedare (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just finished cleaning up all of the work of the people named in this thread. I'm curious as to why we have Category:Dalit women and not Category:Dalit men but that is one for another day. I'm happy to have this marked as resolved if Abecedare is picking up on the list hosted elsewhere. What a pain this has been. - Sitush (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record I have gone through and reviewed the remaining hackathon edits. A few notes:

  • Real disheartening to see the number of poorly sourced and written, and generally untended biographies; some of living persons and some of important historical figures (list available on request). A sobering counterpoint to this)
  • Unfortunately barring very few exceptions (such as edits by User:Phlamingo642, User:Ananda41, User:Sundeep.pattem) the Dalit History Month hackathon did little to improve sourcing and content of these articles in the area of their interest.
  • Stupendous job by User:Sitush diligently (and not blindly!) cleaning up the mess. For anyone who is sometimes put off by his gruff tone, worth undertaking the exercise that I did over the last hour or so.

Abecedare (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3RR "bright line" and BLP exemption

edit
RESOLVED
BLP issue appears to now be resolved with discussion, without the need for 3RR breaking. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've just made this edit to remove content from a BLP which was sourced to a YouTube video uploaded a couple days ago. I believe the edit is intended to imply to readers the BLP subject is improperly using a discredited chart/image during a lecture. I've asked the editor to provide BLP-compliant reliable sources about the subject matter in edit summaries and on the article Talk page. I've warned the editor on their Talk page against repeatedly re-inserting the content without providing reliable sourcing. The editor, with fewer than 2-dozen edits, has inserted YouTube links to related content (by the same 'Thorium Remix') in other Wikipedia articles in the past.

My question: Should I continue to remove the improperly sourced content, even beyond 3 reverts, on WP:BLP grounds, or should this be handled in a different manner? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably OK. But asking for extra help is better. WP:RFPP could probably be useful if the user persists. Have you taken up a discussion with them to explain the problem? If not, that may help. Just some ideas on how to proceed. --Jayron32 01:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you simply don't cross 3RR on one single article in a 24-hour period. It's no problem but it's just grounds for other editors to accuse you of breaking it. Just to stay on the safe side, do not. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:3RRBLP lists the exceptions to 3RR; BLP violations are among the exceptions. However, as Jayron32 mentions, getting help might be worth doing; quote: "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice (I've found something of value in what each of you said). As the editor has now engaged in what appears to be a good faith effort to discuss and address BLP concerns, I'm going to ask that this issue be marked closed. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

North Head, New Zealand

edit

I'm having trouble with an or several IP users placing false information regarding the outcome of a treaty settlement on the North Head, New Zealand article. We have discussed it on the talk page but the IP editor(s) has ignored the evidence and continues to revert all my edits. I have attempted to take it to DRN but the IP editors haven't joined in. -- haminoon (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the evidence is that strong and it's only IP editors involved WP:RFP may be the better option.--67.68.161.242 (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but there's a note there about not bringing content disputes there. I didn't want to be sent on to a 3rd noticeboard. -- haminoon (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've 'split the difference' between your two versions of the lede for now. It would be good to see a cite for the new "official name" that the IP is claiming, though. --IJBall (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the reserve was cited all along - its the last sentence in the article. -- haminoon (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, my "difference splitting" was probably the correct course all along. Now the only question is whether "North Head" should go first in the lede, or "Maungauika / North Head Historic Reserve". But it seems like they should both be there in the lede... --IJBall (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your reasoning there. The article survived 8 years without the name of the reserve even being mentioned, then now it gets put at the beginning? How can the reserve name be more important than the volcano name? -- haminoon (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This issue involves two separate concerns: 1) the IP editors not being willing to discuss things, and 2) a content dispute (and on this, and to your question: the article is about both the volcano and the reserve, as the reserve doesn't have a separate article). But just because the IP editors haven't been willing to discuss it re: the former doesn't mean they don't have a point on the latter. Bottom line: WP:CCC. But, if they aren't willing to discuss it, I don't know what else can be done here at ANI... --IJBall (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding the issue here. The IP editors have repeatedly added two deliberate factual errors in a racially charged issue. If I revert them I get blocked. You have edited the formatting leaving the two deliberate factual errors in place. The "point" they are making is that the volcano has two official names; this is like making the "point" that the earth is made of cheese. And please, I know the article is about the volcano and the reserve (which are not coterminous) - I'm the one that added the reserve name to the article. -- haminoon (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoia, a weird coincidence, or something underhand going on?

edit

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I thought I should report somewhere with some weird and disturbing observations I have made. Although I am a recently registered editor, I have many years experience as a reader and link and button clicker in Wikipedia, so do know some of the ropes, and would like a second opinion/recommended action on this one please.

Searching for more detail following the news reports of destruction in Hatra, 2 or 3 weeks ago, I came to the Wikipedia Hatra article, and was amazed to see the length of the wall was as much as 4 miles! The following evening when I looked again to see if more news had been added, I spotted that the circumference had changed to 6 km. Curious, and clicking around as you do, I discovered that that same editor, Archon 2488, had made a similar unit change in Japanese battleship Musashi, but then had his wrist slapped by another editor for doing it.

This inspired me to do more clicking, and I traced back through the editor’s history and found numerous more similar unit change edits, some were subsequently reversed, but many, including the Hadra one, hadn’t been. So I decided to act, and created this account specifically to reverse the Hadra edit, which I believed was not allowed.

Then a few days later again, when I was admiring my handiwork, I saw that the same unit changing editor had been at work on the Thundersnow article. But there he seemed to be defending similar work carried out by another similar-minded editor called MetricStronk. Indeed, he had undone reversals there by 2 other editors.

Intrigued, and keen to put my editing account to good use, I set out to restore articles that had been attacked by both MetricStonk and Archon 2488. Over the next day, apart from a slight excursion into a zoo article, and following days, I did some more. But then things started getting messy, with one editor, Johnuniq, who himself had reversed edits by MetricStonk, turning on me and hypocritically (see message from another editor on my talk page expressing a similar impression) challenging my reversals of edits by Archon 2488, and alarming talk page warnings arrived from previously uninvolved editors. Then another editor, Michael Glass intervened in the Thundersnow to support the work of MetricStronk and Archon 2488. At that point, feeling rather intimidated, I backed off.

My gut feeling here though is that Archon 2488 and MetricStronk are one and the same person, intent on pushing metric units to the front, ahead of the older units. Or they are at least acting in very close cooperation. I’m not sure what Johnuniq is trying to achieve though, first resisting MetricStronk as "someone being disruptive by changing the style of existing articles to SI with edits marked as minor" and then apparently supporting, even helping, Archon 2488 do the same thing. I tried to ask him about it on his talk page, but he ignored my messages. And, looking into the previous contributions of Michael Glass too, he seems to have a history of converting everything in his path to be predominantly metric.

Have I uncovered a mini conspiracy, or should I go back and get more experience editing zoo articles, or even retreat back into my hole and forget the whole Wikipedia thing as I'm too sensitive for its rough and tumble, survival of the fittest culture? Hugh8 (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the edit brings an article into compliance with WP:UNITS, there is no conspiracy. If it doesn't, it may be a conspiracy but more likely is multiple people being wrong in the same way. Needless to say, converting from metric to imperial or from imperial to metric shouldn't change the actual length. If you find that it has, simply correct it to match the source, but don't change the units except where WP:UNITS says to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've seen such a narrative brought to AN/I before. First, you need to notify all of the editors you mention in your comment that you have brought this case to AN/I by leaving them a note and link to this page on their user talk page. I think it would also help, Hugh8, if you stated what action you are seeking from administrators. If you are presenting a case of misconduct, you need to present evidence in the form of diffs (see HELP:DIFF and look at other cases on this page). If you want to file an investigation into possible socking, you need to go file a case at WP:SPI.
I don't think you should retreat into a hole but you might look at other cases that have been brought to a relevant noticeboard and learn what is expected by admins, clerks and mediators and how better to present your case. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The OP is forum-shopping. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates and numbers#Are metric units compulsory when describing events from 18th.2F19th century Australia.3F EEng (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That too. EEng (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The underlying issue (whether km or miles should be first) was explained at WT:MOSNUM. As an explanation for Hugh8, I don't care what goes first—I see conversions a lot because Module:Convert takes most of my energy, and that's how I know that Archon 2488 is a good editor. People argue about how long dashes should be (- – — and minus −), whether certain people are "English" or "British", whether non-ASCII characters should be used in titles, and whether it's "color" or "colour", and many other vital issues. Fights over UK units led to arbitration, see WP:GS/UKU. In general, a new editor will not win friends by pursuing something that has been the subject of bitter dispute. It would be much better to find something else to do, and at some later time discussing any concerns about units at relevant talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just add that I am not operating MetricStronk as a sockpuppet (and since no actual evidence has been produced to support that allegation, I have nothing else to say in that regard), and the OP has indeed started forum-shopping after he has had the MOS position on units of measurement explained to him clearly. Even aside from the whole SP business, moving a MOS dispute to ANI is not going to produce a different answer, and it is an inappropriate thing to do. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that Hugh8 has commented on my edits on Thundersnow. Before I made that edit I put a proposal on the talk page [128]. When I received positive feedback I went ahead with the proposed edit and this was followed up by another editor doing some more changes. I can't imagine why he should find this problematical, especially as the reason for doing this was to bring the article into line with MOSNUM. (MOSNUM recommends putting metric units first in general articles.) Michael Glass (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for the interesting replies.

  • It is apparent that compliance with WP:UNITS is being misrepresented. Clearly its interpretation is entirely subjective, so is easily abused to promote a specific agenda. I think conspiracy comes into play when a group with the same interpretation congregates, apparently spontaneously, to act together to outnumber a smaller group with a different interpretation. Especially when they only ever seem to act together to support the interpretation in favour of metric units and never any other way. The abuse is as clear as the nose on your face!
  • I was asked what action I would like to see taken. Well, I came to find out what could be done, but got no clear answer. Can we prevent, some way, those who have a clear preference to force units to go one way from influencing the outcome? Especially those who appear, often as if carefully coordinated, every time the issue arises?
  • I disagree that Archon 2488 is not a disruptive. All I see in his history (apart from trivial punctuation adjustments) is a relentless and systematic bulldozing in of his preference for metric units. If he ever created new articles or ever added new content to existing articles it might be easier to accept, but he doesn't. Or even if he ever added the convert function to metric only measurements, but he doesn't. So I'll definitely be looking at the suggested WP:SPI idea to, at least, reduce him to one account. And no, I'm not "forum shopping", I'm looking for constructive ideas to tackle this, so far apparently unspotted, elephant in the room.

Please help me further if you can. Hugh8 (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bethmind

edit
USER BLOCKED
Editor indefinitely blocked by GiantSnowman (non-admin closure) Liz Read! Talk! 11:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am not sure what Bethmind (talk · contribs) is trying to say at my talk but they may be threatening to "out" me, if I understand correctly. Could someone who is not me take a look at it and take whatever action they deem appropriate? Thank you in advance. --John (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the poor English, this is an obvious threat. Possibly of some sort of online action. Even if not, it is obvious they have not got good intentions. Indef with extreme prejudice. Blackmane (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Done GiantSnowman 11:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User only here to further their own interests

edit

From time to time I take a look at users I have helped usher in to the WP from the Teahouse, to see how they are doing. One of them is User:Russell.mo. Quite early on diff he stated that he was not here to help building the WP, just for his own amusement and to use the resources of the WP for his own work. At that stage he was asked to participate in building the encyclopedia diff but has just shrugged that off and continued in his old style. By now he has made 1,135 edits and none of it in the main space diff taking up time, mainly from the editors at the Reference desk who probably think they are helping him with editing articles. He also continuously blanks his talk page to remove any comments about his activities. I think this is a very clear case of WP:NOTHERE and a misuse of the WP. w.carter-Talk 07:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • A look at his edits supports this. From what I can see, he isn't actually using any of the help desks for what they're essentially for: to help edit Wikipedia articles. I can see where he's asked for help with his computer and for suggestions for products, but there are thousands of places out there that he can go for that purpose- most of which will do it for free. I do see where he's asked for information on Wikipedia's copyright policies, but it doesn't seem to be in relation to any actual editing. I don't see where he's made any edits at WC at all and it seems it's like you said, he has no plans on actually editing Wikipedia. I don't know if there's any specific policy that forbids someone from misusing Wikipedia in this aspect, however. WP:NOTHERE does come close, but that's more for people using Wikipedia as a soapbox or for vandalism. If we block someone for just seeking information I'm not entirely comfortable with how this may effect other editors like students coming on here to ask a question ala the various "Ask a Librarian" resources, which isn't entirely something that we discourage, although I know that a few of them are redirected to WikiHow and other locations. I'm somewhat leery about outright blocking him without a sort of consensus, but I do think that he's using up a lot of resources that could be better utilized with editors that are here to edit Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • However at the very least I do think that he needs to start contributing somehow and to get a sternly written notice to this effect. We may also want to think about maybe expanding NOTHERE to include situations like this, although that'd open a whole can of worms because we'd have to set some sort of limit to that which could be controversial. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tokyogirl79 for your comments. I know how controversial it might be to block him just for taking up our time, hence the long wait before taking this drastic action and reporting it to ANI. He is behaving just enough to not be blocked outright and slipping through most of the nets here. But given his statements, such as "If this is not facebook, I'm making it a facebook" with a mocking smiley, I think the NOTHERE is very clear. Best, w.carter-Talk 08:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He also has been creating misleading signatures such as here where he calls himself "SuperGirlsVibrator" or here where he signs off as "Angelos|Angelus". He received a warning notice to change his signature which he deleted from his talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 09:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Russell.mo your talk page deletions include

More:

But with

User:Russell.mo Contributors here may find it helpful if you can provide information on any of your contributions to Wikipedia.

Comment IMO if evidence of contribution or strong assurance of intention regarding a more contributive approach I would support a time period limited ban of ~"3 months" to give a period to think things through.

Grief, I have just looked at User contributions (I closed this search to end March 2015). Without making close inspection if results I still get the sad impression that the emphasis is on "User" and not on "contributions".

The phrase: "Cut out the dead wood", IMO, might be applicable.

GregKaye 09:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a thought. I thought Wikipedia's prime reason for existence was to provide information to readers who seek that information for their own reasons (e.g. to to use the resources of the WP for his own work), rather than primarily to provide a platform for writers. If that is so, then what is wrong with someone using it for that very reason? What have I misunderstood about the purpose of the encyclopedia? Squinge (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll leave that thought for some more experienced editor (or greater thinker) than me. I thought the WP community was supposed to work together in building the encyclopedia for the readers, and that this was the reason for joining the community. w.carter-Talk 13:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What policy dictates that you can't create an account unless you intend to be a "real" editor? The user has asked many questions at the ref desk, some of them perhaps controversial, and his misleading signature was a small problem. But he's never been blocked. And if my sole purpose in coming here were to ask questions, I would certainly create a user account rather than exposing my IP address. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user would be more suited to Quora. We can only do so much here.--Auric talk 14:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever been to that website? Might it be a worthy replacement for our own ref desk? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the editors who do not see a problem with this. Frankly, I think a reader who asks a question at the reference desk is doing Wikipedia the service of pointing out a question that our contents do not readily address, and therefore pointing the way to a possible improvement. Of course, it would be much better if such a reader would add their own knowledge to the corpus, but it would also be much better if everyone in the world did that, and we don't require all the readers in the world to contribute just to use the encyclopedia. bd2412 T 14:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all the input here. A lot of new angles have surfaced during this discussion. If the community have no problem with this kind of editors, I will of course as always, bow to its decision. I'll chalk these editors up as mostly harmless and go back to writing articles. Best, w.carter-Talk 16:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the dreadful signature, this cases really depends on the editors who staff the reference desks. I know when editors come to the Teahouse again and again and again with a hundred questions, they are eventually gently urged to connect with others in their area of interest, say, on a WikiProject. If the editors who respond to his multitude of questions do not view them as a problem, then it probably is none of our business. As a reference desk regular, ←Baseball Bugs, how do the editors there view persistent questioners? Liz Read! Talk! 16:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qewr4231

edit

This is the second time I'm bringing Qewr4231 to ANI. The first time I brought him is here, but the user was brought to ANI in 2010 for basically the same stuff: crusading against the International Churches of Christ. The user is a self-proclaimed former member of the Kip McKean church(es). He has been on a mission, since at least 2010, to add content to the article about the alleged cult status of the church and derivative churches. This might be a reasonable endeavor, except the user has had tremendous difficulty understanding numerous explanations of what constitutes a reliable source, he has been resistant to any idea contrary to his own POV, he has dominated talk pages related to this subject with lengthy, often incoherent, and tangential diatribes, more recently dumping a litany of links, and he seems more interested in soapboxing than actually pitching constructive changes consistent with existing editing standards.[129][130][131] As the most recent "final straw" the user made this edit where he finds it suitable to out McKean's place of residence by linking to a real estate site that basically outs McKean's home address, apparently unaware that there might be privacy considerations for living persons. I've attempted to get other eyes on the articles from WikiProject Christianity for impartial participation from WikiProject Christianity but have not had any success. I'm at the point where I think a topic ban is the way to go. The pages typically affected are Talk:International Churches of Christ, Talk:Kip McKean, Talk:International Christian Church. The user has taken to crossposting the same general content to these pages and using the discussion pages as sandboxes or something. It is worth poking through the archives as well for scope. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links: Qewr4231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in editing the Kip Mckean page. I added information about where Kip Mckean lives. Kip Mckean lives in a $650,000 condo in an expensive part of Los Angeles. I used two reliable sources. Source #1 proves that Kip Mckean owns a $650,000 condo Source #2 is also a reliable source. This is the company that sells and manages the condos Qewr4231 (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kip Mckean is not a private figure. Kip Mckean is a public figure with a public website: www.kipmckean.com. I was merely adding information about Kip Mckean that is public information. Anyone can look up these records if they want to. They are public records. I'm not giving out private information. I'm giving out information that is public and available for anyone to look up and view. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The condo management association is a public website that anyone can view [132]. The information from Los Angeles Block Shopper is a public records website that anyone can view and use to search for properties [133]. These are public websites. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia can you please get Cyphoidbomb to stop harassing me? Qewr4231 (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quite apart from clear violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY, the first cite does not show an unambiguous reference to Kip McKean, and the second demonstrates WP:SYNTHESIS. And given Qewr4231's past edits it's also pretty clearly a case of WP:SPA and WP:SOAP. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will additionally note that in the edit in question here Qewr points to the main page of the condo management website (which doesn't contain any data) instead of a subpage, to support his calculations for what McKean must be paying in property tax. This raises the rhetorical questions: why do we care what McKean pays in property tax? How is that relevant in a biography, and what is the precedent for the inclusion of this information? This underscores my point that the user has trouble understanding what does and does not warrant inclusion in a biography, and that his judgment may be clouded by his anti-McKean agenda. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some new recent edits have popped up at Kip McKean by IP 146.23.3.250. Based on the IP's lack of technical and grammatical proficiency, as well as the clear attempts to besmirch the subject by making unsourced, and unprovable statements like "While McKean self-refers to himself as having a doctorate, no documentation of such a degree having been bestowed upon him appear to exist", I suspect this is Qewr editing while logged out. [134][135][136]. This edit is very similar in focus to the one about property taxes made by Qewr as noted above.
108.218.237.195 is me. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ministers should not become rich being ministers. Kip Mckean is doing what Jim Baker and other frauds did. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A person's income and net worth shows what kind of lifestyle they live/lived. A person's income also gives readers an insight into what kind of person this is. I bet Donald Trump's (or anyone else that makes a lot of money) income is listed on his wikipedia page. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More soapboxing. There is no law prohibiting ministers from becoming rich. You should be hassling the church with your opinions, not Wikipedia. Divulging where Kip McKean lives is not in the interest of this project. Donald Trump's net worth is sourced through Forbes, not cobbled together from original research scraps about how much McKean's condo may or may not be worth and speculation about how much he paid in property taxes. Thank you for taking ownership of the edits made by 108.218.237.195. I can't help but notice that the other IP, 146.23.3.250 geolocates about 16 miles from where your IP geolocates. Someone you know? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent further moves and/or edit wars

edit

User:PedroPVZ has a history of changing names and moving articles on medieval characters to “Portuguese” names and has been reported previsously for such disruptive behavior. He recently moved two articles where he never contributed before, not a reference, not phrase, created and well-referenced by other users, most recently the articles on Hermenegildo Gutiérres (which I have asked a sysop to move again to original name) which I created using sources that call him as originally named, Hermenegildo Gutiérrez, and also the one on Menendo González created and referenced by Srnec.

He also changed names in the article on King Ordoño II of León following this same pattern. The names that he changes are referenced both in Spanish and Portuguese, depending on the language of the sources used, most of them from the period when neither Spain or Portugal existed and were simply divided, in the case of Spain into separate kingdoms and the county of Castile and Portugal was a county governed by tenants-in-chiefs appointed by the King of León. In the case of these articles, the lede also includes the Portuguese spelling. Had he created those articles, he could have named them as referenced in Portuguese sources, but in the two cases of moves mentioned above, he did not create or contributed info or sources. Reverting and moving those articles, or reverting his changes is a waste of time and suggested in his talk page that it would be more worthwhile for him to spend his time referencing instead of launching these silly nationalistic wars.--Maragm (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC) If confirmation is needed on Hermenegildo Gutiérrez, these two online sources can be checked: article by historian López-Sangil, first line, page 146 and Sáez, pages 7 and 12, for example, two of the sources that I used originally to reference the article. I'll look now for other online sources on Menendo González.--Maragm (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC) pd: For Menendo González, see Portela & Pallares chart on page 20 and Torres Sevilla, p. 302, two of the sources used to reference that article. The point is that, even though these names appear in Portuguese sources with another spelling, the authors of both articles in en.wiki chose the Spanish spelling as they appear in the references used and that choice should be respected, considering that both added the Portuguese spelling in the lede. --Maragm (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC) pdpd... An English language source on Menendo González Fletcher, Chapter 2, p. 22 (in brackets) “…after the death of Menendo González in 1008”.--Maragm (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome of this complaint, I had asked a sysop to move Hermenegildo Gutiérres to the original name, Hermenegildo Gutiérrez, but that sysop has not responded yet and as it stands now, the last name is incorrect in any language. I tried to move it back to the original name and made a mistake in the spelling of his last name which should end in “z” rather than “s”. --Maragm (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same can be said about Maragm, which I've already reported previously, which has an history of changing names to Spanish of the Portuguese counts and biased editing in order to pretend Portugal didn't existed at the time. And again using "nationalistic" remarks for reverting, he is the one proving to be nationalistic, changing names of Portuguese counts to Spanish in English Wikipedia, a language/alien unrelated to these people, for me it just doesn't make sense and is really confusing. Friend, those Portuguese names are easily sourced and checked even online. Wikipedia is the odd ball here. Why? Because of nationalistic Spanish POV. You are the one constantly reverting my edits, even if well sourced, you even have an history of removing sources and one-second reverts of good faith edits, because those were not your liking. I just simply leave, which happens often, and then we have Portuguese medieval history on English wiki with a significant amont of biased, Spanishied and contradicting info. --Pedro (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casual racism

edit
This appears to be a misunderstanding; the editor in question has expressed regret for making a "joke" that was too far over the top for a publicly-viewable talk page, the "target" of the comments agrees they were not intended seriously, I've unblocked, and they all lived happily ever after. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So, how do we deal with this and this? I mean, other than with incredulity? Alakzi (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, WP:NOTFORUM, with a garnish of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These edits are completely unacceptable, and independently, the redlinked user category created by the user is trollish. The only real question is whether there should be an immediate indefinite block, or a final warning coupled with a broad-ranging topic-ban. I incline toward blocking, but will leave this open for other views. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's fairly clear from a review of the accounts contribs that they're only here to cause disruption. Accordingly, I've blocked. In the event that they can acknowledge that their behaviour has been inappropriate without using snark or sarcasm, any admin would have my blessing to unblock. I'm not holding my breath in hope though. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • I thank everyone here for rallying to my defence. I am honoured. Specifically, I wish to thank Newyorkbrad, an editor whom I have greatly respected for as long as I can remember and whom I consider one of the anchors of stability of this project. I also thank Lankiveil who acted fairly and appropriately under the circumstances. My thanks also go to Alakzi for his actions in this matter. However, yes, unfortunately there is a "however" in this, I have known the user reported and have long since considered him/her as a well-meaning but rather eccentric editor. I assume that his comments were made in jest. Believe it or not, I think they constitute someone's idea of humour and they were not meant to cause harm. As such, I request leniency for him/her and I wish to state that I don't find his comments offensive because any offense would be caused by the intent behind the comments and I find there was no such intent from this user. I know that in a project based on the written word it is difficult to see the intent behind the words being typed but if one examines the writings of YeOldeGentleman one could discern a certain idiosyncratic sense of humour. I think that my detection of this editor's weird humour is reliable. Thank you all and take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I totally brain-farted and missed that both examples above were in user talk, not article talk. Strike NOTFORUM with my apologies (I seem to be fucking up a lot lately, possible wikibreak indicated). ―Mandruss ☎ 04:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can make small mistakes of this kind. This is not a good reason for a wikibreak, except if you are looking for an excuse for one. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since this apparent attempt at humour was directed at you, and you don't seem bothered at all, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be immediately unblocked. Alakzi (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Alakzi. I think Lankiveil's response is in the same general direction, but also addresses any other possible concerns. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I commend you for taking the post with a grain of salt, but humour or not such posts are unacceptable. I'll unblock as soon as the account in question acknowledges this and agrees not to do so again. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Lankiveil: Thank you Lankiveil. Your response is fair given the wider considerations. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trouble with User:Binksternet

edit
NO ACTION
Nothing to see here, folks.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Binksternet (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been attempting harassment and edit-warring over the last three days: [137], repeating: [138], now stalking and systematically reverting: [139] + [140], [141] + [142], [143] + [144], and finally, a baseless attempt at cyberbullying: [145] - incidentally, I previously forgot to notify the editor on their talk page about starting a discussion about them (I won't forget this time), but somehow still knew about it 18 minutes later: [146]. If the fault here lies with me and I should correct something about my own misconduct, then please let me know so I can give you all a huge break, and I will also do my best trying to forget that the last three days ever happened. Since I have been called combative, I might even consider joining the army. Thanks! 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These look like pretty minor style changes, and the style guide would favour Binksternet's changes. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: Really? You call complete reverting of 15 edits - which were a complete rewrite of the entire article that took hours of effort - in one turn, a "minor style change"? Maybe I'm really not combative, maybe I'm just a complete idiot who can't tell the difference. Thank you kindly for your response! 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Andy Dingley. Totally legit reverts. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: I disagree with you both. I don't know if you two are Wikipedia administrators or not, but if that is the commonly shared sentiment, then I owe User:Binksternet an apology for unintentionally wasting his time. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: You didn't mention She Drives Me Crazy - what did I do wrong there? I corrected the minor-style mistakes that you brought up in your first revert: [147] here: [148], and you still weren't satisfied so you completely reverted all my edits again: [149]. I am quite sure that this is all my fault as well, I just want to hear your detailed explanation of it. Thank you. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(EDIT:) Also, no mention of Gloria (Umberto Tozzi song) and Love Shack outside my own talkpage: [150]. Please take your time before you give me another punch-in-the-mouth response. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(EDIT 2:) I suspect this is what triggered the reported editor to take his gloves off: [151] + [152], which is only 12 hours away from the beginning of his attack: [153]. I now realize that I may be half-responsible for baiting the bully, and I take no pride in that. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: Agreed! If nobody is willing to do anything about all this (as I previously suspected: [154]), then close away. The last few days were fun, but I suppose they were fun only for me, because apparently wikipedians care more about "minor style changes" than improving general quality of the articles. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Velenje vandal for the OP's history of disruption. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Binksternet's long-term malice

edit
IP blocked per proposal. Stop wasting people's time. Sergecross73 msg me 02:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was just about to dismiss Wikipedia altogether after yesterday's incident: [155], but after seeing this article created by User:Binksternet: [156], it became very clear to me that I'm not the first and probably not the last victim of his cyberbullying. After clicking on the provided links, you will realize that when he is unable to get the upper hand, User:Binksternet has a hardcore habbit of attacking editors based on fictional evidence. I'm certain that User:Binksternet had attacked other editors in the past as well, but I didn't bother going through his contributions history to link them here for this report.

Binksternet (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

I will try to be more specific in this report on User:Binksternet than I was the last time: [157], by explaining how he has rather successfully curbed my own Wikipedia editing efforts. It started with small and insignificant reverts of my edits, which I now think may have been his standard attempts of discouragement: [158], [159]. At the time, I was copy-editing Freed from Desire, and had run into an edit-warrior there who first reverted my efforts. That led me to file a request on the general noticeboard for a watch on the article: [160], after which I've removed the report due to my intuitive doubts of a positive outcome: [161]. About 12 hours later, I assume right after discovering the removed report from my contributions history, User:Binksternet brought the big guns: [162], [163]. User:Binksternet also came to my own talkpage with a personal baseless attack: [164], and he had dug up an old-settled dispute that he thought is worth inflaming again - reverting me and the other editor that I had previously settled the dispute with: [165]. After filing a report on him in desperation: [166], User:Binksternet came in with another flame and with no excuse for any of his actions: [167].

User:Binksternet is obviously not a rational person who assumes good faith, as he has repeatedly demonstrated his trolling nature and his malicious intents throughout my own dealings with him. Either something has to be done about this editor, or Wikipedia is not The Free Encyclopedia as advertised in the upper left corner - if a certain group of individuals has a legitimate claim on this website as their private property, then let that be known and I will gladly leave. Otherwise, people like User:Binksternet should not be allowed to freely limit editing freedoms of others. Therefore, I propose an additional research on User:Binksternet if necessary, and finally disabling editing privileges from User:Binksternet's IP address and his associated user-account(s). I just hope that this case won't be closed with "Nothing to see here, folks" explanation again: [168]. Thank you for your time. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • All of Binksternet's edits that you've diffed are in order, within Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and well-explained in the edit summaries. By opening this thread you are merely drawing attention to yourself and inviting a WP:BOOMERANG block of your IP (for opening two baseless and ill-inetentiond ANI threads about the same editor within 24 hours of each other). Softlavender (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: That sounds reasonable to me, one of us should definitely be banned. I will leave the decision of which one up to Wikipedia administrators, because I won't back down until something is done about this. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: That is my own assumption based on the provided links. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your provided links are all from March 31 and April 1. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Block this IP for opening two time-wasting and baseless threads in rapid succession

edit

Proposal: Block (longterm) this IP for opening two time-wasting and baseless threads (this current one and this one yesterday) about Binksternet within 24 hours of each other simply because he didn't get his way yesterday. Softlavender (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is being WP:Disruptive, but IP addresses are never indefinitely WP:Blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Flyer22, re-worded accordingly. Softlavender (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting comment, IP. Report on you says that you're from California: [169], just like User:Binksternet's own userpage does. I wasn't aware that you were doing the "cleaning" on Wikipedia. Thank you for coming forward with this information, and elaborating User:Binksternet's true intentions. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support block - Time-wasting troll-like behavior, personal attacks ("[B.] is obviously not a rational person"), WP:IDHT, near-harassment of long-time editor with vexatious AN/I reports, all on top of probably being a sock (yeah, I know, SPI is that way, I'm saying it anyway) BMK (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two threads were opened at least 24-hours apart from each other, and the previous one was poorly formed with no proposal from my side. Anyway, I wasn't aware that just about anyone can close opened cases here. Is there a noticeboard where only administrators can do that? 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Velenje vandal for the OP's history of disruption. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible disruptive vote-stacking and sock editing at AfD

edit
SENT TO WP:SPI
The AFD was closed; if you'd like the close reviewed, consider WP:DELREV. Thanks go to Lugnuts for opening and to OccultZone for pursuing an SPI case, which appears to have some merit. Zad68 18:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. I'd like some help on looking into a matter at this AfD. It was started by Buzzards-Watch Me Work. A few days after it was started, IP editor 164.106.2.242 posted a delete vote. This IP editor has little or no edits outside of this AfD. In fact, he only had 4 edits in the last 2 years, but somehow comes straight to the AfD. His IP address is in Northern Virginia, the same place where BWMW comes from, according to their userpage. There are more comments about this on the AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMMW and the IP have used the same edit summaries on other article.[170][171] Usually they update the results. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those !votes would be ignored by the admin closing the AFD. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 07:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. I'm not so much concerned about the outcome of the AfD, but the fact that it looks like an obvious attempt of a sock at work. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone want to take a look into this? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sockpuppet concerns please file an SPI, I don't think there's conclusive enough evidence here for any immediate action. That aside, I've messaged UtherSRG because I don't understand why the AfD was closed as delete. Sam Walton (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well an admin who is wrong is never going to admit it. Pretty poor outcome there TBH. I'll go with the pointless circus of SPI in anycase. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ban required for Merinsan's destructive editing

edit
Filer withdrew proposal as resolved for now following Merinsan's acceptance of ThaddeusB's mentorship offer.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merinsan (talk · contribs) is a disruptive single purpose account who has repeatedly edit-warred on Spoorthi, a BLP article for over a week to insert poorly or unreliably sourced content despite being requested not to do so.

There are plenty of examples of the editwarring here: [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] most recent.

An editor has very kindly nominated this article for deletion but it has not stopped this editor from attempting to use this article to breach BLP policy, push non-notable POV conten, and that too, in the absence of a consensus that his edits can stand. Can we please ban him from editing (or if we must narrow the ban, at least ban him from any BLP-related articles on Wikipedia)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question has declared this is their first article and they intend to write others later. Yes, they have made some mistakes - most new users do - but I don't think a ban is warranted. No edits have been made since you yourself warned Merinsan. If edits continue, a (temporary) block would then be warranted. However, bans are for dealing with long term problems, not edit wars and mistakes by new users.
Also, be very careful of WP:BOOMERANG here - you have been edit warring on the article yourself and unlike Merinsan have enough experience to know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is remarkably foolish to comment without properly investigating the editor's history. The user has demonstrated a clear propensity to edit war despite any warnings which are given to him - as has happened here and resulted in the initial page protection. This wasn't just a matter of mistakes; it was deliberate disagreement with the feedback he was given and an utter failure to address the concerns. If you're happy to take responsibility for this editor and mentor him, good; but it's simply pathetic to expect everyone else to. The content reinstated by Melanie when she protected the article breaches BLP policy and NPOV policy, and I find it remarkably curious how faciliating discussion trumps publishing such content. Either take responsibility for him, or stop faciliating further messes being created. Numbers of competent editors who are prepared to edit on Indian articles have already dwindled because of this type of attitude. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OWN Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, what is "remarkable foolish" is for you to make assumptions about me and use language that borders on personal attacks when you have already been warned about boomerang. And now, you choose to attack another admin (MelanieN) as well, accusing her of BLP violations? ... For your information, I did look at the edit history. And guess what, you BOTH could have been blocked several times already for continuing to edit war. Is that what you want? Being "right" is a not a sufficient reason to edit war. The disputed content most certainly is not a clear BLP violation that requires immediate removal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead; keep misrepresenting what I actually said, threaten to block me, and keep the newbie. It was my mistake for trying to clean this mess. This project clearly supports editors who keep quiet, so have it your way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You accused MelanieN of reinstating content that "breaches BLP policy and NPOV policy". I fail to see how that is any different than what I wrote... The project supports editors who are able to remain calm. Again, being right is insufficient justification to edit war. The proper way to handle things is to discuss and seek additional input if necessary. Having the "bad" version in place for a few days is not a big deal... I am sorry you view stating the obvious fact that you are both edit warring as a threat. For the record, I do not want to block anyone. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to agree with ThaddeusB on this one. There is a definite argument to be made that the sources (at least some of them which were affected by the content removal) are not unreliable (sorry for the double negative). And both editors could have been blocked for edit warring. No block is indicated. Onel5969 (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) They are a new editor, and I think they seem to be slightly confused about Wikipedia standards. I think the confusion has stemmed from the fact that their article was accepted at AfC, and so they've assumed it is perfect. Saying that, every time someone tries to remove content or discuss sourcing, they do seem to be super-defensive, which isn't so helpful, and they did accuse both me and Ncmvocalist of being "biased editors" at WP:AN3. I think this user needs newbie-help e.g. by being mentored with the Co-op, rather than being blocked/banned. I think they're intentions are good, but their execution has been less than perfect. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a satisfactory outcome as far as I am concerned; my proposal follows from the fact no one has come forward to supervise him and the problems persist in the meantime. If someone as "tolerant" as ThaddeusB is prepared to mentor him, sounds good to me. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly request the Admins and others users to have a look at a previous attempt by Ncmvocalist to ban me and where I have recorded my reply comprehensively in this thread and this expectedpage. I don't know whether I should go on and record the same arguments here as a reply to this user's determined personal attacks on me as well as undermine the notability of the subject of the article Spoorthi. My request is for you all to go through all the threads, and talk pages and the associated file uploaded to evaluate the merits of this users accusations and leave the final decision to the Admins and many other experienced users, majority of whom I find extremely courteous and helpful in giving their opinion in a constructive manner. Merinsan (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302, I appreciate your attitude in still trying to help me out even after I assumed one of your previous editing activity as 'biased editing'. I called it 'possibly biased' due to the fact that your edits exactly did the SAME 'bulk removal of contents and valid sources' from the article, leaving only a single sentence in the article, exactly same as what Ncmvocalist did. If it wasn't 'biased' on your part, I am really sorry for having assumed that. I am not averse to accepting edits based on truth. On his recent edit, in the edit summary user Ncmvocalist indicated one "Pragathi Guruprasad actually won this competition in 2010" which is not entirely correct. There were different segments in that competition and this Pragathi Guruprasad won one segment and Spoorthi won another Junior segment. These are the things I am 'restoring' to the article. Merinsan (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merinsan, a word to the wise: If more than one person makes the same or similar edits, it is generally not because they are ALL biased. (How likely is that?) When multiple people independently disagree with you, you should consider the possibility that they are correct and you are wrong. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just fully-protected the article Spoorthi for the second time, because edit-warring resumed as soon as the first protection expired. The edit warring consists of Ncmvocalist removing large swaths of material from the article and Merinsan restoring it. Ncmvocalist insists that the removed material violates BLP policy and is poorly sourced. He has forum-shopped his position at User talk:MelanieN#Not to seem unappreciative…,Talk:Spoorthi#Removal of poorly written, poorly or unreliably sourced, synthesised, or otherwise inappropriate content, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring], and possibly other places I don't know about. At my suggestion he also posted at the BLP noticeboard, but deleted the entire section four hours later after no-one responded.[183] He also issued numerous warnings to the other user at User talk:Merinsan. The article is currently at AfD so that issue may be solved by others. Meanwhile, I think Ncmvocalist should be instructed to back away from this article, since no-one seems to agree that his deletions are justified, to leave the monitoring of the article to others, and to consider himself fortunate if this report does not WP:BOOMERANG. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • MelanieN, I don't know why you misstated what happened. Editors are expected to raise disputed content for discussion on an article talk page, which I did (despite Merinsan's failure to do so as your second link shows); I lodged a 3RR report which was similarly appropriate (your third link); and administrator policy encourages editors to raise concerns with an administrator if they wish to discuss the use of tools, or in your case, page protection (your first link). I raised the matter at BLP/N at your suggestion, but frustratingly, no timely response was received so I took it back and left the area. That does not amount to forum-shopping as you should well-know. I also don't know why you suggested that no one seems to agree that the deletions are justified and in accordance with BLP and NPOV policy. On the other hand, I notice the edit protection request raised by another editor on the article talk page wasn't actioned by you during the initial page protection; another administrator (an arbitrator in fact) dealt with it instead (that is, the matter I raised on your user talk page and which you did not bother with). I also notice this time you did not protect the article in the current version but reverted the article to a different version in performing the second page protection. Anyway, I really wonder what will happen if this does go pear-shaped.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the filer of this, I'm withdrawing this proposal and closing the discussion as resolved for now since Merinsan has accepted ThaddeusB's mentorship offer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User and talk page strictly for propaganda soap boxing

edit

The user Sayerslle has removed all comments from his talk page, and is using it strictly for propaganda soap boxing. His user page is also filled with political propaganda statements. Per WP:SOAP and WP:UP, I tried to notify him of the issue[184], but he simply removed my message, which is why we're here. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have WP:RS though. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be irrelevant according to WP:SOAP. What matters is that he uses both pages as a soap box platform for political statements and deletes all usertalk comments. This is not allowed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should be mentioned that this editor is in the midst of a 59 day block and will not be able to explain his editing in this forum. Liz Read! Talk! 16:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly in the "midst", as it's due to expire in about 5 days. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems he can edit his talk page, though (as he removed my comment there), so he can communicate from there if he wants. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address the issue of this entry, which is blatant political soap boxing. It seems he uses his talk page for source stockpiling during the long stretches of times he is banned every once in a while. Then he can go right back at POV-warring when he is unblocked... Wonder why this can go on with no real consequences. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse Bugs. AlbinoFerret 19:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought when someone was blocked, they were supposed to confine their talk page commentary to requests for unblock and otherwise non-controversial comments. Maybe that viewpoint is no longer enforced. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a semi-controversial subject. I believe the current thinking is that as long as the talk page access isn't abused in some way -- as by continuing the controversy, making polemical statements, and so on -- TPA is kept open. BMK (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Can I point out that, while perhaps unlikely, it is technically possible for an editor to internally hold a strong POV and be open and honest about that POV and be aware of both that POV and the policies/guidelines of Wikipedia and still edit in a NPOV way. My specific problem with the Sayerslle user page is not the opinion but the approach of stating opinion as fact. Amongst all the political content I don't think that a promotion of Charlotte Gainsbourg is necessarily bad. I personally think that, unless user page content is dangerous or expresses something like prejudice, restriction on a user's editing of their user page borders on censor. However this content may certainly be enlightening when judging other edits. GregKaye 20:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So who exactly complained about his picture of Charlotte Gainsbourg? Could we quit the red herrings, please? FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk Let me reemphasise: "My specific problem with the Sayerslle user page is not the opinion but the approach of stating opinion as fact." And on this I would be more than happy for action to be taken. However, editors have lives and opinions and I do not think we should WP:CENSOR all comment. Again: "I personally think that, unless user page content is dangerous or expresses something like prejudice, restriction on a user's editing of their user page borders on censor." GregKaye 10:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess it's just all fine and dandy that blocked POV-warriors can game the system by spreading their propaganda further, and be ready for their next round of edit warring as soon as they get unblocked. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until his block expires, see if he turns to useful editing, and then decide whether this really matters so much. All this hairtrigger fussing about someone's talk page is a waste of time. EEng (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without an assumption of bad faith/later use in mainspace, there seems no practical difference to building such a collection offline and copying the lot when/if they intend to get going again. Which is hardly within anyone's ambit to prohibit.- Elmidae (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason this collection of views has been "spread", to me at least, is by means of this discussion. You'll be pleased to know I've now looked at each of those links to try and work out what that user's agenda is. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you're missing the point. WP:SOAP is clearly violated by the pages, that's the bottom line. Whether you have been exposed to ideas you didn't previously know of isn't really relevant, and no, it's not "ironic".[185] FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel cleaner already. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to another episode of Days of Our Lives. Much appreciated, and very ironic. FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The real irony of course being... that User:Martinevans123 didn't mention irony   Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. A vintage episode, I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]
I guess you don't follow the edit summaries.[186] FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! 20:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Martinevans123 are you mocking here? Issues at WP:CIVIL include condescension and belittling. GregKaye 10:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me. I'm unable to identify irony, apparently. So I probably have little chance with the niceties of civility. (And I wasn't trying to suggest that User:FunkMonk was Wikipedia's answer to Mrs Overall). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

As indicated the problem that I see, IMO within the content at Sayerslle is the stating of opinion as fact: "'If you think Hezbollah are pro Palestine, you're deeply wrong. They're just another power broker that abuses the Palestinian cause.' - 'Litvinenko's lawyer Emmerson: "Evidence will show Putin himself as a common criminal dressed up as a head of state”' - 'ISIS is a result of the UN's inaction in Syria. And this in turn is the result of Russia's vetoes in UNSC' 'That's the appeaser's problem in Ukraine. How do you surrender to someone whose goal is conflict itself? Putin won't stop if you give in.' 'Lavrov is like a parody. Lying blustering bullying creep. And the others are worse'" GregKaye 10:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is that he is using both his user page and talk page as a propaganda soap box, which is not allowed per WP:SOAP. It is quite simple. It is irrelevant which sources he is using. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beneil Dariush - nationality

edit

Over the past months there have been many edits regarding Beneil Dariushs nationality; whether he should be referred to as Assyrian-American or Assyrian-Iranian, or even American-Iranian. I started this section on the talk page, without answer from involved users. I have been arguing for American as nationality, as Iranian is his previous nationality. User:P323p started this section on my talk page, where I have been referring to this Wiki guideline. Further reverts won't help, therefore I would be happy to get some inputs from somebody here. Shmayo (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might start a conversation on Talk:Beneil Dariush, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran (it is semi-active) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts...usually, it's helpful to get other editors who are knowledgeable about the subject to weigh in. Or go to UFC.com and see if he has a biography published which identifies his nationality. Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did start a conversation on the talk page a couple of month ago, but it's mostly anon users and newly created users who keeps reverting it back. Beneil is an ethnic Assyrian (often speaks about the situations of the Assyrians [187]), living and fighting for USA and born in Iran [188]. He states "Assyrian nationality" on his official FB-page [189]. Isn't "Iranian" his previous nationality then, "American" being his new? Shmayo (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing at Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt

edit
Article has been fully protected for one week by Zad68. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Dreg102: is pushing their POV despite discussion on talk page and will probably breach 3RR in the process. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The disagreement comes from a lack of knowledge on the part of some people. An assault rifle refers to a select fire rifle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle While an AR-15 is semi-automatic, it by definition, can NOT be an assault rifle. Dreg102 21:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs)
Is it used in assaults? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If the disagreement comes from a lack of knowledge, that lack of knowledge falls squarely on the shoulders of LAPD Chief Charlie Beck who described several of Christopher Dorner's weapons (or sporting tools or whatever you feel better about calling them) as "assault rifles". This phrase was widely reported and can be found linked numerous times in the talk page discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive880&oldid=1147960886"