Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

use of COI as a weapon in content dispute

Am seeking 24 hour block for DePiep for violating WP:NPA in which he used claims of COI as a cudgel in a content dispute. Admins may find this trivial - it is not a death threat or calling someone "fucking stupid" or the like, but this stuff is very ugly to me and should not stand.

• this comment and
• this comment,
  • which I redacted and
    • he reverted, and
    • a third editor redacted again
  • I left a warning on his Talk page, which
  • he read when he deleted it

• he asked me on my Talk page and I answered that this behavior is not OK

• DePiep made a new NPA comment
  • which I redacted, and
  • left him a stronger warning
    • which he reverted with edit note "You are supposed to TALK when you have an issue, instead ot threatening by template. Don't ever visit my userspace again."

• and immediately went back to Talk and made another personal attack, here, and after I redacted it, he restored it he restored it with edit note: "lol fix"

It is not "lol". As I said, I am seeking a 24 hour block for NPA. User was well-warned. Using COI as a cudgel is not OK in WP. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (fix bad dif, sorry)

Distorted approach. Telling detail: my "lol fix" edit summary was with a minor sp correction -- bad faith by Jytdog here. Jytdog did not engage in talk, instead added opinion-by-template from their edit 01. Etcetera. Is what I said. Of course someone template-threatening without talking is not welcome in my userspace. -DePiep (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This is what I was expecting. No insight, no remorse. Wikilawyer tactic. Flinging charges of COI is not OK... period end of story. (and thanks for pointing out that my dif was bad - will fix that removal of my strike by you, pronto. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC))

I'm the user primarily involved with DePiep here (of course my first version fails to send and is deleted). Here's a summary of what's happened so far. Essentially, they began an edit war attempting to insert new content into the lede. Diffs:

1. [1] DePiep added new content to the lede
2. [2] I remove it due to WP:RECENTISM and weight issues to explore in the body of the article first expecting more discussion to occur on the talk page. Instead followed by a revert from DePiep.
3. [3] I revert reminding DiPiep to come to the talk page per WP:BRD to discuss the new content they want to (while avoiding additional reverts). They in return revert saying "No: you are to talk first"

They then posted on my talk page the 3RR template while also including the text I added as well referring to BRD.[4] This seems to indicate the editor lashes out when called out on problem behavior with edit warring. Within that template, they also included, "Fuck off and don't think your "warning" has meaning. You did not talk. " After finally getting some discussion out of them on the talk page, they instead lash out by casting aspersions accusing me of COI [5] and another user for paid editing [6]. Another user removed the personal attacks which DePiep reinstated, [7]. Another accusation occurred that was also removed by another user. [8]

The point isn't getting across from anyone at the article that edit warring and personal discussions are not ok, and that if your newly proposed edit is reverted, that's the time to follow WP:BRD and discuss on the talk page rather than edit war the content back in. Hopefully a warning would get the point across, but judging by the comments here and at the article, I don't think a temp block (i.e. 24 hours) is a bad idea either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So Jytdog says: 1. this es: "strike, ANI", and 2. this edit says: "agree", about the very same source added. Safe always. -DePiep (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What is this, by Jytdog: [9]? coordinating action? -DePiep (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

absolutely - his post was way too long. you are not a genius to see that. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem intended. I can get a little wordy sometimes trying to lay these cases out, but my diffs are largely different instances of the edit warring and behavior problems laid out relatively concisely.

(edit conflict)One more note and then I'll log off: I find the introduction of weapon by Jytdog aggressive. -DePiep (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

your behavior is very "internetz", DiPeip. We are not about "lulz" here. I am looking for a swift, simple block here from an admin. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think an I-ban would do better here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll note I've never interacted with this editor before a few hours ago. I'm not interested in an ban this early on if the behavior will just stop now and in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to act unilaterally and block just to punish anyone. But I see a clear battleground mentality from DePiep here. I do not see any desire or effort to work with others, to reach consensus or to compromise position, to discuss to work out what is best for the article, or any of that. I see someone who only wants to "win" the battle, and isn't interested in collaboration. Whatever anyone wants to do with this is fine by me, I would support any sanction (interaction ban, topic ban, etc.) which will prevent this behavior in this venue. The requested 24 hour block is not a method to stop the problematic behavior, and would be purely punitive, and thus not a useful means to stop the problem behavior here. Some sort of indefinite ban which will curb the behavior is needed. DePiep does good work in many areas (chemistry, for example), but this kind of toxic behavior is not useful in building up the encyclopedia, and something should be done to see that it stops. --Jayron32 02:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Jayron32 the point of the short block is not punitive - it is educational, to make it clear that the behavior is not OK. If Depiep continues, the next one can be longer, etc, until they end up at an indef. I would not support an indef now - it is way too much. I would appreciate it if you or another admin would do this simple, clear thing. I think the evidence is solid and I have no interest in this turning into a drama-fest. That is the worst thing that can happen, as there is no lesson offered, much less learned. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Saying it's educational is the same as saying "I hope he learns from his punishment." That's not why we issue blocks. We issue blocks to stop imminent harm to the encyclopedia. The issue is, will a 24 hour block have any effect on stopping the behavior once the block stops. Unequivocally no. If the user is contrite and also understands what they have done wrong, and indicates no intention to commit the same mistakes again, we wouldn't do anything. If the user shows no signs of understanding why their actions are harmful, than an expiring sanction is useless, because they would just restart their disruption again. We need to 1) have a sanction which last the duration of the problem and b) have a sanction which minimally affects the users ability to edit in other areas nondisruptively if we believe them to be capable of that. A full indefinite block is excessive because DePiep shows positive contributions in many other areas. An expiring block is inadequate because it does not stop the problematic behavior once it expires. That means the appropriate tool is a targeted ban: either a topic ban, or interaction ban, which removes the locus of the disruption, and allows DePiep to continue positive contributions in other areas. --Jayron32 12:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Jayron. I understand your interpretation of WP:BLOCK and the way you choose to implement your powers, but there is clear justification per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT that other admins may choose to act under. I have no interest in turning this into a semi RfC/U dramafest to examine broader patterns of behavior, which is what it would take to pursue a T-ban and these users have not interacted before as far as I know, so there are no grounds for an I-ban. And an indef is unwarranted, i agree. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Indef I-ban or T-ban broadly constructed. The problem seems to center around these two but Wikipedia is a big place, lets try one of these first before an outright Indef behavioral block. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A Topic Ban in this instance is a very bad idea, in my estimation. Long-term editors should be given more benefit of the doubt than that... --IJBall (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

completely inappropriate for the evidence presented. no. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• All that has to happen here is a bit of cooling down. Long term bans are not needed as it appears that editors understand how they have offended each other. The editing on Glyphosate seems to be converging to a consensus form. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Content isn't really the problem, but behavior. The reason why I went here at least was become it doesn't seem apparent DePiep understands the how problematic their behavior was and attempts to alert that to them were shrugged off. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Kingofaces. It doesn't matter where the content goes. The problem is offensive behavior. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• this is not a content dispute - I am seeking a 24 block for behavior - for violating WP:NPA by making unfounded accusations of COI. User was well-warned and went ahead, flauntingly. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support warning and 24-48 hour block. Just clarifying from above. As the person who's been receiving the brunt of this behavior, I just want it to stop and make sure it stays that way. It's too early in the process for an I-ban or T-ban given no previous history. If the behavior stops, all is well. I don't think a warning alone would get the point across that the behavior is inappropriate, so the temp block seems the logical next step. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

My fears are reaffirmed DePiep is not taking seriously how disruptive their behavior is given some comments below. Saying the equivalent of just kidding or no big deal with respect to slinging around COI accusations can't be taken seriously in the context of the diffs. I'd ask the community to just look at the diffs provided for behavior problems while avoiding the drama fest below, and at least settle on a warning that gives very little WP:ROPE. Folks can discuss things like the appropriateness of bans as a what-if if it looks like the behavior will continue after that if they really want, but can we at least settle this bare minimum request? This should not have to turn into a stereotypical sprawling ANI post. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support 24 hour block or IBANThis sort of thing is deeply offensive and it is far too often ignored as some sort of "boys will be boys" issue that does not need administrative attention. As a result, personal attacks have become an argument of first resort for certain editors, and I think we really need to start enforcing NPA, which in principle is a pillar of wikipedia.

• "Are you sure you have no WP:COI?"
• "Lucky you get paid for edits here."
• "Kingofaces43 arguing 'newishness' about a scienctific publication needs to check the COIs"

This is deeply offensive stuff that does not contribute to a collaborative editing environment. I strongly support a 24 hour block. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang -- Jytdog is using COI allegations that are not even about him to gain the upper hand in a content dispute and control of the article by attempting to block a new editor to the page who has a different POV, no different than the ANI used against me. Unfortunately, the behavior goes unchecked.David Tornheim (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

So is your position then that personal attacks and allegations are an appropriate behavior on the article Talk pages? Formerly 98 (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Question Has Jytdog engaged in paid editing? If there is no evidence I support a short block for this edit. --John (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The diff has nothing to do with Jytdog. -DePiep (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

John I have not edited for pay. Kingofaces, against whom most of the personal attacks were made, is an an academic insect guy who has studied pesticides. Formerly 98, against whom DePiep flung the charge of "paid editing", discloses that he is a former med chemist for pharma and says he abstains from editing where he might have a COI based on his past work. No evidence of paid editing by any of them. Please implement the short block. DePiep was just spewing allegations in the content dispute to discredit those with differing perspectives. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Since it came up, I will reiterate I have absolutely no COI here as I have nothing to do with herbicides from a research perspective. I lay everything out very clearly on my user page to try to prevent exactly the kind of situation we have here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for misreading which editor was being accused of being a paid editor. Regardless of who was being referred to, the use of an unevidenced slur to win a content discussion seems reprehensible to me. I will not block as I have recently been in an unrelated dispute with DePiep, but I have to say that if this was not the case I would consider it. Certainly a warning needs to be given that this behaviour is not acceptable. --John (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI keeps surprising us for its chaotic timelime & logic. Expect discovery of America soon. -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC) John did correct their mistake and engaged constructively. -DePiep (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Breeze in a teacup? Kingofaces43 twice reverted an edit [10] [11], and only then started a talk. Then he comes to my talkpage to tell me about edit warring, using 3rd person btw. I just copied (mirrored) this. No reason to be surprised. Pot & kettle, tit & tat, case closed. Then we met on the article's talkpage. So far so good.

Clearly my COI mentionings are tongue in cheek, and a mere reference to POV -- just a sidenote to my argument.

Then Jytdog enters the arena removing my argument [12] (keyword: recenticism; and again later [13]). So I reject the judgements by Jytdog. More: after these misjudgements, Jytdog claimed to know about COI [14]. And he still not corrected their wrong "lol fix" conclusion I mentioned here @01:10. (To spell it out: the fix was a closing strike-tag, the lol was that the whole section was stricken. funny typo = lol to me).

Jytdog applied words like "weapon" (see last diff), and this ANI post was opened (titled even) with "weapon" and "as a cudgel". That is introducing aggressiveness, and not reflecting my posts. -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

your behavior was unacceptable. you absolutely used COI as a rhetorical weapon to discredit 2 editors with different perspectives than you, and you mocked our efforts to get you to stop your personal attacks. You continue to do so now, calling it "tongue in cheek". It is not funny, it is destructive and disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You are evading my points re your judgements. -DePiep (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the point here is the inappropriateness of personal attacks on article Talk pages. Whether the discussion that went before that was contentious or not is arguing off point.

Do you understand that this is completely inappropriate behavior, and are you willing to apologize and refrain from such attacks in the future? That is what this ANI is about. Yes or No? Formerly 98 (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Re Formerly 98 (diffs are already in; can be repeated by request). The before-discussion was brought up here by someone else, so I am entitled to respond and correct that one. If it is off point, the original post should be addressed, not me. Also, that discussion has direct effects on the followup topic because Jytdog deleted my talkpage arguments. Next. I repeat that multiple statements here (by John, by Jytdog) are incorrect. For example, Jytdog mis-presented my es "lol fix" and still has not corrected themselves (which makes his statement false). And introducing words like "weapons" and "cudgel" sets the wrong tone, as does Jytdog's canvassing. This attitude might also have mislead other contributors here. I am entitled to correct all errors and wrong music. And I can call that bad judgements. Now of course I understand that my COI-remarks did not fall well with readers. Even though they were clearly meant as an over the top "POV" note, and added as an aside to the core argument. So I understand that, as you ask, even oblique I better not make them again. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

again this is more wikilawyering distraction. You made three personal attacks and ignored two very clear warnings and you show no sign of understanding the problem with your behavior. Again, a short block per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT is in order here. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

re Jytdog: Stupid fucking warmongering illiterate. At this point, you are to apologise to me for keep making a beetlefart into a Hisoshima. You still have not addressed your own bad judgeents. I wasn't even responding to you. -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block. It would make more sense to focus on why the edit to the lead about the March 2015 World Health Organization report was reverted. WHO has reported that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans." Kingofaces removed it from the lead citing UNDUE, because other sources disagree, but the solution is to add the other sources to the lead, assuming they're as authoritative and reasonably up-to-date. What has happened now is that the WHO report has been restored to the lead, but a 1991 EPA report has been added too – saying that glyphosate displays "evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans" – but without indicating in the text that it's from 1991. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This is off-topic and does not address the behavioral issues raised. Flinging charges of COI is not an appropriate response to a content dispute. The issue here is DePiep's behavior, for which he was warned twice, and persisted nonetheless. SlimVirgin if you would like to open a separate thread on Kingoface's behavior, or open a case at COIN on him, if you believe that his edit was driven by COI, please do so. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that they're separate issues. The Monsanto suite of articles is likely to end up at ArbCom, because there have been repeated claims that editors are acting in the company's interests. That needn't be because of COI; it may simply be that they agree with the company. And perhaps editors on the other side are too quick to believe that large corporations try to control content on WP. But there does seem to be unusual editing there. Trying to keep a recent WHO report out of the lead on the grounds of UNDUE, then equating it to an EPA report from 24 years ago (without alerting the reader to the age of the latter), looks odd. I urge all the editors on those articles to double their efforts to "write for the enemy" to head off the inevitable. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Can you explain the last sentence further? Working on the articles is hopeless because these same editors rule them with an iron fist and will successfully get one blocked, ibanned, etc. if you stand up to them? David Tornheim (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

David, I've left a question about this for Jytdog in the section below entitled "Close". Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

David this is yet more campaigning by you - you were warned about this at the ANI you cited: "There is also some agreement that Tornheim seems to regard Wikipedia as a battleground where there's always a pro and a con side, and partisanship rules. " and, by the way, SlimVirgin has arguably made herself WP:INVOLVED in these articles by her comments here. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I made it pretty clear that I didn't think the content was appropriate specifically for the lede quite yet because it was already in the body of the article where it belonged while details were being hashed out there per WP:LEDE. That people resort to drama and insinuating COI rather than hammering out the finer details needed to make the content accurate according to the sources (including the WHO source and other up to date sources) is disruptive both at the article and here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, really. This thread it about DePiep's behavior and your "oppose" doesn't speak to what DePiep did, at all. (On the other matters, I would be surprised if those articles end up at Arbcom anytime soon. They may do, but we are very far from there now, in my view. The articles have generally stayed off ANI and there have been no behavioral blocks for any of the editors who work on them regularly. Outside the occasional campaigners things proceed generally smoothly and we are able to talk through content disputes, generally reasonably. And I don't know any editors, including me, who "agree with the company". I generally do "write for the enemy"; that does not mean that pseudoscience holds sway over WP. There is a difference. What I do above all, is follow the reliable sources. For example, I was the first one to add content to the glyphosate article on cancer when the recent meta-analysis was brought up on Talk by another editor. It was a good source; it came in as did content based on it. ) Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There was a similar situation here in September when you and Kingofaces43 sought to have an editor topic-banned because she said or implied that there was COI editing at two agriculture-related articles. Kingofaces43 was arguing that the funding of a source didn't matter, when of course it often does. The way forward is for you and Kingofaces43, and everyone else at these contentious agriculture articles, to do everything reasonable to correct the perception of COI or POV editing. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the ellenCt case. What you just said to me is blaming the victim here- "it is your fault you were attacked". Personal attacks based on bias are not OK - not when you have an ax to grind like EllenCT does (who strongly believes that neonics cause CCD and the science be damned (or be blessed only to the extent it supports her POV)) nor when they are used as a sloppy cudgel like DePiep used it - both are ugly and biased attacks. These are personal attacks. Smearing me or anybody else as a corporate zombie whore is not acceptable behavior, period. It is very true that this attack does not have the weight of systemic societal bias that attacks based on race or gender do, but here inside WP there is a very strong anti-corporate bias. We don't shrug when someone is attacked on the basis of their gender; this behavior should not be shrugged off either. I get sick of being spit on and seeing others spit on. I am a good Wikipedian and editor; Kingofaces is better than me in some ways. This behavior is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

But this takes us back full circle to the quality of the editing. Removing the recent WHO report from the lead on the grounds of UNDUE is odd. Arguing that the funding of scientific sources doesn't matter is odd. People see that editing and put two and two together, because of the presumed corporate interest in those articles. They may be wrong to jump to that conclusion, but there does appear (at first glance) to be something amiss. I'm asking that you and Kingofaces43 take those concerns on board, even if they seem unfair, rather than seeking blocks and bans. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV), part of the problem is that you are misrepresenting my statements, which I directly explained to you and asked you not to do at the ANI you mentioned. I'm just going to assume you forgot. My comment on funding source was that as editors we need to rely on other scientists in the fields to comment on the reliability of findings. We as editors are not experts who can assess that, nor can we use funding source of peer-reviewed studies as a proxy for that. That is the actual context of what I said. If you want to discuss scientific publishing, this isn't the place. Also, please don't modify other people's threading as you did here [15]. Jytdog did not respond to me, so please restore the threading to how I responded to you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, SlimVirgin, it does not take us back anywhere. Content disputes happen all the time and they can get worked out calmly. This ANI is about DePiep's behavior in the midst of a content dispute -- and now has broadened to his behavior here. This is about behavior, not content. Again, if you think Kingofaces behavior during that content dispute is actionable, please open a thread on that. I don't see it is as actionable: he didn't break 3RR, he made no personal attacks, etc. Content was getting - and is still getting - worked out. The WHO report is brand new and it is being contextualized and worked into the article even as this ANI drags on. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, it's clear from the indenting who's responding to whom. I don't really want to discuss this further, or the previous case, but as you feel you're being misrepresented, this is what I was referring to. It was in relation to a suggestion that this paper be used as a source in Neonicotinoid, an insecticide. The paper says (just above the references): "Funding for the development of this manuscript was provided by Bayer CropScience Ag Research Division". Bayer CropScience makes this type of insecticide. You wrote, in response to an objection: "Funding source is not relevant in assessing scientific studies, it's the content that needs to be addressed." [16] That was one of several posts that the other editor felt were red flags, which led to your request that she be topic-banned for expressing concern. I'm not arguing that people be allowed to make accusations without evidence. I'm asking only that you and Jytdog do more to counter wayward perceptions with good editing before seeking blocks and bans. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I already asked you to refrain from misrepresenting those statements. You've been told multiple times I was not proposing that source for within the article but that is was being used while discussing the many reviews available (all the others did not have such funding). It's well past time to drop the stick. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support warning and 24-48 hour block. Statements like, "I disagree with you, are you sure you don't have COI?" (my paraphrase of a diff given above) are an ad hominem attack and a cheap attempt to "win" a content dispute and should not be tolerated. A 48 hour block is not unreasonable given the damage this sort of thing can do. Geogene (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Question – Is the proposed interaction ban here between Jytdog and DePiep or Kingofaces43 and DePiep? It appears the COI concern/allegation was made against Kindofaces43 by DePiep, yet it appears the animosity is mostly between Jytdog and DePiep, so it’s unclear to me what interaction ban has been proposed.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The actual conduct dispute at the article is primarily between myself and Depiep, so those looking for an interaction ban would I imagine mean a one-way one banning DePiep from interacting with me. Jytdog's involvement really only came from warning DePiep and removing the personal attacks on the article, so things definitely can look confounded to an outside editor. Given recent comments by DePiep though [[17]], I'm really not sure what action is best anymore given the scaling up of attacks towards other users than myself now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

there is no proposed interaction ban. not a live option here. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support LONG block. If this statement [18] is tolerated on the noticeboards, and isn't a reason for a block for incivility, then there is no need for the AN/I noticeboards at all. ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Jayron32, John thoughts on the remark diffed above? Again I am not advocating a long block. What I am advocating is a short block to inform DePiep that this behavior is not OK. If he does this elsewhere, and/or continues after the block, the community can take further action later - and a longer one, to show that yes, we really mean it. I am so, so not interested in drama. I am interested in a clear statement from an admin or the community, that the unrepetent, continued behavior is not OK. Wikipedia is not the internetz where we flame each other for lulz. This is not complicated. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree, regarding the inappropriateness of that statement. Honestly, DePiep, if you want people to hear your side of this, whatever that might be, you should really strike that and come back when you can state your issues without profanity etc. Otherwise a block here would seem inevitable. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) re BoboMeowCat: I don't need to be "heared" any more. That's useless by now. No one reads, no one listens. It was when this thread started, but is has gone beyond its borders. Everyone can say anything and there is no check. Today I responded carefully to a serious post by User:Formerly 98 (search 16:11). What happened: Formerly 98 restarted their position elsewhere saying 'got no response'. All reset. That is WP:ANI 'discussion' level, this is why I have no confidence in any serious outcome being balanced. That is why I say that arguing here is useless (making an exception for you here ;-) ). And to Jytdog: don't be a dick. -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

re Jytdog I think I would now recommend a warning as DePiep has stated an intent to stop acting out at this venue. I would hope they have learned their lesson. This is about preventing disruption, not about punishment. --John (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

{[u|John}} About the dif you link to - that is 20:34, 26 March. That was him getting mad and stomping away. He did not stay away, he has come back and had plenty more to say:

• here
• here
• ]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=653661444 here]
• here

none of that is clueful, or steps back at all from his behavior. But look, I did not come here for extended drama. To me this is cut and dry shitty behavior in the face of very, very clear warnings. It goes beyond heat of any moment. But if you will give a warning, fine, please give a warning and put this derailed ANI out of its misery. I will be grateful that action was taken. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• In general, I would support some sort of interaction ban, but, in all honesty, the ones given out by ArbCom tend to be more effective than the ones imposed here. That being the case, I think it might make more sense to file a request from ArbCom if an i-ban or topic ban of some sort is being sought. Regarding the repeatedly attested to personal attacks, I can see that there are grounds for a block based on some of the comments such as those linked to by ScrapIron above, possibly longer than 24 hours. So I guess I would support block of 24 hours or more, and also suggest that ArbCom be considered for possible imposition of DS. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for supporting the short term block. no topic ban or interaction ban is being sought - there are not diffs to support that; it was not the goal. We do not need discretionary sanctions. DePiep rarely edits that article - he showed up and made of ass of himself for one gloriour evening, which he continued here. That's it. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Doesn't seem necessary. Administrators have too many priviliges here and they just too often love to block people for trivial and vindictive reasons. Elohim55 (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet of a blocked user. Mike V • Talk 17:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

What about the quality of the edits?

Given that we just had this Newsweek story, would anyone like to look at the quality of the edits made by the various accounts involved here? The above is more reminiscent of WWE theatre than an editorial discussion in an encyclopedia project. Andreas JN466 15:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This thread has nothing to do with content. Personal attacks are destructive to the process of working out good content and in my view flinging charges of COI is an especially pernicious and all too common personal attack in content disputes. And adding that link about a business school is yet more sloppy throwing around of COI. This is a specific issue, well documented. DePiep acknowledges above that he used it "tongue in cheek". COI is a serious issue here, and if people have concerns about it, the way to deal with it - and how not to deal with it, are clearly documented in the COI guideline, here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest Jayen if you care about COi then read WP:COI carefully and come help at COIN, where I work every day. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Andreas does have a point though, this is looking more like a "WWE theatre than an editorial discussion" with the (you idiot, re: no you) kind of talk. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

the discussion above is not an editorial discussion. ANI is for issues about behavior. if you are getting distracted, there is nothing I can do about that. The behavioral issues and difs I raised above are sharp and clear. There is a real problem with COI in WP - see the thread the just below this one for an example. What DePiep did is ugly behavior. I am looking for a short, clear block. The behavior is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What would it solve though? I can see Jayron's point above, once the block is up you are still going to have to deal with each other. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

please read WP:BLOCK and especially WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't know much about people, do you? Sending him to his room for 24 hours to "think about it" doesn't actually generate contrition and understanding. It compounds the problem and causes the punished user to set his heels and become even more intractable. We don't do it, not because we don't feel like it, or because we have some "belief" against it, or because it offends us to do so. We don't do it because it doesn't work. Purely based on empirical evidence, from years of humans being humans on planet earth, this is not how you manage disagreements between adults, because it doesn't produce the results we're after. We're not arguing for no sanctions, per se. We're arguing for action which has been shown to have effective results. 24-hour "cooling off" blocks aren't done because they don't work. People do not cool down when you block them for 24 hours. They don't come back ready to work and cooperate with others. The reason we are offering other options is those options have been shown to reduce the problem. 24-hour blocks don't stop long-term disruptive behavior, so we don't issue them. --Jayron32 19:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there are a range of possibilities here, the only one that I would strongly oppose is to do nothing, thereby sending the message that this sort of behavior is accepted. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

re Formerly 98 all: I did reply to you at 16:11. What's wrong with that? -20:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

re OP User:Jayen466 (Andreas): in a cleaner environment I would like to converse with you and others about this. However, this thread is spoiled, even by the lower ANI standards, so I won't engage. Hope to meet you elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Jayron32 I replied to you above, and said that I understand your perspective on BLOCK and how you choose to use your powers. I do understand it, really I do. I just don't agree with it. You don't ask me any questions (your first one is rhetorical, not authentic) so I will say nothing further. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There is something terribly amiss about the title of this section. How is that so many want to discuss editor behavior on article Talk pages and argue content at ANI?. Lets stay focused on a discussion of behavior here and not try to justify personal attacks based on a content dispute. This is something we have to get right if we are going to work together effectively. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. You, for example, could have sticked stayed with 16:11 reply. -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

ecce ANI

Moved here

Arguing is useless by now. Given the unending one-way hammering by Jytdog, what caused multiple more cool editors to get a distorted view, I will not spend time on responding. Plain responses are not read or used, simple questions ignored. That's the way ANI rolls then? If I'm blocked from this 'discussion', I pity wiki. Jytdog: don't be a dick.

I unwatch this page. DePiep (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)/-DePiep (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

DePiep since you address me directly. This all goes away if you say "Yeah, i got carried away in the argument and said some stupid things. I get it, it was bad, I won't do it anymore" -- this all goes away. Pushing harder in the middle of it, is ~kind of~ understandable. Everybody (including me) gets hot sometimes. But persisting, the next day, and digging yourself deeper - showing you really do think Wikipedia is the internetz, for lulz and flaming? You dig your own WP:HOLE, man. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

DR:TL. duh. When I did not address you, you responded in bold. Ask help, recompose. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

yep, more internetz. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• I note that original errors in the OP, which I have pointed out, were not corrected and are still used, even by judging admins. So far about discussion quality on ANI.
• Harassed twice by Jytdog, while admitting it is done knowingly: [19] [20]. -DePiep (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with admin related functions (i.e. unblocking) like that are typically allowed under WP:OWNTALK when a user has imposed such a ban (see here). It's only when there's a very clear case of harassment that it's violating WP:NOBAN. Considering that Jytdog was even arguing for your unblock, it looks like you're continuing the battleground behavior. After a block, it's really best to disengage, so I highly suggest doing so. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

• Blocked. I have blocked DePiep for 48 hours for this personal attack right in an ANI report complaining of their personal attacks. This block isn't meant to put a cork in further discussion of topic bans/I-bans; no need to close the thread if people wish to continue to discuss those matters. Bishonen | talk 23:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC).
• Endorse block I'd have indeffed him, and was about 30 seconds behind you to do so. Still, good block, and I hope he'll prove me wrong and a short block will be an educational experience. Good one. --Jayron32 23:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Jayron32 about your revert of my non-admin close. There is no serious discussion of an interaction ban (all the players above said that they had rarely interacted before, and I-bans are for long-term problems). I see no serious discussion of a topic ban (which would essentially be a site ban since pretty much of what DePiep does is chemistry). What other bans are under real discussion here? (real question) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

My revert had nothing to do with your not being an admin. Non-admins don't lack any rights that admins do here. Anyone can close any thread when it is ready to be closed, and not being an admin doesn't mean you don't have that right. So that's a non-starter, and has nothing to do with what I did. The reason I reverted was that several people above were discussing responding to behavioral issues with longer-term sanctions. I didn't feel that discussion needed stopping merely because he cussed someone out during the actual discussion of his behavior. --Jayron32 00:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I know you knew it was non-admin, and I knew it was ok for me to do it. :) i just don't see any real momentum for anything longer and i reckon that what bit there was will die, especially now that a block has been done. Now that you have reverted me i will not try to close this again, but I would appreciate it, if you would mind this and close it if no further momentum for that develops. (in my view, it would be a shame if it did. It would be too much, at this time, on too little evidence of there being a sustained problem. ) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You do what you gotta do. It's a free world. --Jayron32 01:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Considering this not even an hour after the block, maybe the block should be extended to indefinite after all? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Endorse Close, at the very least talk-page access should be revoked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant to suggest that too. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Look, this guy's done a lot of good work. There's no question he's a "hot head" (I've seen it personally, on one occasion), and he's lost it here, but I really don't think an Indef block is the way to go this time. Go with a longer block (say, 1–3 months), let DePiep hopefully cool down, and then hopefully he can come back and do good work after a break. But I really don't think an Indef serves the project in this case... --IJBall (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse block and revocation of talk page access if necessary. An otherwise productive editor lost his sh*t but nothing suggests it'll be a long term thing. Give him the weekend to have a couple of beers, mow the lawn and come back on Monday. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Callanecc cleaned up the personal attacks made by DePiep on his Talk page and warned him against more. Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, hm, I just pinged him for something chemistry related. Damn. Well, endorse everything Stalwart said. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Opportunity Knocks: Now that Jytdog's more successful "cudgel" has taken down his opponent's more pathetic "cudgel", he is free to use his "hatchet" to the article in question unopposed by DiPiep as he pleases (16 edits to Glyphosate since the block), and that pesky mention of cancer can be buried deep in the article, so hopefully no one sees it. David Tornheim (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

We deal with one editor making personal attacks, and now another pops up. Really, David. You you were warned about this already by Drmies just a bit over a week ago, and you are stepping right back into it, here at ANI! Not only just above, but here at DePiep's talk page ("Yes, "they". They don't mess around. ") and here and here. You just keep WP:CAMPAIGNING instead of simply editing. And do you really think I am not well aware that the glyphosate article is under increased scrutiny now? For pete's sake. I was so busy with work and this yesterday that I had no time to even deal with the new content that had been added. we are working that through normally, and the cancer stuff is still in the lead, with a good, collegial talk page discussion going on. no drama. no need for drama. just editing Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I also endorse this block. The content dispute? Take it somewhere else. ANI is not the place to hash out this kind of issue, which has parallels with the EU's classification of mobile phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic" (which in scientific terms means it is unlikely to be carcinogenic, but we can't rule it out, and in crank terms means it definitely causes cancer and therefore so does WiFi and your Apple watch). These arguments involve deeply held beliefs colliding with careful science that, oddly, never says what those with deeply held beliefs would like it to. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock. I think the block was righteous, but I also have to acknowledge that DePiep, before he went over the top and made the remark that got him blocked, had written. "Now of course I understand that my COI-remarks did not fall well with readers. Even though they were clearly meant as an over the top "POV" note, and added as an aside to the core argument. So I understand that, as you ask, even oblique I better not make them again" I admit that I stopped reading that remark before I got to the end (tl/dr). Hopefully, he meant that. I am sorry that I didn't see that and respond to it. I also supported unblock at his Talk page, here. Bishonen would you please consider unblocking? he is not a clear communicator which has gotten in his own way, but I think he "got it" which was the point of the ANI. Thanks for considering. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This is about unblocking the editor who wrote this response to my block notice? No. I do tolerate blocked users venting, more than many admins do; I'm not one to impose extra time for it, or to remove talkpage access in other than extreme cases. But neither will I be extra nice about being told I'm sniffing your farts. If you're prepared to be Patient Griselda, Jytdog, that's up to you; I'm not. I'll leave this block to uninvolved admins. If one of them is willing to unblock the user, I have no objection. Note also that what I gave DePiep was a short block of 48 hours — there are now only a few hours remaining of it — so I'm not sure why you're agitating quite so urgently for an unblock at this time. (You have pinged me on DePiep's page as well.) He was lucky I hit the block button first, placing a 48-hour block just a few seconds before another admin was going to indef him.[21] Bishonen | talk 16:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC).

thanks bish. seeing how he just deleted my remarks there, i cannot argue with you. it is just that i realized he did acknowledge the problem, before he created another one. that's all. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd in fact written up a short note for you for DePiep's page as well, for posting immediately after my reply above, just to emphasize that uninvolved admins needn't consult me. But I was too slow; DePiep had already removed your unblock appeal to me as "harassment". I'm not really comfortable posting on that page at all, and now I guess I won't have to. Good. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC).

Close

The editor involved has been blocked for 48 hours, unless there is a clear consensus for an indef here I suggest this be closed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

well, now David is almost begging for a block, per his comment just above... Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Split it off into a separate section then if you feel strongly about it so this doesn't turn into confusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK to let this sit a bit. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Whoever closes this, it could be helpful give a summary or warning in closing rather than just saying the editor was blocked. If this does need to be referenced again (I hope not), that helps other readers by not needing to have them read the whole post. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

How to deal appropriately with COI concerns?

Jytdog, this is at least the third editor (EllenCT, David Tornheim, DePiep) for whom you and Kingofaces43 have sought topic bans or blocks, after the editor expressed concern about pro-industry COI editing. Yet I know you've been concerned about COI yourself and its impact on WP. We're already hamstrung because of OUTING. It means editors often can't produce the evidence, but if they express concern without evidence, someone will seek a block. What can be done about this? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, someone will seek a block...probably the person being harassed by COI witchhunt. It's unfortunate that an expectation of having some sort of evidence first is too constraining for some. Geogene (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, one reason I have not been keen to participate in policy discussions heretofore is seen in this very thread. There may be a better venue for this discussion, where drama cannot impede the process? petrarchan47tc 23:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason I started it here, Petra, is that it's about the role of AN/I in COI discussions (people seeking sanctions), and there's a degree of momentum. But we can certainly continue it elsewhere. WT:COI and WP:COIN are two possibilities. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Sarah (SV) raises an important question here regarding COI concerns and what can be done about this. It seems one potential way to deal with this would be for ANI to differentiate between COI concerns raised as vicious allegation/personal attack vs civil reasonable COI concerns backed up by diffs. For example, calling someone a “fucking asshole shill for Monsanto” vs someone saying “these edits (with difs provided) appear non-neutral and this WP:BITE / WP:BULLY behavior toward editors with a different POV (again provide difs) suggests to me a COI”. The former seems block worthy while the later doesn't seem to be block worthy. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Bobo, I agree with your suggestion. I'm pinging Smallbones, Coretheapple, Gandydancer and Petrarchan47 too, as they've been involved in many discussions about this. We need a safe way for people to express these concerns. Issues can be taken to COIN, but if you're not allowed to produce evidence because of OUTING, there's no point. Editors should at least be allowed to say that they believe it is happening, without risk of sanction. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

They should not be able to say it over and over again, over a period of months, without producing evidence. That's harassment intended to suppress opposing views, and should be dealt with the same way that NLT is dealt with, for the same reason (squelching speech). It should absolutely not be "safe" to do that. Geogene (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

One question comes to mind, in an incident of which I am aware. I am thinking of an admin who had not previously been involved in the related discussions, who stated here in wikipedia he had "seen evidence" of a COI problem off-site. The editor with the alleged COI has, not surprisingly, vociferously denied it. And, FWIW, having seen the information (I think) myself, I think it, well, reasonably good evidence, but producing it here might involve OUTing. Any ideas on how to deal with cases of that type? John Carter (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that rules should allow someone with CU rights to be shown that evidence and to dispense sanctions based on it as they deem necessary. That doesn't worry me at all, because there's evidence, even if the rest of us can't see it. Geogene (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

John Carter, with an outing concern like that, maybe our existing policies and guidelines such WP:NPOV, WP:BULLY, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:BITE, WP:OWN etc can used in lieu of any evidence which would constitute outing. Outing seems like something we should work to avoid. Also, it seems to me that even if an editor does have a COI, it is still the edits and/or behavior that are the real concern here. With offline evidence like that, looking closer at that user's edits and behavior seems warranted to assess the problem, but if someone who works for Monsanto or who works for a political campaign etc comes here and actually edits neutrally, civilly, and collaboratively, maybe we shouldn’t worry about that.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think COI-tainted participation is a dreadful thing that mucks up the consensus forming process and distorts the encyclopedia, and it needs to be fought. On the other hand as I see it there are a number of problematic editors that starting throwing around COI allegations as soon as an editor makes an edit - be it ever so good - that they personally don't like, particularly in the fields of corporate politics, medicine and fringe science. I've been on the receiving end of it myself. I certainly do not want to see that bad behaviour encouraged. In Jytdog's case, as I recall, the pitchfork brigade previously stirred up such a fuss with regard to Monsanto that Jytdog was effectively forced to subject themselves to vetting at COIN by an independent third party ... and yet even that doesn't seem to have satisfied some people ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, all one has to do here to elicit accusations of COI is to add any favorable statement about a corporation, pesticide, or drug (pharmaceutical that is, its ok to laud the unrecognized curative powers of psychedelics), or remove a negative claim about one of the above topics. The quality of the sourcing does not matter, nor do arguments based on NPOV, the accusation will follow about one such edit in 3. Its rude, tiresome, and I believe it inhibits many editors from even thinking about participating on the more controversial articles. We have a COIN board, and if someone has actual evidence, that is the place for such discussions. Jytdog has shown the effectiveness of dealing with real COIs by this board, which was established for exactly this purpose. There is a clearly enunciated policy against making unsupported accusations on article Talk pages and it needs to be enforced. Unfortunately some editors seem to be unable to get their heads around the idea that others might honestly have a different pov than their own, and such accusations become an argument of first resort. This is completely unproductive and violates the basic principles of Wikipedia. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I would comment here that I have noticed that these accusations are disproportionately aimed at people that have, or appear to have, some technical or scientific understanding in the relevant subject area. In effect, you know too much to be trusted to write this article. I'm not sure if that's the usual experience, but it sure isn't beneficial to this encyclopedia. Geogene (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin I want to start out by noting that per your note above your question to me, is a response to David's request to you: "Working on the articles is hopeless because these same editors rule them with an iron fist and will successfully get one blocked, ibanned, etc. if you stand up to them?"]

• David was warned to stop campaigning. yet he continues. And now you aid him. As I wrote above, you are now arguably WP:INVOLVED and I will look for you to not act in an admin capacity on matters related to GMO or pesticides.
• There are three icky parts of your question that I will address. The long part, I will not.
• The first icky part is that your post is a thinly veiled accusation of COI; in your victim-blaming here (as you did above here and here you are making a claim that editors deserve to have adolescent flamers (DePiep) and POV-pushers (EllentCT and David) attack them.
• The 2nd icky part is your lumping three distinct cases together. Besides the differences I just mentioned, the DePiep thing was one foolish evening, on one article; with EllenCT there were at least two articles where there were extended content disputes in which her personal attacks arose; with David, he has barely edited in the topic at all, but instead has been WP:CAMPAIGNING his personal attacks across WP. Each one is different.
• the 3rd icky part, is your acceptance of this behavior. These accusations of COI arise when the attackers refuse to accept that people with different perspectives can be acting in good faith and in accordance with WP's mission and PAG, and instead, personalize the dispute and ascribe the difference to corruption. This is intellectually sloppy, mean-spirited, and corrosive. None of that, is what we are about here. I ask you to reflect on your acceptance and support of that.
• The long part is how to deal with conflicted editing; and with its corollary problem, WP:ADVOCACY (which you do not mention, but which is as damaging - maybe more? nobody knows as there is no data). ANI is not the place for this and it is too bad others are taking this venue up with answers; if you want to discuss that please raise it at WT:COI. If you do, I would appreciate it if you would uncouple the question from your continuation of the accusations against me.
• One thing I will tell with you absolutely clarity - acccusations - especially persistent accusations - of COI made without on-wiki evidence of off-wiki interests, are corrosive personal attacks that violate AGF and OUTING; editors who make them should be warned and if they refuse to stop, they should receive a block per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT, and if they continue through further, longer blocks, they should be banned.
• Per Drmies's advice to David in her close, he should stop campaigning and start editing - and he should edit better when he does. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Response to ping It certainly is a continuing problem. Policy doesn't appear to provide a remedy, which presents a vulnerability that can be exploited by special interests and their PR firms, or by editors who just happen to be big fans of some given industry. Perhaps a new category such as "COI-like editing" can be introduced. Sure, it's just another form of POV editing, for which we have guidelines, but on Wikipedia, obvious pro-industry editing is running rampant. When this POV editing is coupled with well-established alliances, a penchant for drama, bullying and downright abusive communication, this activity ends up taking its toll not only on WP's credibility but it is running good editors off the site (and perhaps ridding WP of honest editors is the goal). petrarchan47tc 23:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) finally, i will add that our COI guidleline has very clear guidance on how to deal with COI concerns, and not a single person here has cited it. Everybody here, please actually read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest. If you have issues with that, please raise them on the Talk page of the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You wrote that, as I recall. I think it's very problematic. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

For clarity, are you saying that Jytdog wrote the COI policy to which he is linking? Can you expand on what you find problematic and how? petrarchan47tc 00:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Petra, the part I disagree with is in bold: "If an editor directly discloses information that clearly demonstrates that he or she has a COI ... raise the issue with the editor in a civil manner on the editor's Talk page ..." I recall that Jytdog and Kingofaces used that against EllenCT (they argued for a sanction because she was raising the issue elsewhere, without having approached Kingofaces on his talk). Jytdog added it in July. But in my view it's sometimes important not to interact directly with the editor, and sometimes people simply won't want to; that person might be aggressive, for example, and the editor with the concern might feel intimidated. So I think it's bad advice. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, thanks for clarifying. There are many editors for whom this would be far too confrontational, especially for those who find 'colourful language' distasteful, for that is surely what faces them in some cases. Furthermore, editors who are gaming the system have a lot to loose and will stop at nothing - editing, monitoring, stalking day and night, 24/7 - to win disputes, since the truth alone will not suffice. It does no good to interact with a liar directly. petrarchan47tc 01:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

so dark, petrarchan. so dark. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, the problem with EllenCT's behavior was that instead of dealing with her "concerns" in any considered way, that would get the community involved and get her concerns addressed, she just hounded and hounded, and tried to use that as a weapon in the content dispute to win her point. She never brought the claim anywhere for the community to act on it. That is ugly, disruptive behavior. The point of that section of the guideline is to guide people away from that. That is not OK behavior. Please tell me at what time in the history of WP that chasing somebody through talk pages with any kind of personal accusation was ever OK. Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

yep i worked on that, and i believe you were working on the page at the same time SlimVirgin - i'm surpsised that you let it stand so long if you long if you find it problematic.. And no one fucking owns any fucking guideline or fucking policy in WP and the claim that it is "mine" is unbefuckinglieavable. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, in spite of Jytdog's somewhat colorful language, a search of the history of the guideline shows that his first edits were in June 2014, and mainly dealt with paid editing. The sections requiring civility and instructing editors to bring COI concerns to COIN predate Jytdog's edits. So we should try to keep this rational and lose both the insinuations and the language. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin, I am repeating what I wrote above, and I would be interested in a response from you. "These accusations of COI arise when the attackers refuse to accept that people with different perspectives can be acting in good faith and in accordance with WP's mission and PAG, and instead, personalize the dispute and ascribe the difference to corruption. This is intellectually sloppy, mean-spirited, and corrosive. None of that, is what we are about here.". Please explain what you disagree with about that. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• note: I have started a discussion at WT:COI here: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Break

• Is it just me, or has this thread gone off-topic? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s off topic. There have been multiple ANI complaints regarding COI concerns as personal attacks, with users requesting blocks. I think ANI needs to make an attempt to differentiate between concerns which are PA vs reasonable concerns as I stated above. To reiterate, calling someone a “fucking asshole shill for Monsanto” seems to be block worthy, but saying “these edits (with difs provided) appear non-neutral and this WP:BITE / WP:BULLY behavior toward editors with a different POV (again provide difs) suggests to me a COI”, that seems reasonable. Other editors have also brought up good points. Having a different POV is not COI-style-POV; however, I’d say having a different POV while bullying others off the page and engaging in WP:OWN, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYTNTH etc and violating NPOV to keep stuff you don’t like off that page might be. Having scientific knowledge is definitely not COI-style-POV. Additionally, refusing to let WP:ADVOCACY editors “balance” WP:MEDRS sources with blogs is not COI-style-POV, but when editors remove WP:MEDRS sources that do not support their POV, for a laundry list of questionable reasons, that might be COI-style-POV. I think Andreas brought up a good point above when he asked “what about the quality of the edits” [22]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

On your very last note, I don't think anyone was removing MEDRS sources in this specific case. I get the vibe Andreas might have been asking that question towards my edits though. For those that didn't follow the diff summaries, I only removed the single sourced content from the lede because it and other competing sources were still being hashed out in the body. There seems to be some insinuation I was wanting to remove the WHO source (probably from skimming the first diff) so I just wanted to clarify that wasn't the case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• BoboMeowCat has suggested that we take more of a DUCK-like approach to COI, as we do with socks. We don't (always) agonize over socking when it's obvious, but with COI we not only require strong evidence, but we often don't allow people to post it because of OUTING.

  I understand the desire to AGF, but the result is the situation described by Newsweek on 24 March, which is heart-breaking. The claim is that 15,000 students in India signed up to a bogus course, because Wikipedia was allowing the college to be promoted by a COI editor. One of the student's parents re-mortgaged their farm to pay for it. This happened even though lots of people on WP knew there was a problem with the editor.

  We have to make it easier to express concern about COI, and impose topic bans when a sufficient number of editors in good standing have a COI concern, particularly where money is involved. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It is very easy to post at COIN. People do it every day. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• "What about the quality of the edits?" is certainly, or should be, the most important question here. Is anyone willing to spend hours surveying these edits? I quit editing here in June '14 after coming across Formerly98, and nearly loosing my lunch as a result of glancing at just two days' worth of his work. In that time he had thoroughly spun three articles about different pharmaceutical pills. No one was watching, no one confronted him, and he worked in complete peace. Wikipedia provided an environment perfectly suited for such activity. That's when I knew that fighting special interests here is a lost cause, and I told him as much here, just prior to leaving. For an example of this 'spin', I surveyed his work on the Antidepressant article, which you can peruse here (note the comments from Doors22 as well - apparently multiple editors have left the project because of F98). This took at least four hours, and it is far from exhaustive, but it may shed more light on the activity some are complaining about. I really don't care about why this person has a POV towards pharmaceuticals - the reader doesn't either. The point is, WP's articles are being decimated because no one is standing up to this gang and this POV editing. Those who do end up paying dearly for it.

Also worth a look, Atsme assessed problematic behaviour with regard to Jytdog here. petrarchan47tc 21:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

There have been many other complaints in addition to what Petrarchan47 mentioned. I am tired of bringing this up and have found that the ANI board has not been responsive. Now that Sarah (SV) has taken notice, hopefully she will be able to provide suggestions/advice on how to properly handle these issues. Doors22 (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• "I have here in my hand, a list of editors who are corporate shills or paid editors, and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of Wikipedia.” Mildly adapted from here. You all are going so, so the wrong way on this, and you cannot even see it. Santayana turns in his grave. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn said, In Jytdog's case, as I recall, the pitchfork brigade previously stirred up such a fuss with regard to Monsanto that Jytdog was effectively forced to subject themselves to vetting at COIN by an independent third party ... and yet even that doesn't seem to have satisfied some people ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC). Since the time that Jytdog was declared to be free of COI he has brought it up numerous times, as have others in defense of him. It has been brought out every time that anyone suggested that he may seem to have a COI. Now today I have learned that the vetting process that declared him free of COI was pretty much just a nice chat without the question of COI ever even brought up by either party. What kind of a system is that anyway? If that's the way this place works, any editor with a COI would welcome a chat in which they would disclose their name and place of work, or I suppose address if they were retired. And then they could have the perfect comeback if they were ever accused of having a COI. This system needs to be changed because it's worse than no system at all. Gandydancer (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hah! Anybody not satsified with being cleared by an oversighter is not going to be satisfied with anything, short of a police-level forensic investigation (and even then, how would we know that wasn't controlled by Big Pharma or something? Whooo!) Alexbrn (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Gandy:

1) Here is the actual thread where the disclosure happened. It is completely obvious that the disclosure I made was taking in place in the context of a COI inquiry, in order to determine if I had a COI.

2) Today you asked me what happened in that context

3) i honored your request and described what happened and went further.

You misrepresented all that. Remarkable. Jytdog (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Now that there seems to be an effort to re-interpret seeking oversighter attention as positive evidence of COI, I think it's time to consider whether an unfounded COI accusation isn't a non-falsifiable construct, akin to religious beliefs. Except this you can use as a rhetorical weapon to get your way in a content dispute. Geogene (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comments 1) The diff SlimVirgin posted, saying "Funding source is not relevant in assessing scientific studies, it's the content that needs to be addressed" reflects poor editing judgment even if it doesn't point to COI per se. Journals have taken to requiring those funding disclosures and printing them precisely because they are relevant. Wikipedia's RS guideline for similar reasons says the best sources are those independent of the subject. In scientific publications some independence is injected by the referee process but the point of the funding disclosure is that even afterwards it's still not fully independent. So that should be taken into account during the Wikipedia editing process. I'd urge Kingofaces43 and others take this to heart. I can understand why it comes across as suspicious when someone argues against following what's become established scientific practice. (As an illustration of why peer review by itself isn't enough, consider the now-required registration of drug studies with the NIH at an early stage of the study, to decrease the effect of publication bias on the reliability of the results. Discarding unsuccessful studies and publishing only the successful ones is a form of p-hacking that refereeing individual papers can't detect. I'm not aware of any measures against this in agriculture.) 2) Jytdog's combative style (repeatedly requesting that someone be blocked) didn't come across well in the early part of that thread. My suggestion is that people bringing disputes to ANI shouldn't call for specific remedies if they are involved. Instead just describe the dispute as neutrally as possible, and let uninvolved editors figure out remedies. 3) These are agriculture articles we're talking about, right? MEDRS doesn't apply except in some possible specific situations involving medical info. Don't overdo it. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone cite a policy on this? (I mean on rejecting peer-reviewed literature reviews because you don't like the author).Geogene (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of liking/disliking the author but rather of accounting for COI. Per WP:RS#Overview, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources...". The linked page WP:THIRDPARTY says "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered..." and the idea of independence is basically freedom from COI. The reason the journal prints those notices about the funding source is to alert the reader to potential COI affecting the research being published, i.e. that the particular article is not entirely independent. Sensible content judgment has to say independence isn't binary in situations like this. Since the article is still in an independent journal and passed peer review, we shouldn't reject it outright, but per the COI notification we can consider it as shaded for purposes of assessing WP:WEIGHT. E.g. if one refereed paper says smoking causes cancer and another (funded by the tobacco industry) says it doesn't, we should still cite both per WP:NPOV, but not equally.

We should also consider that the AGF principle towards Wikipedia editors doesn't necessarily apply to external publications, viz. this famous essay by Paul Graham. Just because no COI is disclosed doesn't mean we should always assume that none exists. That's probably less of an issue for academic papers than in topic areas where public relations agents operate more. Overall this is a matter of editorial judgment and there is not an algorithm for it. Wikipedia content editing should in general run on the good sense of editors and not by algorithms. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The diff in question is here [23]. I'm not involved in that article and I haven't read the source, but according to the editor being criticized it was selected because (1) "it's one of the more recent reviews" and (2) it has "a pretty standard commentary on what other literature is also saying". Assuming those statements are true, and they don't seem to be under challenge, I think it's a stretch to impugn someone's judgement over this at AN/I. Geogene (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for actually reading what I wrote. Folks seem to have a tendency to misrepresent what I've said even when I tell them exactly what you just described, so seeing that is refreshing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Geogene, I looked at that diff too, and SV's reading of it seemed fine to me. Re "pretty standard commentary" not being under challenge, look at EllenCT's post immediately above Kingofaces43's, and also further down on the talk page. She contested the source's neutrality rather vociferously in both places, and got into a disagreement with Kingofaces43 about whether the authors' funding sources were relevant. That's where the diff came from. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• I was pinged on this a few days ago and just waded through the lengthy discussion. I've seen similar issues raised before, involving this and other articles, in particular BP in which there was indeed acknowledged paid editing, as well as concerns by some editors regarding possible unacknowledged paid editing. My problem is that this drama has obscured what appears to be the central problem, which is coordinated POV editing that has resulted in a a significant report being removed from the article. We had a similar problem at BP. Outrage over paid editing and its enablers distracted attention with real problems in the article, such as a misstatement that gave excessive and inaccurate emphasis to BP's "green" initiatives.

In most such situations, what was suspected to be unacknowledged paid editing was probably not paid, probably just ordinary POV-pushing, but the offended editors said things they shouldn't have said and gotten in trouble. The end result was that, until the BP article received outside publicity, it was pretty much written by BP. In this case I don't believe there has been acknowledged or unacknowledged COI editing, just POV editing that has resulted in a counterproductive backlash. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Mishandling of an SPI

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

---

An SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhanzhao has been mishandled two times now.

About 20 days ago, I had figured some objectionable edits on an article,[24] that would be exceptionally backed by other account[25] in order to avoid previous account from breaking 3rr. Though this account(DanS76) hadn't made any edits in last few months. After seeing the similar attempts to WP:RGW, I would find a lot of similarities between these two accounts. I went to open an SPI.[26]

Evidence was so strong that Zhanzhao,(the puppeteer) claimed that it was his brother, similar to some people claiming that their account was operated by their little brother. Salvidrim! took his words and let him go, despite he was blocked back in 2009 for evading his block, and he had affirmed to have read WP:SOCK#LEGIT. In his own words:

"I just hope I'm following the right procedure regarding WP:SOCK#LEGIT : "openly declared alternative account to carry out maintenance tasks" when doing so."[27]

Even after that, he had been socking since 2010 with this account(DanS76) for influencing many articles, discussions, and other procedures including accepting the own article submission, raising same votes in deletion review, AfD, ANI, etc.

Question: Such a violation of WP:ILLEGIT wasn't enough for blocking him indefinitely?

It took him hardly 7 days and he returned to violate WP:ILLEGIT. Now he was more prepared, I would report[28] again and he was sure that CU wouldn't confirm, despite he continued to admin-shop with these 2 accounts.[29][30] He attempted to reply every single word that he would see against him for confirming that he should avoid every single chance of getting caught.

Now recently, after he made a long list of absurd explanations,[31] comparing himself with many others editors including Jimbo Wales, his explanations also included a personal attack and claims such as the creation of "3 words userpages" is not isolated, because I(me) have also created three words userpage, and he linked to this sandbox that has over 150 words. He actually affirmed it by saying "that is indeed a 3-word page, the rest of the words were formed from a template box".[32] DoRD closed the SPI saying that "this is getting out of hand". One day earlier he had found these accounts to be unrelated. However, I find the evidence to be just too big to ignore.

There is another interesting thing behind these accounts that I have recently discovered. Same way Zhanzhao was reblocked for evading his block[33], other suspected sock was also blocked for evading 3rr with an IP in 2013.[34] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Two things: One, I said that the page was getting out of hand due to the numerous large additions of weak evidence to the case[35]. Two, the CU results are unambiguous, and I invite any CU to double check my finding that the accounts are technically unrelated. That doesn't rule out WP:MEAT, of course, but I don't see how the three accounts could be related, otherwise. Now, I'm going to be traveling for a few days, so I doubt that I'll have much else to say in this matter. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't need double check really because you are a very trusted member. I am more concerned about the mishandling of this SPI, including the first time. They are related because I cannot find even 2 of the listed similarities with any other account on here, while these accounts have relatively small amount of edits. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment He had to be blocked after it was confirmed that he has socked his way for over 4 5 years. He must have retired DanS76 so that he could make way for new socks. VandVictory (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• : Since everyone's an admin here, I assume everyone here can run their own CheckUser on the suspected accounts. I have no idea exactly how CU works beyond the fact that it checks one's IP, but I am sure there are other checks as well. My confidence in me being vindicated can be simply explained by the fact that I know I am innocent of all charges, therefore whatever process/tech is involved in the CU, will find that I was not socking, even without me having to know exactly how it works. I had been willing to put this past me, and made that very clear to OccultZone on his talk page[36], even though he chose to remove my "olive leaf" twice. I have even asked JamesBWatson to ask him to cool down [37], since he seemed to hold JamesBWatson in high esteem, to stop what I sensed was a slow-motion-trainwreck, without any success.

I know not the actions of my fellow accused (I'm frankly too tired to bother at the moment to see their contributions page), but the "admin shopping" OccultZone said I was doing, were mostly to ask how I could get CU expedited, and also what remedies I can pursue for being continually harassed by OccultZone. He can keep taking popshots for free at me, while keeping his hands busy but clean, while I am getting an SPI, and now an ANI against me. Since this has escalated to ANI, I welcome any and all to run an CU on me against TCKTKtool, Resaltador and Resaltador. I already volunteered that DanS was by brother in the same household so I am told that CU would not reveal anything other than show that we lived in the same household, so I don't know how helpful that is, but go ahead if you feel that is useful for your conclusions. Because either I am the world's greatest hacker, I hired an army of scary socks, OR, I am simply innocent of the claims OccultZone has yet again thrown at me.

And since we're at ANI, I would seriously welcome any suggestions on how to stop OccultZone from harassing me further. My socking infraction came early in my editing career, and even then, I signed off on the edit with "Zhanzhao" as I had no intention of hiding my identity, and was merely trying to get an answer at one of the boards before the thread went dead[38]. His actions are clearly now running the gamut of incivility, personal attacks and harrassment. Cos what next, when this goes against him yet again? Am I to be continually subject to this misguided vendetta against me? Or whoever happens to have different opinion and edit against OccultZone? Please. Run the CU against me again. Let the evidence speak for itself. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

As for OccultZone not finding anything similar from any other account other than me and my fellow accused, let me present this [39]. Which basically refutes his claim that he could not find anything similar. Its because he didn't want to, while, I have been pushed to the corner to prove him wrong.Zhanzhao (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I also want to highlight that even when DoRD pointed out the evidence was weak, OccultZone promtly removed [40] DoRD's comment with his collapse. So I am not even allowed to have someone else speak up for me. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you know that you have just thrown yourself into the territory of WP:TROLL? First one you had lied to be your bro. Now history of these pointed socks explicits that you are abusing them occasionally. Whenever there be an edit war over the content of that article you will produce a new "army" of sock puppets. If that's wrong, why they are not coming to defend themselves the way you just did? Or you will just go now and log into each? VandVictory (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That would only be true if the accusations are true. But try to imagine if the accusations were false. As I said. Run CU on me before making judgement. Whatever DoRD sees must be pretty compelling, even though I don't know what that is. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Why you are shouting the same absurd every time? There was firstly no need of a CU. You have clearly abused the multiple accounts for pushing your POV on a specific article, same way you were abusing DanS76. That is seriously enough for considering that only you can do it. That is also backed by great amount of similarities, that you share with these obvious socks. There are hundreds of SPIs where even new editors could evade CU.[41] That way you are still more experienced, already spending so many years in sock puppetry.

If you are not a sock, why you even bother to bludgeon the SPI and bludgeon this ANI with baseless commentaries? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We have to first make sure that what actually convinced Salvidrim that you both were brothers and not one person, when evidence was enough to consider you as one. Also we have to make sure that you weren't aware of the policy, even though you have clearly stated to have read WP:SOCK#LEGIT after you were blocked for socking.[42] Furthermore you were opening and contributing to SPIs.[43][44] It was a poor judgement of Salvidrim which is now up for review. Also reading the above editors comments that you intentionally retired DanS76,[45] because it was no more of use, you couldn't use it anymore on same articles, it is simply obvious that you are socking. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine. As Dan had suggested previously, point me to a high-level admin. I can email him a scan of me and my brother's identification which shows us living in the same address, and the email will also explain beyond doubt why thats our identification and not something I borrowed off 2 real brothers off the street. I will also furnish supporting evidence why I use StongVPN in the first place - Its not to sock - which will be very clear in my mail. Note, however, that I do this VERY RELUCTANTLY, as this is obviously leaving me to higher chances of identity theft which Dan had already pointed out I am very paranoid about, but I am sick and tired of these string of accusations. I had though that spending (wasting) my time showing why OccultZone's evidence was laughable (which DoRD already also mentioned was weak and circumstantial) would have been enough, but apparently this is not so. If I am really a sock, I wouldn't even need to resort to this, I can just retire this account as well, and start afresh from a new account. But I'll be very pissed (a very strong understatement) if OccultZone gets off scott free now, since there's nothing to prevent him from continuing to harass me and keep attacking the integrity of my account. And hence, I will now insist that some punitive action be taken against my harasser. Is that fair?

The reason why OccultZone is out to get me is because he mistakenly blames me for getting him blocked since he's under the assumption that I was socking as the one/more of the accounts that here. Which was why he opened the 2nd SPI. And when the 2nd SPI showed that there were no relationships between the accounts through CU and otherwise, which means I was not the cause of him getting blocked, OccultZone refused to believe it and attempts to link it back to the first SPI which was totally unrelated and involved totally different accounts, to find any way he can in a misguided attempt to get back at me. You'll note that one thing OccultZone has not done up to now, which he very actively did in the 2nd SPI, was to report any overlaps of article editing in the accounts of the 1st(DanS76) and 2nd SPIs(Resaltador and TCKTKtool). The only single convergent point, was the article that got him blocked. Beyond that, he's rambling evidence like "Oh look, they capitalizing the "T"s for Talk in 2 edit summaries, they must berelated." Look at the evidence in the 2nd SPI he pulled out. Then what DoRD thought about it. (Unfortunatelty you have to check the history of the page because OccultZone removed DoRD's comments). Then my pointing out that the supposed common behavioral traits he identified between the socks, OccultZone was doing the same thing as well. Is OccultZone my sock as well? Zhanzhao (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be fine with confirming your identities as you propose (as I'm sure DoRD would), however I am afraid there is some likelihood that OccultZone would take our word for it anyways! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Salvidrim! He will show the identity card of his father and present him like his brother, and we will believe it? How come such fairytales don't fall under the violation of WP:ILLEGIT. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. We're both out at work now (Its morning now here), I'll scan and send them over via email to you ASAP. (I'll wait for DoRD's confirmation - as I said, I'll only send it out when absolutely necessary). I'll trust you to keep the information confidential, thanks. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not a matter how much you can fake DanS76 to be your brother or not. You cannot show a video of both of you edit warring on same articles for one, forget it. You switched accounts, that's what we know. If you can show both of the accounts editing together at the same minute, that would really work. But you cannot. Even if you did,(which is impossible) that was still the violation of WP:ILLEGIT. It is not an assumption that you weren't socking. It is a fact that you are socking. If you are not a sock, then why you are bludgeoning this ANI with your garbage? Just like you had recently bludgeoned that SPI. It is also correct that I am investigating in this matter because we don't want any sort of trouble because you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You're the one heaping wildaccusations after wild accusations at me, first at the 2nd SPI, and now here. The only thing I did was to defend myself, and you call that bludgeoning? Is that your ideal vision of wikipedia, slamming anyone you dont't like and just expect them to take it lying down? Cos I noticed that you did not even bother to notify me that there was an ANI here. A video of 2 guys editing in front of the computer would not mean anything. If I were really socking, it could just be a guy I got off the street to pass off as what you assume to be my fake brother. Our identity cards are issued by the country's authorities, which has info like name, address, birthdate, and other info which I will explain to the admin how they helped us decide our editor names, hence proving conclusively that there are indeed 2 of us. I will not scan my dad's card, because just revealing our 2 cards is more than I am comfortable with. But the birthdates shown on the cards are more than conclusive proof that its my brother, not father. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

These fairytales don't support any policy or even an essay that can be used for exempting you from socking, especially when you had admitted to have read WP:SOCK#LEGIT,[46] right when you were blocked for evasion. Similar to other sock, Resaltador.[47] Kindly stop trolling. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

IF I was really socking as Resaltador, and allegedly had alternate accounts of TCKTKtool, DanS and of course Zhanzhao, wouldn't it have been smarter of me to use one of these and pretend to be an uninvolved editor, instead of using an IP while posting in a manner that readily identifies me, even, as you pointed out, that would get it banned since I had that happen to me before? Unless you think I purposely want it to get banned? And you're claiming I'm spinning fairytales? Are you even thinking through what you are posting? Zhanzhao (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Resaltador also don't know the difference between banned and block, just like you don't know.[48] That's how it cannot be anyone else other than you. You socked with that account for supporting yourself,[49] and also socked with TCKTKtool[50] and IP[51] for edit warring, just like you were socking with DanS76.[52][53] There is a huge list of similarities. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I know the difference. I am just getting fed up from being harassed and victimized and am DEFINITELY not calm now, so pardon me if I make the mistake of mixing up block and ban. I was typing off a freaking ipad1 during lunch that crashes on me cos the thread is so long, and had to retype that 3 times. For me, in my mind, the 2 words might as well be the same thing now, because I am being hounded and not even allowed to defend myself, since any defense isbeing labeled as "bludgeoning the topic". A check user has already been run against me, Resaltador, and TCKTKtool that proved we were different accounts. And to VandVictory who asked why Resaltafor and TCKTKtool are not responding, only they can answer that. But one BIG reason could be because OccultZone did not bother to tell them about this ANI, which he was supposed to. He didn't even tell me. The only reason I knew is because I have this page on my watchlist. This time, run a Check User against Dan, Resaltador, and TCKTKtool. Check if/how Resaltador and TCKTKtool has ever "helped" me before the article that caused OccultZone to be blocked. Go all the way to when the accounts were started. IF a CU like that still shows that all 3 are distinctly different account, me socking would be the least of the concerns here. It would imply that I have actual inside information on how CU works from way way back, a severe implication that has huge ramifications: that Check User just cannot be trusted anymore at all and you guys should just scrap it, since you guys are unwilling to trust your own tools to tell you the truth and would rather listen to a conspiracy theory that's been noted as being flimsy and countered (or in his word, bludgeoned). I'll send Salvidrim! the info I promised that would show that me and Dan are indeed distinctly different persons, the crux of the first SPI. Any other admin can request the same and as long as I can trust that you will not leak the info back to OccultZone, I should be fine sending it to you as well. The 2nd SPI has already been closed, but anyone here, feel free to rerun the CheckUser to verify. In any case, I wish you all the best dealing with OccultZone the next time this timebomb explodes in the future. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Reason behind first SPI was to get rid of your disruption, since you shamelessly sock and edit war for your edits. Same with my 2nd SPI, if first SPI was taken seriously none of the 4 editors would've got any malformed blocks that were quickly reversed. We don't need checkuser to confirm that you are socking, nor we need any of your identity proofs. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

We have real evidence here:-

Apart from abusing accounts on 100 percent same namespaces,[54][55][56][57][58][59] you have also abused them for bigger purposes. It took a few minutes to confirm that how you and DanS76 are not brothers, but one person.

• "TALK",[60][61] "possibly vandalism",[62][63] " already summarized",[64][65] "Removed POV language",[66][67] "my defense"[68][69], "properly attributed",[70][71] "more accurate to", [72][73] "Re-added",[74][75] "overly detailed",[76][77], "my 2 cents".[78][79]
• Same page move war.[80][81] You were page move warring and edit warring with the former admin and indeffed editor, La goutte de pluie, by using multiple accounts.
• Exactly same votes and choices in AfD,([82][83], [84][85], [86][87]) deletion review,([88][[89]) ANI,([90] [91], [92]) RFC/UA ([93][94]) accepting own article submission,[95] etc.

This is when you had made slightly more than 150 edits on other account. One wouldn't be convinced even if you claim that you both are conjoined twins, because there's only one sock puppeteer operating these accounts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Dan already said that he shadows me to see what/how I am editing, which explains a lot of the similarities, and has retired his account to avoid that again. And considering I was the one who introduced him to Wikipedia, so its unavoidable that he emulates me, what do you expect me to do, travel back in time and ask not to do so? And he already retired his account (willingly since he's so busy these days), so this issue will not resurface again. And the claim that I did not need him anymore since I had new socks does not hold water since the 2nd SPI's CU already proved that those were not my socks.

Mass comparison with other editors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1) For the 100% talk space bit, the Lui Tuck Yew page history, particularly the April 30 2011 - May 5 2011 since thats the area we both appeared, we were both there, but doing our own stuff which is clear even from the edit summaries. For The interaction with Ahnan, I knew Dan was riling him up and was in fact trying to trcik him into making an error, while I was trying to cool Ahnan down and was in fact sent him a mail what Dan was trying to do. Again clear from the conversation thread. For the [Lim Biow chuan Talk page], although we were both there, I was doing my own stuff, Dan his own, we did not even interact, much less support each other there. 2) I already said I have used every iteration of "TALK", "Talk" and "talk" before. Easily checked. 3) I have used "possible vandalism" as well before. (note the "e"). I checked that Dan never uses that. 4) One was used as "in my defense", the other was "you removing my defense", the wording is same, but the usage is totally different 5) Do you know how commonly used "properly attributed" is? [96] 6) Do you know how commonly used "more accurate to" is? [97] 7) Do you know how commonly used "re-added" is? [98] 8) Do you know how commonly used "overly detailed" is? [99] 9) Do you know how commonly used.... do I even have to get to "my 2 cents"? Zhanzhao (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC) 10) [100] Other than me and my brother, which other accounts are you supposing to be part of the multiple acocunts? I suppose you mean Foxhoud since that looks to be the must likely culprit who has the unfortunate coincidence of being a sock. Again, please run a checkuser to ensure that we are not related. I already said before, due to living in the same house with Dan, there are instances of dinner-table talk so me and Dan edit with the same angle. And Dan already retired his account to avoid that. 11) How the hell do you consider a "Merge" [101] to be similar to a "strong delete" [102] 12) [103][104] My given rationale for these was quite different from DanS, and did you check how many were overwhelmingly voting the same as us? Are the rest all socks then? If I had a sock, I wouldn't even have needed it there. 13) [105][106] For these 2, the vote was already overwhelmingly one sided, even supported by the admin you claim we were ganging up against. If I had a sock, I would not have needed to activate it. And yet you say I unnecessarily put my sock there. 14) [107] I was answering different questions from Dan, and the end result was so lopsided (even Jimbo Wales voted there) that it wasn't even funny. Even if I had a sock, I would not have needed to use it there. In summary, the so called evidence of "similar phrasing used" are not as unique as OccultZone thought. Of Dan and me having worked on the same pages, most of the time we did not interact, we acted behaved differently, or in cases of voting the results were so overwhelmingly one sided that if I were socking, I would not have needed to unnecessarily expose it there. Do go to each and every one of those voting pages to check if everyone that voted similar to me were socks as well. And as OccultZone just admitted, he is blaming me for being blocked, caused by editors he claims to be socks of me. This conspiracy theory was already disproven by the 2nd SPI's CheckUser. OccultZone, You've been barking up the wrong tree all along. Don't you get it? Zhanzhao (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Update to Admins. OccultZone just hatted every single rebuttal I just gave to his raised "evidence". Please open it up to read. I know its a lot to digest, but that's what OccultZone threw at my feet so I had to go through all of them.

Zhanzhao (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Problem is that you remember so much of Dan because you operate that account. Examples that I have provided are not all, it is just for confirming that you are a long term sock abuser. You gave same reasons in each of these AfD while no one else had them, with these accounts. You retired that account like it has been pointed here, so that you could use new socks. Exactly that's what you are doing. None of these summaries can be used by two persons that have socked for each other. Why you even have to type out all this garbage if you think that you are not a sock? I have just hatted much of it that you are typing only for killing the environment of this ANI, just like you did on SPI. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice. You "hatted" all my explanations just like that. Just like when you took out DoRD's comments at the 2nd SPI that your previous findings were frivolous. I just spent the past few hours looking through YOUR list, and typing that out using all the links YOU gave above, to explain myself. I didn't "need" to be Dan to remember, because its all so obvious by looking at the pages, just by looking at who was posting what according to the signatures to tell there was no interaction, or by counting the votes on the page to tell that the voting was lopsided. But you're discouraging the Admins from looking at it. And yet again, you're shutting people up everytime they say something that would prove you wrong. First DoRD, now me. Good Job. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Where did you prove anything wrong? These diffs are about you and about your block evading accounts that share similarities, show where they are wrong? You said "you're shutting people up everytime they say something", while Resaltador says that I "seems to attack anyone that disagrees".[108] You have now also capitalized the 'a' of 'admin' just like Resaltador.[109] Looking at some of your self admission[110], you also seem to be expressing that how much you socked when you were hauling an editor to RFC/UA, ANI. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to talk about analysing behaviors, try this. Thanks for bringing that link up, because it reminded me that DanS has a particular habit of using "Just Sayin"/"Just Saying". He used it again recently on talk of Rape in India, so thats at least 2 times used on wikipedia. Considering I have so many more posts than his, if we were the same, you should be able to find me using that phrase as well. You wont, because in real life, I keep telling it is a little presumptious and rude. You also keep assuming that Resaltador is a sock of mine, but despite repeated reminder, have you even notified him or any of my other alleged socks about this ANI? Isn't that what you are supposed to do when you file this? Or am I reading the notification at the top of this page wrong, that "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page."[To the extent that another admin has already assumed that they are staying quiet because of guilt]. I don't blame that admin, I blame YOU for mishandling this complaint about me. You just keep shutting every avenue of of defense (CU, comments from other admins, real-life identity verification) that could prove my innocence, because you are so fanatically wanting me to be guilty. I'm sick and tired of this. I just emailed you a link to a photo on A website, posted a while ago long before all this started, which has clear inference to my name and is clearly described as a picture of me and my brothers, with no edit history on the picture so it could not have been changed just for this. You can send me a message via facebook to verify that it is me. You forced my hand. I haven't had time to send the ID card scans to Salvidrim! because this has disturbed me so much that it distracted me from work in real life that I need to catch up on my work over the weekend. SATISFIED? If my real identity is revealed or if this is used against me anywhere else, I will now also know who to blame. So. I have a brother in real life who used to edit and retired, there's been people other than me pointing out that the so called "similar" behavior is actually circumstantial, and CheckUser had already exonerated me from all the other socks. Please, I'm begging you, stop directing your anger at me for being blocked, I WASN'T EVEN INVOLVED IN THAT CASE! Zhanzhao (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't notified them about SPI either, they just jumped in the same fashion like DanS76, it also confirms that these socks are either told off-wiki or their operator(you) just know where to abuse them. A dubious photo cannot be used for permitting sock puppetry. Your socking has been damaging for en.wiki, you are socking since 2010 and it must not be ignored. If you were not a sock then why you are bothering to bludgeon ANI, SPI with your garbage? You do because you are a sock. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Again you describe defense against your accusations as bludgeoning, when all I have done is a point by point rebuttal of your accusations. Its not about the photo, its about me having posted about having brothers, somewhere else long before this. The timing, the subject, and the discussion thread about the picture from long time ago explicitly demonstrates that. People have been jumping into SPI randomly as well all the time. I have randomly participated in SPIs as well. So its supposed to be exclusive? Anything you start, you only allow invited guests to participate? You don't own wikipedia. You cannot NOT allow people to defend themselves. You cannot NOT ignore CU just because it does not justify your accusation. You still have to follow the rules, regardless your assumptions. Like following instructions about ANI notification. Even as you accuse me of breaking the rules, you break them on a whim. And you say I am damaging wikipedia. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Have added a lot of newly discovered evidence to this sandbox. We will see. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposing indefinite block for confirmed sock puppetry

DoRD has today  Confirmed that DanS76 (talk · contribs) and Zhanzhao (talk · contribs) are technically related to each other. Though Salvidrim was convinced per Zhanzhao's claim that they are brothers and weren't aware, I always disagreed with that. Now today I have discovered this comment by one of these accounts, where he is warning others of meat puppetry in correct words. It becomes evident that he was aware of every bit of policy re: multiple accounts and he always abused them. Even if his unbelievable notion has to be taken in account, that his brother helped him in wiki matters, he has intentionally violated WP:ILLEGIT for more than 5 years. Despite he was blocked for edit warring and block evasion with IP in 2009, he had admitted to have read WP:SOCK#LEGIT,[111] however he would his then self admitted IP address[112] to vandalize and spam grossly offensive content against opponents.[113][114][115][116] I had to ask for revdel before I even came to show them here.

Sock puppetry with these 2 accounts since 2010
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Remember that DanS76 has only 190 edits. Page move war,[117][118] and edit war[119][120] on a specific article at the same time. Same votes and choices; AfD,([121][122], [123][124] Deletion review,([125][[126]) Topic ban discussion of La goutte de pluie.[127][128] ANI,([129] [130], [131],[132], specific weight to "COATRACK"[133][134]) RFC/UA ([135][136]) Accepting own article for submission.[137] Examples of edit warring, evading 3RR. Signed in Wikipedia after 58 days[138] for evading 3rr. Zhanzhao,[139][140] DanS76.[141] Zhanzhao [142][143][144] DanS76 [145], previous edit was 45 days ago. Zhanzhao [146], DanS76 [147] Contributions in 100 percent same namespaces.[148][149][150][151][152][153][154] Edit summaries: "TALK",[155][156] "possibly vandalism",[157][158] " already summarized",[159][160] "Removed POV language",[161][162] "my 2 cents",[163][164] "properly attributed",[165][166] "more accurate to", [167][168] "Re-added",[169][170] "overly detailed",[171][172], "my defense".[173][174]

None of the policies or essays say anything like "Regardless of their previous offenses, if a sock master insists that their sock was used by somebody from their household, they should be vindicated from sock puppetry."

Such exemptions from sock puppetry further encourages a sock master to sock more and use better ways. That happened here and amount of socking is now higher. Today we see throwaway socks acting like experienced user(WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY), for a name, Bargolus (talk · contribs), having only 2 edits and signed in after 8 years(!) for retrieving the preferred version of Zhanzhao.[175] IP hopping is evidently too frequent. The account himself claimed that he was 49.244.254.146,[176](he edited the comment of 49.244.. as well), and soon he edited accounts comment with 124.41.243.167.[177] More clear example of IP switching can be seen in this edit war : account[178], IP[179], IP.[180]

It further strengthens the ongoing discussion, that many of the editors are currently having at this policy page, that how easy it is for others to defeat CU results.[181][182] Though one of these throwaway is currently blocked recently by DoRD for editing warring with IP.[183] Must have forgot to switch for an edit.

Further sock puppetry with other small/throwaway accounts
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bargolus, TCKTKtool, Resaltador. Bargolus says "the article is about Rape in India".[184] TCKTKtool says "This article is about Rape in India".[185] Zhanzhao says "it is about rape in india".[186] Zhanzhao pushes an unreliable "article from WSJ"[187] Bargolus pushes same unreliable "link to a WSJ article"[188] TCKTKtool says "major news around the world".[189] Zhanzhao says "news agencies around the world".[190] Creation of 3 words userpage.[191][192] Same style of copy pasting title as summary.[193][194] and [195][196] Mention only username in edit summaries.[197][198][199], like Zhanzhao[200] Attempts to create wikilink([[ ]]) of URLs.([[http://www.example.com/]])[201][202][203][204][205] Edit summaries: "forgot to sign"[206][207], "TALK"[208][209][210][211], "This is Wikipedia not.."[212][213], "to make it clear"[214][215], "Please do not remove",[216][217] and other "Please do not"s[218][219] More can be found, here and here.

Thus I am proposing an indefinite block on Zhanzhao and these socks,(DanS76, TCKTKtool, Bargolus, Resaltador) for their long term and ongoing violation of WP:ILLEGIT.

• Support as proposer. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• support - Continued socking even after the SPI and this ANI is pathetic at best. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@SamuelDay1:, only true if you believe that those other accounts alleged by OccultZone to be my socks, were me. As I pointed out in my page [220], even after OccultZone admin-shopped with his evidence, he's been told repeatedly that his evidence regarding these other accounts were weak/circumstantial. But I respect your vote. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That was much before your sock evasion on 29 March, and by next days there was least 2 times more evidence concerning your already suspected socks. What happened to your break?[221] That you had taken before you asked for the protection of your preferred version?[222] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support block for OccultZone if he doesn't agree to drop the fucking stick immediately, as per DoRD, Callanecc and myself agreeing there was nothing actionable sockpuppetry-wise, involving Zhanzhao, DanS76, or the other alleged socks. OccultZone has been warned repeatedly about letting go of this issue and has repeatedly and desperately refused to accept that he is wrong and he's made this his battleground, calling into question the competence of myself and both CUs who assisted with this case. I apologize to the community that we have allowed this to progress thus far and failed to put a definitive stop to it earlier because we believed OccultZone would show enough sense to heed our repeated warnings. This is the exact opposite of constructive behaviour and I am sorry that we allowed OccultZone to waste even more of the community's time. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• It is due to your bad decision that we are having this all trouble. I had asked that which policy allows a sock to exempt from sock puppetry just because if they say that their relative helped them? And you are always speechless. You claim that showing a photo of 2 people standing along gives exemption from sock puppetry,[223] but you don't show even a single policy that allows it. In fact you archived the whole case re: these throwaway socks without even analyzing the behavioral evidence,[224] thus leading people to stop reporting about obvious sock puppets, because in order to protect your decision that you had made first you ignore every instance of sock puppetry without even observing it. Proof is that you have no comments about the sock puppetry from 29 March. Neither you have any comments on Zhanzhao making personal attacks around. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• My closure of this case with no action has been endorsed explicitely by two CUs and another admin. You're the only one that has shown a complete inability or unwillingness to understand this. You're closing your eyes and putting your hands over your ears yelling "HE'S SOCKING!! HE'S SOCKING!!! OMG BLOCK HIM!!" while the ones actually chosen by the community to decide whether to block or not, and those with specific tools and experience in investigating sockpuppetry claims, have repeatedly told you that you're wrong, to shut up, drop it, and move on. Right now I don't believe anything will change your mind and I'm sorry that you are too stubborn to move on without being physically restrained by a block. Believe me, I really wish you would just move on -- it's a better outcome for you, for me, and for the project. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• I agree this is very much into WP:STICK and WP:IDHT territory and bordering on harassment my hope was that after explaining the reasons why a block isn't necessary OccultZone would move on but that doesn't seem to be the case unfortunately. I made some comments on my talk page in reply to OccultZone regarding the merits of blocking, which was centered around the fact that really the last time there was meatpuppetry between Zhanzhao and DanS76 was in the middle of last means that blocking would no longer be preventative. I'm looking into the latest one on my talk page now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• Salvidrim, your closure wasn't archived by an admin. Was it? None of your queries have answered my above questions, lets see what is the outcome, because it is a  Confirmed sock puppetry and on going since 2010. Zhanzhao stopped using that account only when he was caught, not that he came himself for telling you. I am not in violation of any policy, I am just asking for a review of a case that is being ignored and actually suppressed by you from being checked. If you believe that your actions were correct, then you don't have to follow me on other talk pages at all, and you ignore to discuss any of the matter on your own talk page. Now let the community decide. It is a case of 5 years of confirmed sock puppetry that remains on going. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• ... I only followed your pings. If you adminshop it's on you, not me. I don't need to reply to you on my talkpage when many others have already replied to you on every talk page across the project where you have dragged your Crusade. You asked for a review of the case by two admins, including one CU, who have all repeated what me and DoRD have already told you, and since it didn't suit you, you decided to try ANI -- maybe they'll be stupid enough to believe your falsehoods, right? Right? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• You talk about falsehood, yet you cannot back up even one accusation with diff or answer the questions. Find me a single message on any other TP re: this case before this message. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support Cannot think that if I am socking and under the fear of an SPI I told an admin that the account belongs to my relatives thus it was correct to sock and the admin wouldn't doubt it rather accept it as fact and allowed by policy. That is not really a single case because abuse is wider than that and wholly obvious per above comments. Hajme 05:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• Defense and Reply to OccultZone I already stopped editing articles. I only give advice to my fellow editors now. But then you started attacking the admins who were only trying to help on the article. From what I read, you've already raised Arbcom/complaints/admin-shopped against them when things didn't go your way, and their only crime was that they chanced on the article to try to diffuse the situation, and acted as what any other reasonable admin would. Especially Bgwhite, whom I feel responsible cos I was the one who asked him to re-protect the article to force a discussion in the talk page, only for you to twist it into yet another part of your conspiracy against me. They all got dragged in because of your assumption that all those other editors you were warring against were me, even though its been pointed out to you that they were not. You don't care what harm your conspiracy theory has caused. Call it a sense of injustice, but the way I see it going, you're just going to use the outcome of this against them. If you are aiming to indef me, this is the last chance I have to set the record straight about their action and yours.

Yes, per the 1st SPI, I am guilty of WP:FAMILY with my brother, I readily admitted it when asked. To prevent any possible reoccurance, my brother already retired his account (he's an irregular anyway). OccultZone's accusation and anger at me stems from the fact that he was blocked for warring for all those other accounts he assumed were me. I understand why he would be angry at me and the blocking admins who were only doing their job. Doesn't make it right. I welcome OccultZone to re-send every single admin that you've shopped to so far with your new evidence. Balance that with a brand new CU on every other accused account raised against me. OccultZone claimed that DanS's account's CU matches mine cos I was unsure of how to circumvent CU. Dan only joined in 2010. OccultZone also said that Bargolus, the focus of his new "evidence", was created much earlier in 2007. So it should be easy to prove any correlation since according to him, I was still a noob at avoiding CU. AND this time, properly notify the other people you are accusing of being my sock. You've harmed enough people as it is. Don't give them a bad surprise when they return. You seem to be a stickler for rules. Follow them. And see what you come back with. And regardless of the result of this, I urge the other admins here to please protect Swarm and Bgwhite from continued harassment from OccultZone. Cos after he's done with me, he's gonna have more time to harass them. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion goes off-topic. The question is whether a CU mishandled a SPI. Since OccultZone stated for DoRD that "don't need double check really because you are a very trusted member" the discussion is over since no one asks for double checking the case. I'll close the discussion in a while. Any evidence for claimed sock-pupperty should go to a new SPI if this is desired. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Issue with User:Verdy P

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)

@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)

Agreed. His response was heavy handed and haughty KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 16:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please clarify—which response was heavy handed and haughty? Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Repeatedly posting to a user's talk page is a minor form of harassment. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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.[225] (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).

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)

• You're right. That was a mistake on my part and an indicator of my bad judgment. With that - I've said my piece. I will depart from this thread. I apologize to User:Johnuniq sincerely. DawnDusk (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Note: By interleaving replies in User:Verdy p's post,[226], 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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

David Tornheim's behavior, redux

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

David Tornheim, just over a week ago, was warned to stop campaigning just a bit over a week ago, with Drmies writing a close that "There is also some agreement that Tornheim seems to regard Wikipedia as a battleground where there's always a pro and a con side, and partisanship rules.".

Since then David has continued campaigning, even in this thread:

• here
• here
• here (a beauty)
• and here (a real beauty)

Since he has completely blown off the warning, please provide a 24 hour block, per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. David is making it more and more clear that he is WP:NOTHERE so I will not oppose an indef, but all I am asking for is a 24 hour block. Thanks.

I am sorry to keep cluttering up this board, but these personal attacks of corruption and COI are not OK. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC) (note, fixed dif per note below. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC))

• Witness Intimidation for testimony on this ANI. This accusation against me shows just how impossible it is to speak about a problem. David Tornheim (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This is what we mean with WP:CIR. just bizarre. Jytdog (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The "don't be a dick/gravedancing" diff you linked as evidence against David Thorheim isn't from David Thorheim, it is from DePiep [[227] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks, i fixed it. sorry. god i sick of this drama. i have articles i want to work on. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC) (note - made this a separate new incident. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC))

• I moved this section back here, because it's part of the same incident; whoever looks at it has to see it in context. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Noting that when I wrote "here," I was referring to the section above that this report is part of. Jytdog has moved it again. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

David's behavior has nothing to do with DePiep's. David is responsible for what he does. This belongs in its own section, and so i moved it back. too much drama. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog, I'm surprised to see you seek sanctions for posts like this, given your interactions recently with DrChrissy. You were cursing at her with practically every post at one point, but no one reported you (and I'm glad they didn't, because it meant that it eventually stopped without fuss). Shouldn't you extend a similar attitude to others? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

drchrissy is a guy, for what its worth. you really cannot sort out a personal attack from someone fucking cursing in frustration? And in any case, if you want to bring a case against me for that, please do so. This thread is about David's behavior. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Still, even to a casual observer, you bring an awful lot of cases to WP:ANI. You seem to be involved in a lot of confrontational encounters. Again, just an observation. And you failed to notify the editor about bringing this case to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Liz this has been a really crappy couple of weeks, i grant you that. i work on controversial subject matter and in general manage to keep things calm enough that we don't end up here; david's campaigning has been stirring the pot for sure. Depiep's thing was random. and i apologize for not giving notice to David. doing that now. thanks for the reminder. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think its been more than a crappy week. You have 563 edits to this page, in only two article do you have more. That is an amazing number for someone who has a bad week. AlbinoFerret 12:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note: this thread is about David Tornheim's behavior. It is what it is. Each editor in Wikipedia is responsible for his or her behavior. Period. David is hounding me with personal attacks across WP; this is a violation of WP:CAMPAIGNING. He has been warned, and persisted. Please give him a block per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

At WP:RSN David Tornheim has:

• cited a Reiki site to make an Argumentum ad populum that Reiki isn't WP:FRINGE medicine
• argued that Reiki shouldn't be compared to "Western" Medicine (because it'd fail that comparison horribly) and so somehow shouldn't be treated as a fringe topic
• made a slippery slope argument that dismissing Reiki as pseudoscience would lead to dismissing Eastern culture as fringe (non sequitur)
• admitting that Reiki is not scientific while still arguing that it should not be treated as WP:FRINGE because it supposedly doesn't make scientifically testable claims (despite previously citing an article titled "The Greatest Healing The World Has Ever Known")
• arguing against the idea that Reiki claims to basically be the force (able to heal at a distance), even though the article he cited says "Reiki can be sent at a distance."
• arguing that Reiki should be defined by its advocates, instead of by skeptical sources (in the absence of WP:MEDRSs supporting it)
• asked for a pro-Reiki citation for Reiki's founder referring to it as medicine, only to try to dismiss the argument with a strawman when his challenge was met.

For those not in the know, Reiki is a form of "Energy medicine" where the "healer" can "cure" Peptic ulcers, Anemia, Nephritis, Measles, and Ty-fucking-phoid through energies that science says do not exist, across time and space. No WP:MEDRSs were ever presented in support of Reiki, despite repeated requests for them. To argue in defense of Reiki the way Tornheim has requires at least one of the following: gross incompetence, a personal crusade on behalf of WP:Lunatic charlatans, or Reiki-based profits. Given his other behavior, I think that a topic-ban may be in order, probably against all topics relating to health sciences (which would definitely cover GMOs, Glyphosate, Reiki, and Genetic engineering). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

^I will address misrepresentations made above. Please give me time to respond. I am not an advocate for Reiki. And I am definitely no advocate (and have little respect) for "quack" or "snake oil" medicine that deceives patients with false promises or pseudo-scientific claims. My discussion at the RS forum about Reiki had to do with appropriate use of RS, which was being misapplied and against policy and included the use of circular, contradictory logic. Please note that I have never edited the Reiki article or talk page. Nor have I edited any article or talk page related to Alternative Medicine or mainstream Western Medicine as far as I can remember. I don't think GMO food is medicine, is it? David Tornheim (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You kept citing a Reiki website in place of a WP:MEDRS, and made arguments that went against the source you cited and arguments that demonstrated you had not read anything about Reiki (except pro-Reiki sources), to try and keep Reiki (which is basically healing by praying to the Force) away from WP:FRINGE and open the door to presenting it as a legitimate "healing" distinct from "western" medicine. If WP:COI is not at play here, then WP:CIR or WP:RGW definitely is. The topic ban is necessary because either you like to argue in defense of quackery out of either gullible ignorance or actual belief. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian.thomson says "Reiki (which is basically healing by praying to the Force)". This is incorrect. I have read numerous sources on Reiki and NONE of them (including the current wiki article Reiki)), even the skeptics, say that it relies primarily on praying--all of them say Reiki is about touch and many say it is more like massage. (Yes, it does use Qi). Ian.thomson is clearly confused about Reiki, and now is trying to ban me for pointing out his/her confusions like these about Reiki.

I do regret I tried to help the people at that forum understand the major differences between Eastern Practices viz-a-viz Western Medicine which are entirely different systems. Obviously, a waste of time. I should have focused only on the RS issue. Although that seems like a waste of time too which is why I have not said anything on that forum for a few days. David Tornheim (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone with a passing acquaintance with reiki will know practitioners claim it can be used at distance (in that respect it is like prayer or Christian Science healing). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You didn't object to the Star Wars reference? The indication that I was clearly making a joking comparison? Please read the article on metaphors. If you've read plenty of sources on Reiki, and you're capable of tutoring students on physics, then you should have known better it was essentially magical in nature. It isn't an east vs west thing, it is a science vs pseudoscience thing. Reiki makes scientifically testable claims, but provides no evidence. As I said at RSN, its western parallel is not "western" medicine, Reiki's western twin would be something like Radionics or crystal healing.

I I totally get and appreciate respect for other cultures, but that respect does not require gullibility. If someone makes a scientifically testable claim, we demand evidence in proportion to those claims]. If they do not present it, we treat their claims as WP:FRINGE. It's that simple.

And how have you read numerous sources on Reiki, but somehow supposedly don't have an opinion on it one way or another? Either you're a stealth advocate, or you're in denial about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• couple of links to comments from david with comments in reply from some admins:
  • dif (see especially comments at the end of that thread)
  • dif

Per those comments there, WP:CIR is at play here. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

^Now he is going here saying I am "incompetent". The criticism from Jytdog just never ends! David Tornheim (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

yep, and you are proving the case with almost every post you make here. See WP:HOLE Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment - to Ian.thomson - calling for a topic ban based on subject-related comments on the RSN is bizarre, particularly given that David states he never edited the Reiki article. While the Reiki article should certainly avoid overweighing fringe viewpoints, the notion of undue weight does not apply to talk page and discussion board comments, and these are reasonable places to bring up non-mainstream viewpoints and discuss how they relate to wikipedia.Dialectric (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Where did I attempt to apply WP:UNDUE to RSN? On undue weight, however, Tornheim's actions at RSN would have had the effect of allowing undue weight on fringe viewpoints in the article. "These sources are reliable information on Reiki from the perspective of the practitioner" would have been a fine argument and relevant to the discussion -- but his actions there specifically pushed the idea that Reiki should not be treated as a fringe pseudoscience because pro-Reiki authors do not characterize it that way. By that standard, there is no such thing as pseudoscience.

His other actions have resulted in arguments at GMOs, Glyphosate, and Genetic engineering, and Jytdog has come to ANI and other places because of Tornheim's actions there. Those other actions, in the light of his behavior at RSN, demonstrates serious problems with either WP:CIR or WP:ADVOCACY (via mostly WP:Civil POV pushing) when it comes to health sciences. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You raised WP:FRINGE in your initial comment, which is closely related to WP:UNDUE. Showing interest in a fringe or minority viewpoint is not in itself a bannable offense. Do you have diffs showing clear disruptive behavior?Dialectric (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

At what point did I say that he should be banned for simply showing interest? Having overhauled the Lesser Key of Solomon, I have to say there's nothing wrong with interest. What I have already linked to shows a POV-problem.

As for Tornheim's behavior, see the previous ANI thread, which was closed with the comment "There is a measure of agreement that David Tornheim's editing is problematic; individual edits (such as this one, cited by a number of editors) are incredibly problematic and the removal of them is warranted by all kinds of policies." Tornheim edit warred to keep that edit in, and has previously canvassed to change articles relating to GMOs to suit his POV. He also encouraged others to edit war to support his POV.

Has Jytdog been perfect in his interactions? No, but even in isolation, Tornheim and science do not mix. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I would really appreciate your striking out the ad hominem that questions my competence in Science. I happen to have a Bachelors in Electrical Engineering (from University of Cincinnati) Magna Cum Lum Laude, where I excelled in numerous college level science classes, and a Masters of Electrical Engineering from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles (U.S.C.) and was top in my high school class in math and science. I also have tutored students in math, including advanced Calculus and Statistics, as well as Physics. So I would really appreciate your striking out the ad hominem allegations that I do not know much about Science. -David Tornheim (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That's nice. Then you should have known better to try and give equal validity to Reiki. But wait, you've also read numerous sources on it, and all of them pro-Reiki. You may be in denial about it, and pretend that you just don't know, but your behavior screams that you believe in it and advocate it's use to others. Believe what you want, but it's unacceptable to try to reshape Wikipedia to fit those beliefs when they conflict with science. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The two problematic edits you spoke of were already raised in the closed AN/I. Why are you raising them again? Is there no Double Jeopardy on Wikipedia? As for the edit in question (dated 18:40, 2 March 2015) mentioned in the closing comments, that issue was resolved less than two hours later here (dated 20:32, 2 March 2015) and again here (dated 21:35, 2 March 2015). I relinquished all interest in the material, as soon as those who had done the reverts (mostly Jytdog) explained on the talk page here (dated 19:52, 2 March 2015) (rather than in vague edit summary here) why he believed a normally reliable source like the BBC had made a very serious mistake in its reporting. His explanation on the talk page made sense, I accepted it without further comment--so I thought--that would be the end of it. But it seems never to go away. I saw I made a mistake and never showed the least interest in adding the problematic material again. Yet this edit which I have long divorced myself from apparently I am still married to? Where do I get a Wiki divorce? Admitting you made a mistake by sleeping with the wrong "edit" more than once, apparently is just not enough.

And all of this was before the first AN/I Jytdog used against me (01:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)). I admitted in the AN/I that I misunderstood the WP:BRD rule:

I have done some more research and learned some more things. I carefully read the WP:BRD, and see that I misunderstood it and that Kingofaces43 (talk) interpretation is more correct than mine, that it is indeed okay to revert without going to the talk page. 10:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC) here

And I have made hardly any edits to the GMO articles since Jytdog's first ANI against me, knowing that doing so, no matter how reasonable, will land me here. But I guess you still need me banned from the GMO articles even though I have made no more controversial edits you can point to? -David Tornheim (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The double jeopardy comparison, and the prior mention of witness intimidation is Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. The Reiki advocacy was mentioned, and evidence of prior problematic behavior was asked for, which is why that thread was mentioned. This isn't simply bringing up that thread again without new points. Even if you have changed how you're peddling an anti-scientific POV onto articles into a more indirect fashion, you're still peddling a POV that gives equal validity to pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian.thomson: So are you really saying that if I raise an issue and someone disagrees, then I "caused an argument" and that is a good reason to have me banned from the article or topics related to that topic? Are you saying that dissenting opinions are impermissible because they cause arguments? It is hard for me to imagine Wikipedia where everyone agreed all the time. Are you still saying that you want me banned from GMO and the Glyphosphate articles because they are primarily articles having to do with medicine and medical advice? David Tornheim (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You're twisting my words, as you did at RSN. Like I said, it would have been one thing to support the use of those sources for the perspective of a Reiki practitioner, but you repeatedly argued for not classifying Reiki as a fringe pseudoscience because that's not how its practitioners classify it. Your edits to Glyphosate and on articles relating to GMOs concern their effects on human health, and therefore fall under health science. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• The topic ban discussion is closed for now, so unless someone wants to direct where this conversation is going relevant to ANI, it might be best to close this. I will chime in though that I am concerned about David's behavior continuing after being specifically being warned in the previous ANI for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. A recent post indicates they are convinced editors have a COI without any evidence to back that up: "I have been looking for cases of [COI], but can't find them, but they exist." [228]That post seems telling they are WP:NOTHERE entirely and plan to continue further drama, but it might be best to take a WP:ROPE approach with their warning at this point. If outside editors want to comment, that would be welcome. Otherwise, I'd suggest letting this post go. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I was looking for the cases I was already aware of where the named users were punished for alleging COI without providing evidence. I wanted DePiep--who appeared to lack adequate Wiki-legal counsel--to know the case law and the plaintiffs, so he understood he would be next, which he was. I believe the cases happened in 2013 or 2014. Unfortunately, I did not know how to efficiently look up Plaintiffs and Defendants in past closed Wiki-legal cases. Searching the archives for those users brings up not just every case they were Plaintiff or Defendant, but also every case they commented on--which for one or both of them exceeded 100. If you can think of a good way to search the database to quickly find a particular case you know of, please let me know how that is done. It is much much easier to do at a typical county or federal court house for real world legal cases.

I explained this all to Bishonen here. David Tornheim (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: Now that we have cleared up that I was not "looking for cases of COI", let me ask you a question. In the WifiOne case, the lead Plaintiff said on Jimbo's Talk page:

Three years ago I noticed this thread on your talk page and I wrote: "...this issue should be properly investigated/clarified." Later, I notified you and others watching this page repeatedly about my concerns regarding Wifione's editing, but I was largely ignored. Now I'm letting you know that the case has come to an end, see this. There is a good off-site summary and broader context described in the current issue of the Newsweek magazine. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Was Vejvančický's behavior prior to the successful prosecution of the case WP:canvassing, WP:Nothere, WP:BATTLEFIELD, WP:CAMPAIGNING and WP:Stalking? Should Vejvančický's work be lauded or decried? Would it be better if users who see what they believe to be COI edits ignore them and WP:AGF? Should they attempt to report the problem or pretend that it does not exist? -David Tornheim (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice: @Vejvančický: FYI. And I think your work should be lauded. Good job.David Tornheim (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The point here is that Vejvančický did a good job by assembling solid evidence. For sure, there is a problem with COI editing on WP, but there is also a problem with conspiracist-minded editors who will "cry COI" in advance of their (often less than neutral) objectives. In my own case, there was a particularly rich incident in which an editor took me to COIN and was then found themslves to have a COI in the very topic which was in dispute![229] In this case the editor "crying COI" was a not a brave seeker-after-truth; quite the opposite. Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Bingo. The whole heart of WP:COI is that we bring actual strong evidence to the proper channels, but we do not sling COI, shill, etc. around without proper evidence in content disputes or otherwise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see, the quoted text can be a little ambiguous when you consider that perspective. Sorry about the misinterpret. However, action should come the way of people who engage in WP:HOUNDING, so pursuing that really shouldn't be characterized as "causing trouble". My sentiments in my above post remain the same because alleging COI in the manner these folks have is plain inappropriate, so in the future you should just be telling someone mirroring DePiep's actions that the way they approach COI is inappropriate and point them to the guidance we have at WP:COI for handling things. Focusing on the editors being improperly accused and saying they are going to cause trouble is improper as well.

As for the plaintiff, etc. comment, we don't use that kind of system here. Things are already sloppy when you have editors sniping on scattered talk pages. Here things should be condensed into single posts at least, though there's still no real framework. Your best bet to find posts associated with more than one user is to enter their usernames into archive search box. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Response to Ian.thomson's allegations:

General Observations / Questions My knowledge of Reiki is pretty limited. I did some Google searches and learned a little about it. Are the sites I looked at WP:RS? I honestly do not know. However, some of the information I did find varied quite substantially with the characterization of Reiki on the RS board and I thought it was worth pointing out, asking quesitons and making observations based on my discoveries. I found that there were more questions than answers, although many people seemed to think they knew the answers a priori:

(1) What field is Reiki in?

(1a) Is it Medicine?

NO?

Many in the forum immediately identified Reiki as "medicine", but that really does not sound right to me. Everything I read made it sound more like massage, psychotherapy, yoga or Tai Chi (part of Eastern healing practices and martial arts, etc.) (and possibly spiritual) than as part of Western Medicine's emphasis on highly trained doctors and on over-the-counter or prescription drugs. And these Eastern practices as far as I know are hardly scientific. Others have made similar comments at an RS noticeboard:

First, does Reiki at all make a claim to be medicine? To the best of my knowledge, they only talk about healing which is definitely not the same as "treating", as any cultural anthropologist will explain. They are not the only ones to "heal" - for example, clinical psychology also talks about healing. Yet, medical practitiones are usually not authoritative with respect to psychology, so I don't understand why they should be considered authority on healing or other "para" type things? Moreover, among doctors, you will find ones who support "alternative therapies" and those who oppose them, and both these categories do publish in peer-reviewed journals. Why should we take a medical doctor as an authority on Reiki, that fails my understanding..... kashmiri ^TALK 17:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert in this area, but my understanding is that some people claim reiki to be an effective medical treatment while others see it more as a spiritual practice. There is certainly a debate out there about whether it's an effective medical treatment, and to that extent the question of whether it should be labeled a pseudoscience is an important one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2015

...I see it this way: Some people swear by treating cancer with carrot juice. There is no clinical evidence, for whatever reasons. But should we then go to carrot article and quickly label eating carrots as pseudoscience? I am no expert, either, but I see a lot of people using Reiki simply as a relaxation technique (which is absolutely valid in light of contemporary psychology). Moreover, medical scientists tend to be cautious in formulating their conclusions (see here: doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01729.x) and I see no reason why us Wikipedia editors should not follow this example. I've seen that a few editors here feel that Wikipedia should bring enlightenment to the dark masses, not noticing that science has evolved since 1960s and the former black-white categorisation of medical theories and treatments is now giving way to postmodernist approaches. kashmiri ^TALK 23:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

...Some people claim reiki has these sorts of magical powers, some don't. Some people say reiki is a spiritual practice, some people say it's just comforting, and some people say it may have some limited medical benefit. What I'm saying is you have to look at the specific claim. To say reiki is categorically fringe is going too far. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:, @DrFleischman: Your quotes referenced above.

YES? (To question: Is it Medicine?)

However, numerous universities in the West have accepted it as a kind of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) and/or Integrative Health (e.g. Harvard, Penn Medicine, University Hospitals--Cleveland, University of Maryland, etc.) or Holistic Medicine. But my research (and the current Reiki Wiki article) say the Western version of Reiki is more limited and may comport with Western Medicine for something like relaxation. The problem now becomes: Which one is the "real" Reiki? I do not think there is an easy answer to that question either, a similar sentiment to what was expressed by others above.

(1b) Is it Science?

From what I read it sure does not sound like a science, but more like craft, like massage. Possibly the CAM is more scientific than Reiki outside the university. My tenative answer is mostly No.

(1c) Is it Pseudo-Science?

I already argue above it is not Science. It certainly does not make the pseudo-scientific theorizing like Astrology or Acupuncture as far as I can tell. Again it is more like massage where knowledge is craft, not academic theory. See also comments from others is Section (1a) above.

(2) Is it just "quackary" run by "charlatans"?

There are "kooks" and shysters everywhere and in every profession. If the writing about Reiki is by "kooks", then it is not WP:RS. Dr. Fleischman identifies the problem with using writing by Reiki practitioners who make extraordinary claims that defy reason:

This may be a bit of a straw man argument. Some people claim reiki has these sorts of magical powers, some don't...[remainder of quote found in (1a)]--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

(3) What are the Reliable Sources in this field?

That I honestly do not know. I did not go to the RS forum with the intention to say I knew. But I felt that many of those who were writing in the RS forum did not know either, but they acted as if they did. And that is why I wanted to challenge some of their preconceived notions about Reiki that appear to me to be incorrect based on what I found on-line.

I do know that the correct policy is to use experts in the field. However, there is a problem with identifying the appropriate field (as noted above in (1)). I asked about experts in the field of Reiki. But I got the impression that those at the RS forum had already decided that anyone in Reiki a priori is a charlatan and unreliable, so then you have a problem, because then anyone and everyone in the field of Reiki who writes about their profession is by definition unreliable, even before you look at their writing. So how can you even know what Reiki is, if it is unacceptable to even consider what someone in the field has to say about it, because by definition what they say is not RS? This is where the circular logic comes in.

I did find one source that looked reasonably balanced: Reiki, Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, 3d

This appears to have the same material: Free Dictionary from Farlex

There were also numerous medical studies in peer viewed journals about Reiki claims and much of that is likely RS as far as they relate to Reiki health claims, but not to the craft itself, such as how it is done.

(4) Is Reiki—in its entirety—Fringe?

If one cannot answer (3), then how can we say? And there is the circularity problem in defining something like Reiki as WP:fringe.

(5) WP:NPOV

I am not some pro-Reiki person who thinks Reiki is great and all criticism should be alleviated. Not at all. I think Reiki should be presented descriptively and objectively according to Wiki guidelines for WP:NPOV, and that if the subject matter makes health claims that can be construed as medical, then yes, the appropriate RS regarding health WP:MEDRS should apply, and that if a claim that is scientific is made (such as the earth being created X years ago), then the relevant science RS rules should apply to describing scientific claims. But with regard to the non-health, non-science aspects of Reiki, those should be reported according to experts in the field. It appears this last part is not going to be adhered to, and that instead the non-academic field of skepticism will be used as RS to decide what Reiki is about, rather than a more appropriate field it should be in.

Anyway, I was trying to inject some sanity into the discussion at RS. I can see I failed at getting anyone to take my questions seriously. But are you really going to shoot the messenger for asking intelligent questions and pointing out problems?

As to specific allegations by Ian.thomson (talk) of 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC):

(Please review/refer to Section above titled "General Observations / Questions".)

Allegations in italics. Responses in regular type.

At WP:RSN David Tornheim has:

• cited a Reiki site to make an Argumentum ad populum that Reiki isn't WP:FRINGE medicine

No. See answer to Question 1 in the above Section "General Observations / Questions: (1) What field is Reiki in?" I did not agree Reiki's field is medicine, which on Wikipedia is Western Medicine. That is your assertion.

Wikipedia Guideline WP:Fringe states in the first paragraph:

Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.

I believe the words "prominence" and "mainstream" do refer to numbers within the field. And within the field of Eastern Healing practice, there appear to be a significant number of Reiki practitioners; but I do not know the proportion, but I do not believe that Reiki is considered "fringe" within that field. How much scholarship and what is the mainstream scholarship in the field I do not know. It might be found in some of the publishers that were rejected a priori because they published books on Eastern Healing practices. Perhaps there are sources in another language, such as Japanese or Chinese that are considered the most important scholarship. Again I do not know. Perhaps, this is something that could be pursued rather than completely ignored because a skeptic declared it "fringe"? Can we trust that skeptics who reject Reiki read all relevant Chinese and Japanese scholarship on the matter and fully appreciated it? And that all of this is cited in their findings and conclusions?

• argued that Reiki shouldn't be compared to "Western" Medicine (because it'd fail that comparison horribly) and so somehow shouldn't be treated as a fringe topic

No. I did not say that. I did not say it should not be compared to a Western Medical practice. I said: "Reiki is not a Western Medical Practice. It is an Eastern Healing Practice..." See answer to Question 1 in the above Section "General Observations / Questions: (1) What field is Reiki in?"

• made a slippery slope argument that dismissing Reiki as pseudoscience would lead to dismissing Eastern culture as fringe (non sequitur)

The easiest way to understand what I was getting at by the question I asked Ian.Thomson is by looking what the concept of "Orientalism" explained succinctly in this quote and imagine the same thing happening if all healing and other practices, thought, etc. from the "East" are treated as is explained here:

"Orientalism” is a way of seeing that imagines, emphasizes, exaggerates and distorts differences of Arab peoples and cultures as compared to that of Europe and the U.S. It often involves seeing Arab culture as exotic, backward, uncivilized, and at times dangerous. Edward W. Said, in his groundbreaking book, Orientalism, defined it as the acceptance in the West of “the basic distinction between East and West as the starting point for elaborate theories, epics, novels, social descriptions, and political accounts concerning the Orient, its people, customs, ‘mind,’ destiny and so on.”

A similar quote from Orientalism:

Since the publication of Edward Said's Orientalism in 1978, much academic discourse has begun to use the term "Orientalism" to refer to a general patronizing Western attitude towards Middle Eastern, Asian and North African societies. In Said's analysis, the West essentializes these societies as static and undeveloped—thereby fabricating a view of Oriental culture that can be studied, depicted, and reproduced. Implicit in this fabrication, writes Said, is the idea that Western society is developed, rational, flexible, and superior.

I think these quotes illustrate some of the attitude of Wikipedia towards many Eastern practices related to health, such as Reiki, which were evident at the two RS Noticeboards on Reiki--the with the exception of the two users I quote in Question (1) above. I have not seen it in other fields, but I think it is a legitimate concern that Eastern Healing Practices are so looked down upon to be called "fringe" and "pseudo-science", and I hoped those in the RS noticeboard could see the concern. Obviously, I failed to raise awareness of it, and now apparently it is time to shoot the messenger for suggesting there might be a problem?

• admitting that Reiki is not scientific

Yes. I do not think it is "scientific". See Question (1b) above.

• admitting that Reiki is not scientific while still arguing that it should not be treated as WP:FRINGE because it supposedly doesn't make scientifically testable claims (despite previously citing an article titled "The Greatest Healing The World Has Ever Known")
• arguing against the idea that Reiki claims to basically be the force (able to heal at a distance), even though the article he cited says "Reiki can be sent at a distance."

I apologize for having cited that source for anything. I was looking for number of practitioners (for reasons stated in response to your first allegation). That was I believe the first or second site that came up, and I only read/skimmed a few pages and did not see any claims that were so grandiose as that essay you found on the site. I have found many others that do not make such outlandish claims--but I am not sure which ones should be RS without further investigation, so I will not cite them here. So no, I do not think that was RS, and I was not really sure at the time I used it, and regret now that I had chosen it.

• arguing that Reiki should be defined by its advocates, instead of by skeptical sources (in the absence of WP:MEDRSs supporting it)

No I never used the word "advocate". I said that experts in the field should define Reiki per Wiki Guideline. There is a difficulty assigning the correct field. See question (1) above. The Skeptic Movement (e.g. this group) is a set of advocacy groups that advocates for a specific kind of Epistemology. Skepticism is not an academic field but a kind of philosophy. Asking the Skeptic Movement to define Reiki is like asking Republicans to write the Democrat page.

• asked for a pro-Reiki citation for Reiki's founder referring to it as medicine, only to try to dismiss the argument with a strawman when his challenge was met.

I never used the word "pro-Reiki". I said that experts in the field of Reiki (assuming that is the appropriate field) should define what it is rather than those whose only goal is to discredit it. Should those skeptical of science have the final word about what science is? Imagine that. I seriously doubt that standard would be used to decide an RS on science, right? I am showing you there are some problems with circular logic in the use of fringe.

The relevant part of my post there was:

...All four publishers [one included Lotus Press] look as reliable as a mainstream publishers like Barnes & Noble (which publishes things like these and these) or Random House (that publishes these and these)...David Tornheim (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

My main point here was that mainstream publishers like Barnes & Noble and Random House also publish "self-help" and "spiritual awakening" books (and similar topics) that make grandiose claims of guarantees for "success", getting rich, better relationships, etc. Should we dismiss everything from a publisher, if they publish anything or many things that have highly suspect claims? I hope not. So the same standard should be applied to Lotus Press. One has to look at the book in question, the author, the reputation, the editor(s), etc. before summarily dismissing the publisher for publishing other books one believes to be fringe, such as the "self-help" books.

• ...No WP:MEDRSs were ever presented in support of Reiki, despite repeated requests for them.

Please See Answers to Question "(3) What are the Reliable Sources in this field?". I do not know. It is still up for debate. The reason I did not respond is that it seems like a waste of time. No one was taking what I said seriously, so what was the point of continuing to talk about it?

To argue in defense of Reiki the way Tornheim has requires at least one of the following: gross incompetence, a personal crusade on behalf of WP:Lunatic charlatans, or Reiki-based profits. Given his other behavior, I think that a topic-ban may be in order, probably against all topics relating to health sciences (which would definitely cover GMOs, Glyphosate, Reiki, and Genetic engineering). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose -- for reasons stated above and

Note: this part of the action was dismissed below.

I notice above that I have been accused of COI and making profits from Reiki with no evidence to support it. I also believe the allegation of COI is leveled in the wrong place. Please refer to the ANI on DiPiep above, who was dragged through an ANI for making such allegations of COI/paid editing in the wrong place and without evidence by a user (not the user that was accused of the COI paid editing incidentally) who was able to obtain the relief--a short block--successfully. It appears the incident here might be of a similar level of accusation of paid editing without any evidence in the wrong forum. It seems I could assert boomerang. But, instead, could a request attorney fees for all the time I had to defend this crazy lawsuit (the part from ian.thomson that is) on a topic I stopped commenting on because no one was listening? Just kidding on Attorney Fees, of course.

And yes, I have learned my lesson. Talking about Reiki (and probably about any other Eastern Healing practice) with people on the Noticeboard was a grand waste of time and I really regret it. I have no real interest in going there again unless users there take what I say more seriously. Unfortunately, that problem was solved before ian.thomson came here. He could have just asked me on my talk page: "Are you coming back?" But I guess this response by trying to get me banned from every health article gives me a good sense of how open he and the others were to what I had to say. Such a pleasant place Wikipedia is for having a healthy intellectual discussion. @BoboMeowCat: Thank you for noticing the concern below. David Tornheim (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

1) Mikao Usui, the founder of Reiki, claimed that it could cure Typhoid (Usui, Dr. Mikao; Frank Arjava Petter (31 March 2000). The Original Reiki Handbook of Dr. Mikao Usui: The Traditional Usui Reiki Ryoho Treatment Positions and Numerous Reiki Techniques for Health and Well-being. Lotus Press. p. 65. ISBN 0-914955-57-8.). That is a scientifically testable claim, and there are no MEDRSs backing it up. That is different from a generic, feel-good, wishy-washy, untestable and nonspecific "healing," that is a medical claim, plain and simple. To pretend that Reiki does not make medical claims is deceptive.

Advanced Reiki teachings involve the use of symbols said to increase the efficacy of Reiki at a distance (Ellyard, Lawrence (2004). Reiki Healer: A Complete Guide to the Path and Practice of Reiki. Dorset, England: Lotus Press. p. 81. ISBN 0-940985-64-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)). There is no scientific basis for this claim.

Reiki does make claims of manipulating Qi through chakras or tandens (Usui, Dr. Mikao; Frank Arjava Petter (31 March 2000). The Original Reiki Handbook of Dr. Mikao Usui: The Traditional Usui Reiki Ryoho Treatment Positions and Numerous Reiki Techniques for Health and Well-being. Lotus Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-914955-57-8.). The existence of Qi, chakras, and dantiens/tandens is not recognized by scientific medicine.

Masseuses may not study science, but there is still a scientific mechanism behind what it can accomplish.

2) The founder of Reiki made magical claims about it. This isn't like trying to discredit modern chemistry because Paracelsus had some strange ideas, the root and basis of Reiki is magical.

3, 4) Because Reiki does make medical claims, it must have MEDRSs to support it. Until MEDRSs supporting Reiki are presented, it can be easily dismissed as pseudoscientific quackery easily. There is no circular logic. One can consult a pro-Reiki source to see that it makes medical claims (because potentially fringe sources can be used to learn about the believer's perspective), and upon finding that there are no MEDRSs, skeptical sources may be used. Accusations of circular logic are a strawman, as has been pointed out to you before.

5) Then shit or get off the can: present MEDRSs supporting Reiki or acknowledge that there are none and let skeptical sources be used (instead of repeating the same arguments that require sources you can't/won't present, as if others are going to do that for you).

Re Fringe and argumentum ad populum: The very guideline you cited says "Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources." Reiki.org is obviously not independent. Whether or not Reiki is fringe within "Eastern Healing" does not matter: it is whether or not Reiki is fringe within medicine. Mainstream science determines what is fringe for scientifically testable claims, not the most popular form of pseudoscience. Otherwise, Intelligent Design (rather than skepticism) would dominate the Young Earth Creationism article.

Re "Western" Medicine orientalism: Science-based medicine is practiced around the world, not just the west. To give pseudoscientific quackery a pass because it's non-western is to romanticize it, which is the root of orientalism. You are the one orientalizing here.

Re Reiki and science: If it makes scientifically testable claims, but is not scientific, and those scientifically testable claims lack evidence, it is by definition pseudoscience.

Re experts and advocates: The Gale citation above is the first time you've entertained the notion of an "expert" that wasn't also an advocate. Before that, you opposed any skeptical sources, no matter how qualified they were.

Re asking for a pro-Reiki citation: again, you had made it clear that you did not consider skeptics (no matter how qualified) to be experts, and had treated Reiki.org as an "expert" source.

Re MEDRSs: As has been explained to you over and over, Reiki makes scientifically testable medical claims, and so requires evidence to support them.

Re the trilemma of WP:COI, WP:CIR, or WP:RGW: those are the only conclusions for why someone would continually try to prevent skeptical sources from being used, attempt to hide the obvious pseudoscience of Reiki, and stick their head head in the sand when proof of Reiki's pseudoscience is presented.

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This shows exactly the problem. What I was saying is not being heard. I said I learned my lesson: Talking to others about Eastern Healing practices on Wikipedia is a waste of my time. I will use extreme caution before doing it again. -David Tornheim (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Punishment Sought Does Not Reflect Allegations

Timeline

Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC): Action brought against me in retaliation for testying in DePiep's ANI.

Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC): Piles on with concerns about Reiki.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC): notifies me of this ANI

Jytdog 01:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC): apology for failure to serve me with proper notice

Ian.thomson asked that I be topic banned: "against all topics relating to health sciences (which would definitely cover GMOs, Glyphosate, Reiki, and Genetic engineering)"

However, I have never encountered this user at: Any of the multiple GMO pages, Glyphosate or Genetic engineering (see user interaction). In fact, the only place I encountered that user is at the RS forum on Reiki.

In Ian.thomson's initial complaint seeking this relief, he did not mention at any time any problems with my behavior at GMOs, Glyphosate or Genetic engineering. The relief of having me banned at those articles does match the allegations about Reiki. When asked, he was unable to show any new problems since the last ANI Jytdog brought against me. -David Tornheim (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Is mentioning something on a talk page or noticeboard that other editors consider “fringe” a sanctionable offense?

This is a serious question that I think ANI needs to attempt to address. I’ve seen cases where “fringe” appeared to be used as a witch-hunt of sorts. In my observation, this seems to occur most often on pages related to health, medicine, philosophy or spirituality. While I understand the need to require high quality sources for all article text, I fear the anti-fringe sentiment may be creating a NPOV issue on WP. There are legitimate debates in medicine, religion, philosophy, etc, and if editors fear sanctions for mentioning such debates in a neutral way, even such debates they may not personally agree with, I fear our articles might suffer in terms of NPOV. I've never even heard of Reiki before, so I cannot comment on how "fringey" it is, but I was struck by Dialectric's observation that David Tornheim never made any edits to article space regarding Reiki, but only apparently discussed it on talk pages/noticeboards [230]. However, I did not start this subsection to specifically debate Reiki, but rather to discuss the appropriateness of ANI complaints/sanction requests related to making talk page edits that seem to support something like Reiki, or alternately attempting to topic ban someone from evolution or philosophy if they say something on talk that might seems too pro inteligent design, etc. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Good question. Perhaps before entering Wikipedia we should be asked, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United Statesreceived a treatment in some Oriental 'Medicine' or practiced it or thought it was 'okay'?" McCarthyism :-) David Tornheim (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

See also: Orientalism -David Tornheim (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not just a question of WP:FRINGE. If an editor continually contributes to a Talk page in a way that advocates content counter to any of our WP:PAGs, despite being aware of them, and this becomes a time-sink for productive editors, then this pretty soon starts entering territory where sanctions may be desirable for the good of the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It really depends on if it's disruptive or not. If someone just says they think climate change is a hoax or something similar in passing, there's not really an actionable issue there. If they repeat that throughout a conversation on the article talk page and are trying to further a fringe viewpoint, that can become disruptive. If we're dealing with a non-problematic editor, they just don't get consensus on the talk page for fringe viewpoints everyone moves on. If it's more problematic, we'd focus on disruptive or advocacy-like behavior associated with the fringe viewpoints here at ANI. ArbCom has ruled on such topics a few times now that sanctions are fine for editors who are really here to push fringe views rather than write a serious encyclopedia. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

IF someone outright says that their goal for editing is to promote a specific view, they ought to be blocked or topic banned for a while to help them acquire a clue. If they repeat it later the blocks out to be progressively longer. The problem is, though, that it's easy for someone else to make an accusation and for that to be either in bad faith or wrong for whatever reason. For example, a number of people have turned to using "fringe" for things that are in no way fringe just to try to advance their bias in an article... I've seen it in science articles, history, recent news and elsewhere. But the blatant examples where it is admitted should be an immediate block so it doesn't waste the time of valued editors to undo what they are up to. DreamGuy (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Re distinction between WP:RSN and talk page: both determine article content, so the distinction is only in theory, not practice. Tornheim wasn't simply expressing belief in a fringe perspective on his userpage (as is anyone's right), he argued at length in multiple threads on a page that determines article content, in ways that would allow pro-Reiki sources to be presented as experts while preventing skeptical sources from being used. While the discussion was about Reiki, previous discussions at RSN are cited as precedent both there and on article talk pages for similar topics.

Re blocking promotionalism: Few people are stupid enough to admit that that's why they're here, but there are plenty of folks who come here with that intention but lie about it, and there are more people who are only capable of pushing a POV even if they do not admit so to themselves.

Also, Tornheim, your accusations of Orientalism and McCarthyism need evidence. You are the one who is pretending that anyone from outside the west doesn't use science-based medicine, so you are the one orientalizing. As for McCarthyism, I am not going after someone because they happen to hold a different view point, I'm pointing out to everyone that you've argued at length in a way that would skew articles toward a fringe perspective. I am opposed to your behavior, and if you want to accuse me of attacking you for having different beliefs, you'd have to admit that you do believe in Reiki. Notice that I didn't bring up Dr. Fleischman. Heck, if you want to accuse me of persecuting anyone for their beliefs, you'd have an easier time arguing I persecute my co-religionists than anyone else. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban from agriculture and health-related topics

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

---

Ian proposed a topic ban due to David's behavior. I will get the ball rolling here.Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. per demonstrated lack of competence and violations of WP:PSCI, WP:BATTLEFIELD, and WP:CAMPAIGNING; not to mention WP:IDHT after having been warned at last ANI. Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Given the extraordinary editing at the Reiki Talk page (in the diffs above), this is certainly warranted for health-related topics. Alexbrn (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC); edited 12:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Alexbrn: What would be the length of that topic ban? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
• As discussed above, David cannot have done 'extraordinary editing at Reiki' as he has made no edits to that article page.Dialectric (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• @OccultZone: long enough to have a chance of getting to know the on-point policies; a month maybe. @Dialectric: have clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs)

He has tried to shift the direction of the article on other pages, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Classic content dispute. Where we see Jytdog yet again at the AN/I to get an editor blocked on an article he is editing where the other editor disagrees with the direction the article is going. The diff's are all on AN/I where we are pointed to diff's that question Jytdog's motives. But AN/I is the place to raise such issues. AlbinoFerret 12:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

What about the Reiki advocacy? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That is also a content dispute. You have collected talk page diff's showing that someone disagrees with the direction of the article. The talk page is exactly the place where those discussions should happen. This whole section appears to be an attempt to win a content dispute by removing the opposing view. AlbinoFerret 17:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Albinoferret, you just ducked a topic ban by voluntarily agreeing to stay away, per thread above. I don't think you understand the difference between behavioral issues and content disputes. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Time to Respond to Complaint? -- I said earlier that I had planned to write a response to ian.thomson's allegations and that I needed more time here (on 01:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)). I have put hours into writing that response. I have not edited on any of the articles in question since DiPiep's ANI--only here on the AN/I board and on one user's talk page. It has been less than 24 hours. What is this rush to judgment that Jytdog is pushing to have me topic banned based on allegations I have not had a chance to respond to yet? Are we assumed guilty until proven innocent? David Tornheim (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

it is a behavior thing. it doesn't matter why. you have done what you have done. you were warned to stop the battleground behavior and you went right ahead with it. you have advocated for pseudoscience all over the place. you have demonstrated lack of competence, all over the place, and although made a move to get mentored, you have blown that off. those are all demonstrated behaviors. this is about behavior. it is really simple. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with AlbinoFerret. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I am One of Many - what should the community do about David's continued campaigning and attacks against me? I can respect you not !voting for this answer, but I would like the community to stop this behavior. He has already been warned and he blew right past that. I am not asking you to change your !vote, I am asking for your thoughts on the problem. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

and please see my note to Albino above. Not a good !vote to pin yours onto. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog: Shouldn't we be asking those same question about your behavior? The reason I am here at this ANI is because I warned DiPiep to stand down because you would take him to ANI and cause serious drama for him--which you did--and because I made correct observations at that ANI about your behavior, isn't it? Let's talk about how to deal with your behavior, shall we? My comments about you are about your behavior and are not personal. Did I ever insult you? Others, like the dispute immediately below mine observe it too. And your apologies ring hollow. What are you doing to do about it? And again, isn't the reason I am here because I pointed out problems with your behavior--not because of content? David Tornheim (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This seems to be happening only because David tried to help DiPiep. Jytdog, please take a break from proposing sanctions. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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

MOS issues

2602:306:BD44:2300:21D0:5163:1F7F:3DE4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This IP user is making mass changes against template MOS, not heeding warnings, not discussing their changes. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the editor made one change to each of the current members of Def Leppard, adding instruments, you reverted, they stopped. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks alleged (restored from archive, needs close)

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

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

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

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))

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

So the first dif is "User:AlbinoFerret claims "You have not discussed one edit in the 19k characters you inserted."[231] But I did discuss sources User:AlbinoFerret deleted.[232] The response was "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[233] That is not a specific objection for excluding relevant information. User:AlbinoFerret is not here to improve this page IMO. how is deleting numerous reliable sources improving this page? QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)"

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

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

• This comment "WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless" by User:AlbinoFerret makes me wonder if a topic ban WP:Boomerang would be useful though. See how consensus is that WHO is one of the best medical sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Bringing concerns to a noticeboard is what they are for [234]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd agree with considering a temp TBAN. I had a discussion with AF on my talk page awhile back [235] about them being too locked-in to the topic and not being able to step back. Looking at the current situation I do think it would be helpful to both AF and the topic if they had a break. The previous ANI on AF specifically said there was no consensus at the time on an action, but that is very different from saying there wasn't a behavior problem. I think AF definitely has the potential to approach things more evenly (this conversation did give me some hope), but they really need to step out of their single topic and get experience in less contentious topics since their posting history looks like a WP:SPA right now.Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Block for QuackGuru

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.[236] 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 [237] 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 [238][239].) At least User:John gets it; [240] from your comments, most of the rest of you admins don't. OK, enough. The double standard is sickening, and the tone-deafness to disability just makes me numb with rage. Great job, people. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC) copy-edited 13:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Striking; my intent with hatting was to strike the whole thing, but now that I'm striking so as to be exactly clear about my intentions, I'll leave one part.01:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@ Ched - I too had the impression that QG was fundamentally benign for some time until I saw his mean side. For example, WP:DICK, mocking other editors: Mallexikon: "I think you clarified this very nicely.'; Quackguru: "I think I clarified this very nicely.". He's also held a grudge toward me that started after I co-signed an RfC on him (which was concurrently brought with a thread at AN). Since then it's been POKE and BATTLEGROUND (below) despite multiple olive branches attempts [241][242][243][244] (which he just deletes from his user talk).

• Wikistalking: 10 petty examples [245]
• GAME-y/KETTLE accusations: characterizing edits I made as bad when he did the same thing [246]
• Repeated, baiting, disingenuous "questions" about COI despite an explanation right in my signature line (Middle 8 (contribs • COI)) and multiple good-faith answers: (asked | answered twice); (asked); (asked | answered).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose ArbCom action should be undertaken. There has been much contentious editing from all sides. Blocking isn't going to resolve the issues. Jim1138 (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The question of why this has not been elevated long before this... Jim1138 (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

• Oppose Agree with Doc James and Jytdog. And I'm not asserting Quackguru has done nothing wrong! But yes, this is whipping up hysteria over a stupid comment. Cloudjpk (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose Has been warned [247] And has acknowledged. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can get as annoyed as the next person with QG, but this does not merit a block (at least not one more than 24 hours); a warning (if anything) would suffice. Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

• (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)

• 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)
  • 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))

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Any open-minded uninvolved editor will see precisely what I mean, despite your Wikilawyering. BMK (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

"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". [248] --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 04:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC) added P.S. 05:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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". [249]. 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)

Middle 8, I'm not sure if you've seen the conversation starting after this comment by AlbinoFerret [250], 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)

@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)

No, I just dont like numbers and innuendo being used to discredit me. AlbinoFerret 17:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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

Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret

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

---

User:AlbinoFerret is making a lot of comments and edits to e-cig related pages. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/AlbinoFerret&offset=&limit=500&target=AlbinoFerret See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:AlbinoFerret for previous behaviour issues. AlbinoFerret tried to hide Environmental impact section from a reliable source from the page. He eventually tried to delete some of the text.[252][253][254][255][256] AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources.[257][258][259][260][261][262][263][264] AlbinoFerret claims "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[265] But AlbinoFerret has not given a specific reason to exclude relevant information about safety. WP:COMPETENCE is not the issue IMO. AlbinoFerret has turned the e-cig pages into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. AlbinoFerret is not the only problematic editor at these pages. Some of the e-cig enthusiasts are not here to improve the e-cig pages. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#E-cig_editors for background information on this. Something needs to be done to prevent this from happening over and over again. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hatting discussion no longer relevant with indef blocking of sock BMK (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
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) 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) 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) User:Beyond My Ken, InfiniteBratwurst is actually CheesyAppleFlake. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:CheesyAppleFlake. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC) comment removed per WP:EVADE QuackGuru if there is a case to be made, please make it at WP:SPI and post here. Otherwise please don't add distraction. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Yup once you have SPI confirmation you can discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC) BMK, you've been around since 2009 (aren't you an admin, and weren't you an Arb?) At any rate why are you still this rankly clueless about commenting on content not contributors? Is NPA just deprecated? You've done this before [266] -- what is your problem? You know very well that some editors make CLEANSTART accounts and that is their business. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC) @Middle8. Wrong on every count. I've had an account here since June 2005, started editing shortly before that as an IP (see this for the thumbnail of my history). I've never been an admin (perish the thought!), don't want to be an admin, will almost uncertainly never be an admin, and would be an absolutely lousy admin if someone forced me to do it. And, of course, I've never been an Arbitrator. I have no idea who you are thinking of, but it ain't me. Comment on content, not contributors? Sure, in general, great concept, but this is the place where the community examines behavior, and not just the behavior of the subject of the thread. If someone pops up to comment with an editing history that looks very much like they're a SPA, or have a COI, edit with a distinct POV to push, are someone's sock, or were canvassed on- or off-Wiki to participate, those are facts that need to be brought forward, because they can (and should!) mitigate the value of that user's comment. It's completely valid to point that stuff out, and as long as people continue to take advantage of Wikipedia to promote whatever it is they're promoting, whether or not they're paid for it, I'm going to keep pointing it out. BMK (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC) BTW WP:CLEANSTART may be one of the most abused Wikipedia policies around. Any user who is making a clean start should be obligated to say so when questioned with good reason about their editing, and to report to a CU of their choice the name of their previous account to be checked to be sure they aren't evading a block or are a sockpuppet of a banned editor. A clean start should never be a license for serial misbehavior, which is what I'm afraid it most probably is utilized for. BMK (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC) 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)

• Support Whatever good AlbinoFerret does tending the electronic cigarette articles is outweighed by the persistent puffing-up of e-cigs as safer than apple pie. Since September 2014, AF has made 2000 talk page comments at the three e-cig articles, and 250 comments here at ANI—it's time to look for other topics. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

again hatting squabble between 2 main antagonists here Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
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.[267][268] This disruption of blanket reverts by A1candidate should not be allowed to continue. A1candidate, I recommend you take a voluntary short-term topic ban from the page. A1candidate, are you going to continue make blanket reverts? QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC) One might want to look at the size of the edits (18,711 characters) trying to edit in sources that were the topic of a (still ongoing) RFC. That at the time was almost 1/2 the size of the existing page. The comments on the edits were directing people to the talk pages. This wasnt blanket removal, this was a few editors (QuackGuru, CFCF, and Cloudjpk) trying to force a mammoth edit on the page during a discussion of the sources used. Looking at the history makes it all the more clear. This is purely a content dispute. Where one side wants to discuss things, and others just want to get it in. AlbinoFerret 18:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Remember the talk page discussion? I wrote "User:AlbinoFerret, you were asked "Are there issues with the sources or the summary of said sources?" So far you have not specifically explained which new sources are a concern to justify your blanket revert and there is a clear consensus for the the positions of the organisations."[269] You repeatedly deleted a number of sources including reviews without any logical reason. User:AlbinoFerret, do you agree you are going to stop making blanket reverts? QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC) @QuackGuru, please stop making these baseless accusations against me. I'm surprised that you would want to enforce a "voluntary short-term topic ban" on me, given that I have made minimal contributions to this the article so I am not sure what that would achieve. -A1candidate 18:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC) @QuackGuru, This is a constant problem, WP:IDHT. I answered you why I thought a press release was not usable. link and that sources that are WP:Tertiary should not be used for medical content. These sources (the subject of your second set of diffs) were already on a sister page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Where they are appropriate, this isnt removing content and blocking, but a discussion on the location WP:ONUS. This is a fine point of WP, and I dont think you get. Your link to a blanket revert is part of the mammoth edit I posted on a reply ago, You made an almost 20000 character edit to a controversial page with no discussion, after planning it for almost a month in a sandbox without discussing it at any time. Again taking WP:Tertiary sources from the sister page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Where they have never been removed. If you look in the edit comments, you will see I quoted WP:CAUTIOUS and noted that no discussions have happened. There is even a talk page section started by me on the topic. AlbinoFerret 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

distraction; not focused on Albino's behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))

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

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

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

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)

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

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

I understand what you're saying, Jytdog. (And it's interesting how many of the editors who contributed so tenaciously to the loss of focus in the QG RfC are suddenly so able to stay focused on AF, yet lose focus when it comes to QG. One would almost think there was systemic bias afoot.) Looking at the merits: Which diffs? Going from QG's thread-starter, the two links to ANI threads are weak [270][271] Re QG's other diffs: Just because AF removes stuff QG added is not prima facie evidence of misconduct -- far from it; I see a lot of UNDUE. AF's removing the WMA however is not good. And I see a pattern of OWN in both QG and AF, worse in QG. Is that it? Where can I find a good, concise summary of the most obvious diffs? Or maybe you or someone could just paste in the five worst ones? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 16:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Jytdog, your example (of AF writing about pharma companies lobbying to have e-cigs treated as medical devices) would indeed be a compelling instance of twisting a source [272] (just as Mallexikon showed QG did with GERAC, which you were one of the only editors to grok). Except: AF explains [273] (supported with diffs) that the passage they wrote was originally sourced to a different source [274] that the passage indeed summarized accurately. (I don't care for his ABF-ing and calling your characterization "twisting" of what happened, but they wouldn't be the first to run hot under pressure on a drama board.) I'll keep looking. If there's a smoking gun -- besides fighting over including WMA, which is bad, but alone not imo worth a ban either -- I'm not seeing it. I see general TE (which is at least as bad with QG); I don't see it as over the top: is this a situation like QG where those who know AF well gnash their teeth in frustration but have so far failed to build a strong case? If not, can you help, and point me to the good evidence? It's a lot to go through. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 20:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

yeah the thing about lobbying was really frustrating. [[275] his original source] was an opinion piece and of course we prefer straight reporting over opinion pieces (he could have cited the opinion piece, attributing it, yes). but what we really got my goat was that the NYT reporting (the more reliable source) was unambiguous in emphasizing the victory of the e-cig lobbyists. so twisted. and adding the rhetorically self-righteous stuff about the COI of pharma with their lobbyists... when all lobbyists are nakedly self-interested. just... argh. on that whole thing. But of a piece with the pattern of relentless pro-e-cigarette editing. its the pattern. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

side discussion that went sideways and has become distracting in-fighting Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
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) 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": [276]; those are MEDRS, and you really should know that by now. Sorry, but MEDRS is one thing I don't IAR on. Take a break (short I hope) and come back, and grok MEDRS and try to take to WP:OPPONENT to heart and lung. Wishing you well. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 00:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Middle_8 You may want to look closely at the World Lung Federation, at the top of the page is a gold bar clearly labelling it a press release. I am not the only editor that was against using WP:Tertiary sources for medical claims. There is even a ongoing RFC on the subject. Until that edit they had only been used on the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes sister page, both of which were one time part of the Health section of Electronic cigarette, split off at the same time by Doc James. Up until QG's edit there was a defacto standard/agreement of only using reviews for medical claims on e-cig pages (read the first link), thats why the RFC was started. AlbinoFerret 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC) There NEVER was a consensus to use only using reviews for medical claims on e-cig pages. We don't have different rules for e-cig pages. There is a long standing WP:CON to include other sources including WHO, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the World Lung Foundation. See Electronic_cigarette#Position_of_medical_organizations. Also see Electronic_cigarette#Harm_reduction for other sources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that are not reviews. User:AlbinoFerret, claiming that only reviews can be used for medical claims runs against WP:MEDORG. The RfC resulted in WP:SNOW. See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Positions. You also deleted other sources including a formal policy statement. After you could not delete the reliable source you then added context that was inappropriate.[277][278][279] See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_1#Original_research_2. You, User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, and User:Levelledout appeared to be against using the formal policy statement written in a peer-reviewed journal for medical claims. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_21#Policy_Statement_from_the_American_Association_for_Cancer_Research_and_the_American_Society_of_Clinical_Oncology. Your last edit to the safety page was to delete even more sources including a number of reviews. So what is your reason to make a full revert back to an old version while delete a number of sources including reviews? We want to know the WP:TRUTH. QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC) The facts are clear as can be, if anyone looks at the article when it was copied over from the Electronic cigarette article. Before you started editing it on your own because of the activity on the main page kept us busy. You started adding non review quality sources for medical claims. You will notice that reviews and formal policy statements in peer reviewed journals (review quality) are all that existed. AlbinoFerret 02:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Let's review according to your diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625 See WHO: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-WHOPosition2014_8-0 See US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-FDA_nitrosamines_13-0 See The UK National Health Service https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-nhs_17-0 These sources are not reviews but they are reliable according to WP:MEDORG. QuackGuru (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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))

• 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)
• 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).

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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))

• (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)
• 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)

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))

• 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)

Here's the same data presented in a different way:

• AlbinoFerret: 1641
• QuackGuru: 630
• Doc James: 490
• Levelledout: 233
• Zad68: 203
• CFCF: 151
• Formerly 98: 148
• Cloudjpk: 141 (note: fixed)
• Jytdog: 91 (note: fixed)
• EllenCT: 84

 

• A1candidate: 22
• Johnuniq: 13
• InfiniteBratwurst: 10 (relatively new w/ 77 total edits)
• Kingofaces43: 3 (RFC and RSN post replies)

 

• AniMate: 0
• Atsme: 0
• BoboMeowCat: 0
• BMK: 0
• Bishonen: 0
• Cardamon: 0
• Collect: 0
• Cullen328: 0
• John: 0
• JzG: 0
• Kevin Gorman: 0
• Middle 8: 0
• RexxS: 0
• Robert McClenon: 0
• Softlavender: 0
• Two kinds of pork: 0
• Winkelvi: 0

BMK (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Actually, AF has been mentioning their disability in what appears to be justification for the editing habits not too far above. [280]. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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) 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

To clarify: I do not see policy violations to back up a ban. --Kim D. Petersen 11:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

hatting discussion no longer relevant with indef blocking of sock BMK (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
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) 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) 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) comment removed per WP:EVADE Keep telling yourself that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC) comment removed per WP:EVADE

• User:AlbinoFerret repeatedly added nowiki tags to the Electronic cigarette page 9 times. The first nowiki tag was on 17:12, 23 October 2014. The last nowiki tag was on 19:37, 20 December 2014. Not sure why this happened. QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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

• A1candidate: 22 - Oppose
• Johnuniq: 13 - Support
• InfiniteBratwurst: 10 (relatively new w/ 77 total edits) - Oppose (struck per WP:EVADE)
• Kingofaces43: 3 (RFC and RSN post replies) - Support
• AniMate: 0 - Very weak support
• Atsme: 0 - Oppose
• BoboMeowCat: 0 - Oppose via ANI
• BMK: 0 - Support
• Bishonen: 0 - Support
• Cardamon: 0 - Support
• Collect: 0 - Oppose
• Cullen328: 0 - Support

• Iwilsonp: 0 - Support
• John: 0 - Procedural oppose
• JzG: 0 - Support
• Kevin Gorman: 0 - Support
• Mendaliv: 0 - Support
• Middle 8: 0 - Support
• Opabinia regalis: 0 - Support
• RexxS: 0 - Support
• Robert McClenon: 0 - Oppose - Send to ArbCom
• Softlavender: 0 - Support
• Two kinds of pork: 0 - Oppose
• Winkelvi: 0 - no !vote

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)

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)

@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)

• Notification. I started an ArbCom discussion since this is going nowhere. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground on e-cig articles. QuackGuru (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• QuarkGuru archived this sub-thread, but I have re-opened it. Although he started this, it is not his property, and the views of many editors, both pro- and con- have been expressed, and should be evaluated collectively by an admin. Also, QG has a conflict of interest in that he opened an arbitartion request, which is unlikely to be heard as long as these threads are open. BMK (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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

KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret

Not helpful ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
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) 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) 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) Kim stated her "involvement" at the very beginning of her "oppose". I don't see what's to be gained by this sub-thread. — Ched :  ?  22:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Community authorized discretionary sanctions for Electronic cigarette articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Support. Although I suspect it will end up at WP:RFAR before it's over. — Ched :  ?  22:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• Oppose not sure this will help . Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• 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)

Sure thing! You're looking for Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community-authorised_sanctions. HiDrNick! 01:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That was very helpful. BMK (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per CFCF. BMK (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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).

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• Note. User:KimDabelsteinPetersen just declared a possible WP:COI. See User:KimDabelsteinPetersen#WP:COI statement. QuackGuru (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

How on Earth would that constitute a COI with regards to this discussion? --Kim D. Petersen 01:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• Notification. I started an ArbCom discussion. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground on e-cig articles. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(That request has since been declined.) HiDrNick! 12:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• 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)
• Support per AlbinoFerret. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• 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)

• Moot, since the topic ban thread was closed first. BMK (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• Maybe this question was asked before about sanctions in general. There might be some specific guidelines to follow. QuackGuru (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

• Support. This has been a battleground for months, and both sides are entirely convinced that they alone bear The Truth™. Add the toxic influence of WP:SPAs and a combination of vested financial interests, an intersection with pro-cannabis activism and outright craziness out there in the real world, and you have a perfect recipe for never-ending drama. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see a way around this. we can move quickly to quality editing of the articles and put some of this bureaucracy behind us. JodyB _talk 00:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support: The articles related to electronic cigarettes are basically a battleground. There are simply too many disputes without speedy resolution related to this topic, and disputes are not being resolved properly in this topic area. Esquivalience ^t 23:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment – I'm not sure whether sanctions will be established or not, but I've created a template page for you guys to get them up and running if it they are. The page is located at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Electronic cigarettes. If the sanctions are not approved, simply delete the page. Otherwise, fill the information as appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 23:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support for numerous reasons mentioned above and per AlbinoFerret.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• Oppose The editors at this article are not the problem. It is the subject itself that is controversial. Having discretionary sanctions in this article would not be effective because a significant number of single purpose accounts edit at this article. Applying sanctions on an article where highly experienced Wikipedians edit as single purpose accounts is not effective in controlling controversy because the editors using them are not invested in protecting the reputations associated with those accounts or in using them long-term to build an online identity. It can be right to use WP:SPAs, and I am not critiquing the use of WP:SPAs or suggesting that anything inappropriate, like socking, is even happening here. I am only suggesting that the Wikipedia community gives a bit more weight and protection to established users with established accounts with varied history of participation, as opposed to limited use accounts managed by talented editors. Sanctions is a tool for controlling established accounts, and not for SPAs. Its use here would would empower SPAs and disempower established accounts, which is not a desirable outcome in this space. Taking no action to control the e-cigarettes space is an acceptable response to the controversy. The controversy can persist in this space as it has been for months. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure I'm understanding the logic of those who write that the behavior in the topic area is bad, or that the subject area is controversial and generates SPAs, but then vote to oppose discretionary sanctions which would give admins the tools necessary to deal with bad behavior (from anyone) and to reign in the e-cig advocates. This is especially odd to me because if community-imposed discretionary sanctions are not implemented here, it's more then likely that someone will request an ArbCom case, which will be opened this time because the community has failed to act, and the result of that will almost certainly be, among other actions, ArbCom-imposed discretionary sanctions. So, in the end, the probability of there being discretionary sanctions for the e-cigarette topic area seems pretty high, in my opinion. BMK (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

You've already voted to support in your previous post. Why are you voting again? -A1candidate 09:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, my oversight. I've stricken it above. JodyB _talk 10:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. -A1candidate 23:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: And while we're discussing if sanctions should be enforced, QuackGuru is antagonizing a new group of editors at an unrelated topic area. -A1candidate 23:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Not relevant to this discussion. Start a new thread if you'd like. BMK (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• So far there is no broad consensus for the community-imposed sanctions. As a compromise we can try the DS for a month. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

(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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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 it's 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

• Support - Per Robert McClenon. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• 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)

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

Abuse of talk page despite block

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

---

User: MovieMax Media was blocked for spam and advertising. He has continued to post adverts on his talk page despite his block. Could an admin please revoke his talk page access and delete the promotional crap. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Clickhole

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

---

This article has just gone out on Clickhole. Can anybody who knows about bots or blacklists or whatever add "and them's the facts" as something new editors are not allowed to save? Is that even possible? Thank you. Trey Maturin (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it actually tue though? I did a search which only brought up one article (here) with the phrase. Although only a very cursory search I admit; but I don't think Clickhole is to be taken that seriously??? Well spotted though. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I just searched (Wikipedia search and Google advanced search limited to Wikipedia) and found nothing significant. Does anyone have a username for this editor who supposedly vandalized over 50,000 Wikipedia articles without being blocked? Until I see an edit history, I refuse to believe that such an unlikely thing ever happened. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• On edit: It's got to be a wind up. It's certainly not in the articles they list, and as for "doozy" etc-! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've found this, although CB appears to be catching them. Mdann52 (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

WT:EF may be a better place to add this - maybe a hoax, but we want to prevent this happening. Mdann52 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It's this user User:12.125.161.162; obviously just those few for the purpose of evidencing a spoof article. All got reverted sharpish. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is clearly a joke (it is Clickhole, after all), but it'll likely spawn some puerile copycat stupidity, so an edit filter is probably a good idea. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Well, it's an Onion piece, so most likely the editor doesn't really exist, but this is still fairly likely to attract vandals. Ivanvector (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Also Grantkirkhope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The issue isn't "this article documented someone doing a thing", because it's Clickhole, but rather "people might do the thing after reading this article." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

An edit filter has already been updated to catch (most of) this silliness. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, should've been clearer - my point was the same as made by Roscelese (talk · contribs), not that it was already happening. Apologies for the vagueness. Trey Maturin (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

And we have the first taker Yourbamf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Amortias (T)(C) 18:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Instant block? The edit filter needs a kick too!!!_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC

Will throw an editing test warning as I'll AGF and assume he saw this and wanted to test the edit filter. Amortias (T)(C) 18:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threats at Quora

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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,[281], ruin Steven's career[282] regarding weird claims about collusion between Wikimedia and Quora to manipulate stock prices or some other crazy talk.[283] 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)

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)

Just idle curiosity, but why would they want to do that, JodyB? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean why would the person make these threats? Steven Walling • talk 21:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@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)

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)

Now socking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sock blocked, article semi'd. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@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)

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

POV tag pushing by Tobby72

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

---

• Page: Donetsk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Reported user: Tobby72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above mentioned user continues to push to put POV tags on the Donetsk People's Republic article. It includes this, this, and this. These are just a few examples (there are several more shown in the article's history). There has been many attempts to resolve the issue on the article's talk page, but no consensus has been reached. This has been going on since February, and I and several others feel that this is not behavior other than his own DONTLIKEIT and pointy behavior. It shows some abuse of editing priveleges, and therefore, this needs to stop. Thanks. McDonald of Kindness ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There aren't a lot of editing behaviors I find more tiresome than the repeated and tendentious use of "shame tags" by editors with extreme minority opinions/POVs who can't or won't come to any sort of consensus. It's a cheap way for certain "contributors" to the project to mar and discredit sourced and otherwise unobjectionable content because they just don't like it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What you said that was "tiresome" is exactly what the editor reported in this report is doing. McDonald of Kindness ^{(talk • contributions)} 03:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Tobby72 hasn't edited in 2 days, so this might be closed as stale. We'll just have to see if he resumes the pushing of that POV tag. McDonald of Kindness ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Mass changes to Jewish educational Categories tonight

Please see [284]. 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)

• I have just explained my edits on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Mass changes to Jewish educational Categories tonight. --Glovacki (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• About me "not knowing what a rabbinic seminary is"... Page Rabbinical seminary redirect to Yeshiva and for them exist Category:Yeshivas. We can discuss coincide the notions of Rabbinical seminary and Yeshiva fully or not, but it does not matter for this case. --Glovacki (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• P. S. I also think that Rabbinical seminary should be redirecting not to Yeshiva, but to Jewish seminary. But better discuss it first. --Glovacki (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

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

• Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as Checkuser and Oversighter to continue after his term on the Audit Subcommittee expires

• Mike V (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as Checkuser and Oversighter.

• Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as a Checkuser.

• The following users are appointed as Oversighters:

• GB fan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Keilana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kelapstick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Lankiveil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

• The Committee thanks J.delanoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for his years of service as a Checkuser, who has recently resigned from the role.

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)

Discuss this

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Legal Threat at Paris Violence

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

---

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

Indef'ed by User:Orangemike. DMacks (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Civility Concerns re: Patroller Lukeno94 (with evidence)

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

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) 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) 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.

Ongoing problem with anonymous editor

I've hesitated a few times about posting a request for help here, but I feel the editing/talk patterns of an anonymous editor on several of the articles pertaining to particle physics requires some attention. I'll cite 3 pages as examples: Bohr magneton, Neutron, and what prompts this request Neutron magnetic moment The trouble is documented, IMO, on the talk pages to these articles. The editor works under several anonymous IP addresses and it surely seems to me exploits this ambiguity (sock puppetry). On the magnetic moment page, IP nos 193.231.X.X, 5.15.X.X have been used. The talk page for neutron has other IP numbers; to good approximation all those anonymous IPs are one person, seems to me. On the neutron talk page ("Dimensional inconsistency") the editor denies it is one editor, which seems strikingly false. As you can see from the dialog there, the editor attempted a "word dump" of nonsensical gibberish in an attempt to keep some weasel words in a section from being removed. This is one reason why I post here - there seems little sense in responding/talking to the editor; that's like adding gas to the fire. The editor regularly pushes peculiar POVs, in particular he wants to challenge the (well accepted) quark model for hadrons. I cite the Bohr magneton article because it sure seems to me the editor attempted to rename this physical constant to the Bohr-Procopiu magneton, ignoring the Talk discussion from several editors about it. I recently changed back the article to greatly downplay this renaming effort. These IP addresses are all from Romania. The editor has been around WP for quite some time, not a novice, yet still seems to perceive this encyclopedia as a general forum for establishing or challenging scientific facts. On the Talk:James_Chadwick page this editor (c.f., neutron talk page for same 79.119.X.X IP) suggested that Chadwick was not the discoverer of the neutron; another theme of the editor, out-of-the-way people needing to be properly credited for discoveries long attributed to better-known people. The editor seems to edit in good faith, but he is an aggressive, if not abusive, editor. The editor refuses to open a proper account, though he has been requested to do so. (And I see the editor has just now reverted me again to include a bibliography entry in Romanian on the Neutron magnetic moment page.) Help? Thx, Bdushaw (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No need for this inflammatory or tendentious(?) noticeboard involvement. Bdushaw, familiarize yourself with WP:NONENG before stating that I reverted you again on using foreign languages (Romanian and Russian) sources that are to be cited.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I was not involved in the issue on the Bohr-Procopiu magneton (which I see is old stuff) issue mentioned by Bdushaw, who by the way, seems to have a bias against non-English scientists, including the biased comments against Dmitri Ivanenko.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Another remark is that user Bdushaw seems to have something against IP's from Romania.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I see another imputation to me: the suggestion that Chadwick was not the discoverer of neutron, which seems to be a twisting of aspects presented on that talk page which is attested in other languages Wikipedias on Chadwick.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Since I introduced this complaint, there has been a blossoming fight with the usual endless gibberish-logic on the Talk:Neutron_magnetic_moment page. All over a silly book in Romanian the editor wants to put on the Neutron_magnetic_moment page, against all rhyme or reason. It is this endless argument, time and time again, that is the reason for the post here. This behavior is not acceptable - it drives editors away (including me). When one hesitates about editing out of fear it might offend this anonymous editor, something is amiss. See also the User_talk:Jonathan_A_Jones page; Jones has recently valiantly tried to contribute, but has encountered the usual (abusive, IMO) nonsense. IMO the anonymous editor certainly exploits the multiple, constantly changing IPs to abuse the Wikipedia process; there are levels and levels of duplicity, seems to me. Bdushaw (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The lines above are Bdushaw's wishfull thinking. Bdushaw, if you don't like content suggestions proposed by the IPs, this is not a reason to obstruct the improvement of content by resisting the requests for adding details that helps to conceptual clarification.--5.15.29.207 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree with Bdushaw about the IP editor: a clear case of WP:IDONTHEAR. The various IPs are obviously all the same person (they all resolve to the same provider, and the similarities of style are crystal clear). Whether he's hopping deliberately or not is uncleatr to me, but he certainly seems to enjoy the ambiguity it provides. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

These are ridiculous aspects. Focus on improving the content, not on who is making the suggestions(the IPs whether the same or different person should not be discriminated). I think it is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT the content suggestions.--5.15.29.207 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) So, any action on this...? Seems concerting... --IJBall (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I notice that the implicated IP(s) is insensitive to the opinions and requests of others, is disruptive and writes much that is nonspecific and disparaging. This has a disruptive effect on the efforts of well-intentioned editors. This reaction on my talk page to a routine notification is completely out of place. Administrative sanction may be appropriate. —Quondum 04:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I was beginning to think this issue was winding down, and perhaps that was the end of it...but now we have this latest entry to the Neutron magnetic moment talk page: diff. This seems to me a laughable sock puppet. 193.231.X.X has been a contributor to the Neutron talk pages. I don't think I know enough about the mechanics of Wikipedia to be able to suggest a remedy. Bdushaw (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible disruptive vote-stacking and sock editing at AfD

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. Infact, 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)

BMMW and the IP have used the same edit summaries on other article.[285][286] Usually they update the results. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Those !votes would be ignored by the admin closing the AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

Anyone want to take a look into this? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

User continues to censor Murder of Selena

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)

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)

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)

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)

Problems with User: Shivanshsinghrajpoot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)

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)

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)

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

Could do with some admin assistance.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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 blatently obvious sock accounts I have ever seen or something else entirely. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The page should be deleted under CSD U2 because User:Doruk Babalık doesn't exist. Epic Genius (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

So it's simply an alternative name for your account? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

I'll remove the CSD request now, if you can create the account. Epic Genius (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

I deleted it WP:G7 and WP:U2 based on the above statement. -- GB fan 15:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@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)

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

Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese) — Take Two

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

Massive multi-party disruption at Syriac/Assyrian/Chaldean-related ethnic articles

Fellow admins: the situation of multi-party POV warring on Assyrian-related articles is out of control. Background info: this is about a group of minority populations in Syria and Iraq, whose diaspora communities are riven by deep-seated infighting between rival ethno-religious factions, regarding their preferred appellations and the preferred ancient peoples ("Assyrian", "Aramean", "Chaldean") upon whose alleged inheritance they build their claims of "identity". There have been constant petty naming wars ever since the beginnings of Wikipedia. It has always been the case that virtually every user who ever took an interest in editing the topic was a member of one of the rival factions and here to pursue their pet agenda; editing from all sides of this mess has been equally bad. In recent months the disruption has reached new heights. There have been at least three massive sockfarms fighting each other for several months. I just blocked half a dozen accounts the other day; new accounts and IPs sprang up immediately. Just yesterday I took great pains in explaining to all involved that a certain contentious quotation (about which they had all been edit-warring) was indeed demonstrably a fake (as one of the factions had been claiming) [287]; today I find the quote re-inserted into yet another article yet again by yet another new IP [288].

I need more eyes on all the articles involved, especially:

• Assyrian people
• Assyrian continuity
• Assyrian
• Terms for Syriac Christians
• Name of Syria
• Arameans
• Michael the Syrian

... but there are many others into which this mess has spilled over, basically any page related to this group, their name or their various ancient homelands.

I don't know what to do. There are no "good" versions to revert to, because whenever you remove one side's tendentious crap, you are only reinstating the equally tendentious crap of the others. Normally, I would ask for discretionary sanctions, but those will be of little use: DS arrangements are for protecting potentially constructive editors and giving them a safe space to work in by shutting the disruptive elements out – but here we have nothing but disruptive elements.

Unless others have better ideas how to deal with this, I'm thinking of applying the radical "Liancourt Rocks"-type strategy: stub all the affected articles down to a skeleton version or delete them outright, fully protect the lot of them for half a year, and allow gradual rebuilding only through edit requests to be vetted by uninvolved competent editors on the talkpage.

Ideas? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Why does the Liancourt Rocks page blank my screen???? Just curious. It doesn't now. Odd! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

On the face of it this looks like a good strategy for certain intractable problem pages. I have a question. Could you give us a brief overview of how well the strategy worked on the Liancourt Rocks page? Has this strategy been used anywhere else? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Fut.Perf's Liancourt Rocks option and full protection sounds like a good idea, we'll just have to monitor the onslaught of edit requests but, at least the pages will begin to grow objectively. Also some kind of guideline for blocking repeated frivolous edit requests. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks-related articles have been on my watchlist for years and aside from brief flareups on talk pages, everything is quiet and stable now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that is the right solution. Such disputes mirror off-Wiki ethnic and religious controversies, and will not be resolved until the off-wiki issues are as well. If ever. Coretheapple (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a mess. I've tried to follow some of the discussions and it seems like outside editors can't participate without them being falsely identified as being affiliated with one ethnic side or the other. It's like the concept of neutral editors is not accepted by the primary parties. And there is also talk about Wikipedia cabals/cliques influencing the articles. It all discourages uninvolved editors from jumping in and editing. Some of the sources are also tainted by bias. This area needs editors knowledgeable about the Middle East field who have thick skins and can avoid being provoked into disputes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As Lt. Ripley once said: Nuke'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Fully support the Liancourt option here. It will bring some sanity to a very problematic area. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting how this totally unrelated dispute resembles, in a sense, the protracted dispute that is discussed in the "handling COI" discussion above. Different subject, similar issues. Coretheapple (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: I was thinking the very same thing when first reading the above COI discussion. Just a note, for editors adding Fut.Perf. list to thier watch, please add Mosul. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm not belittling the powerful views held on all sides in all these kinds of disputes. In fact, it's just because of the sincerity of such views that such disputes are so intractable.Coretheapple (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a obvious reason that the pages in this topic area need protection. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

User: RGloucester's disruptive behavior

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

---

RGloucester has begun to behave destructively in the article Second Battle of Donetsk Airport (WP:DISRUPT, WP:EDITWAR). At first, RGloucester removed a constructive edit (wikilink to the Donetsk bus shelling article) of one user together with a vandal edit of another user. The constructive edit was made in the article after the vandal edit, so, at first glance, it was looked as a coincidence, that RGloucester removed the constructive edit too. Therefore, RGloucester was warned on his/her user talk page to not involve other users with their constructive edits in his/her edit war with vandal users, that he/she could use removal of vandal edits as an excuse for hidden removal of others' constructive edits. However, RGloucester ignored the warning, and waited a vandal edit to appear, then he/she removed the vandal edit together with the constructive edit again. As you can see, the constructive edit was made before the vandal edit, so it was not a coincidence. RGloucester has purposely removed the constructive edit even after the warning. Because I am not going to start an edit war with RGloucester, I am sincerely ask the administrators to warn RGloucester for his/her destructive behavor, admit that the edit is constructive (wikilink to to the Donetsk bus shelling article) and return it back in the article.--85.140.223.188 (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This is very odd. I wasn't trying to revert the link, merely to get rid of the same rubbish blanking that I've been forced to revert for weeks. The link has already been restored. By the way, IP, who are you? RGloucester — ☎ 18:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right to ask, RG; it's a very procedurally detailed post for an inaugural edit (not counting one from seven years ago...) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I assume you want a comma after "ask". As to the IP, there is a Moscow-based IP-hopper editing the article, which would account for things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

He is not the only one edit warring, there are more than just 1 editor. Someone protect the page? SamuelDay1 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring has now stopped. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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

'Competence is required' issues with User:Mishae

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)

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)

• Per EdJohnston, a competence block may be necessary but I'd like to see what Mishae has to say. Blackmane (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
• Mishae should take temporary retirement from what he is currently doing, he should learn more, and avoid these circumstances. Per Blackmane, I would also hear Mishae. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

Before anything is done here I'd like to see what Mishae has to say. Caden ^cool 02:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• I see on his user page that Mishae has a box saying "This user is autistic". Not saying that's an excuse, but it could factor in his apparent inability to interact well with other people. Squinge (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  Ah, and he also says "I'm autistic, and I have cerebral palsy as well". Squinge (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

...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)

• 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)
  • Hi @Ryan Vesey: I personally decided that I should focus on archiving and content creation/improvement (like major editing) rather then 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)
  • 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)
    • 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 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)
      • @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)
        • 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)

@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)

A Quest For Knowledge

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?

[289]

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)

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)

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)

Also, weren't you banned from ANI, Bugs? jps (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No, he wasn't. BMK (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Shame, that. jps (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

What BLP violation? Caden ^cool 02:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

• Yeah, that's an unsourced negative statement about a living person, absolutely a WP:BLP violation. Don't call people assholes who are enforcing policy. Actually, don't do that at all. Ivanvector (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Are you serious? This is not an article. This is a talk page. jps (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's do a little experiment: "Tony Abbot has said stupid things." Is that a BLP violation?

Now: "Tony Abbot has said stupid things. [290]" 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)

(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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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

First warned in 2008 [291], 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)

Don't these jokes ever get old? --Jayron32 02:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'd have piped it like this: Jimbo Wales. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I can't tell you how many times I've had to warn this user to stop warning users. I have also had to warn other users to stop warning this user to stop warning users. bd2412 T 03:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I'm confused; the user had warnings on his/her talk page as recently as yesterday, but his/her contribution history shows no edits since 2008. Has s/he been editing under a different account or something? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Judging from the user's talk page, I can't think of a Wikipedia policy this user hasn't broken multiple times, just by existing... --Guy Macon (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

Qewr4231

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.[292][293][294] 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)

Links: Qewr4231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

The condo management association is a public website that anyone can view [295]. The information from Los Angeles Block Shopper is a public records website that anyone can view and use to search for properties [296]. These are public websites. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia can you please get Cyphoidbomb to stop harassing me? Qewr4231 (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

JoeM and Islam, a safe combination?

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

We've got a user who, after returning from a ban, is:

• Claiming that ISIL represents true Islam
• Announcing and carrying out plans to giving artificial validity to claims disproven by independent sources, in particular claims that the United State government plans on murdering its citizens, even using a completely false edit summary to try and sneak this conspiracy theory by.

The overwhelming majority of his edits today and yesterday focus on those two ideas. However, he's not a PR guy for Daesh. JoeM has a history of problematic edits to articles on politics and Islam. He's also got problems with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, in addition to some WP:CIR issues (as seen here and here).

The only conclusions I can reach are that JoeM is either a troll, here to use the site as a blog for his own personal bigotry, or not in a right frame of mind necessary to edit here. I challenge anyone to find a useful edit by him that meets WP:V.

At a minimum, I'm thinking that a topic ban from anything relating to politics and Islam is in order, if not a community ban for general WP:CIR when it comes to restraining their personal bigotry. Of course, I'll also completely support an indef block followed by a community ban discussion.

Ian.thomson (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I was waiting and giving him some WP:ROPE, but yes, his return does not look promising so far. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian, please assume good faith. I am open to discussing with everyone involved ways to improve articles on Islam and Islamic movements. My goal is to widen the discussion of present day issues in the article about Islam, which is weighted too much on pre-modern times. In articles on ISIS, I would like more emphasis on the religious doctrinal underpinnings of the movement. My goal is merely to make the realm of discussion more relevant and to write factual content.

In the meantime, as we work together, please assume good faith on my part; and I will do the same for you. Also, I think it's frankly unfair to bring up past issues when I started as a contributor over a decade ago. I behaved in a way I regretted; and I personally apologized to Jimmy Wales. I was young and still very emotional about the recent events of 9/11. JoeM (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits, then and now, are problematic. If you cannot see that, then I think you won't like it very much here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can assume good faith or competence, but not both. The diffs I've provided clearly show that you're here to push your own misunderstandings onto articles instead of neutrally sticking to academic and journalistic sources. I bring up your past behavior not as some sort of double jeopardy, but to show that you are incapable of learning from mistakes made a decade ago.

If emotion prevents you from being neutral in a topic, stay away from it. It's clear that you're overly emotional about the death panel myth and about ISIL. You should stay away from those topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not getting emotional about those topics now. As mentioned, my goal is to (1) widen discussion about modern Islam and modern Islamic movements in the Islam article and (2) to widen discussion about the doctrinal underpinnings of ISIS. I can see that even simple matter of fact statements can be thorny issues around here. So I will adjust my plans accordingly. I will instead see what people think about adding some respected scholarship that could widen the discussion in the ways I think are needed, such as the work of Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, etc-- all TRUE experts on Islam and the Arab world. JoeM (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The diffs I've linked to show what your intentions are, even if you retroactively white wash them as WP:Civil POV pushing to avoid trouble. You're certain you weren't getting emotional here or here?

Daniel Pipes spreads conspiracy theories about Obama being a Muslim, and is widely regarded as an propagandist by even the people who agree with him. That you cite him shows clear POV problems on your part. Besides that, there's the issue of WP:DUE weight. If their views were mainstream, they'd be supported by a wide variety of sources that would already be cited in those articles. Gee, wonder why you would want the article to reflect their views more, then.

The article on Islam does cover movements that are active in modern times. It does not cover movements that might just be a flash in the pan, like ISIL; nor does it promote such movements as being the true form of the religion. The article on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant does discuss their ideology and beliefs, and there's even an article on the Ideology of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Your edits clearly were not simply about that, but an attempt to equate Islam and ISIL, and create artificial balance between the death panel hoax and independent dismissal of said hoax. If we are going to expand it, we do so through citing mainstream journalistic or academic sources, instead of just repeating propaganda. That should have been a lesson you should have learned a decade ago.

This edit by you makes it hard to believe you know how to compromise. This edit by you makes your shift in tone on this page seem insincere. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of this guy, but just read up on his ban, and it seems he has exactly the same attitude towards editing Wikipedia that he had when he was banned ten years ago. He views Wikipedia as a tool for promoting views discredited or ignored by reliable sources in the interest of righting great wrongs. End it here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban from.... everything? I noticed this editor at Death panel, which is at an intersection of medical care and politics. Just read through his contribs of the past few days, there's only been 50 since he came back. They evidence fundamental problems with characterizing and representing sources properly, and with WP:WEIGHT. Adding (based on last few edits): WP:LEAD, WP:NOR and citing sources properly too. Sure, AGF and ROPE if you'd like but I think you'd just be postponing the inevitable by a few days. Zad68 01:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support He hasn't learned a thing. Edits made with the last couple hours: Misrepresentation of source, synthesis in lede, he's "sure", "scholarly source" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support - A site ban, this user has no regard for anything, save their POV. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Block review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)

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, [297]). 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)

• 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)

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)

• Huh? What's the problem here? The "have you stopped beating your wife yet" part? People, come oooon. That's not "a really shitty metaphor"; it's obviously the well-known standard example of a loaded question, clearly being used rhetorically/sarcastically. It is plainly obvious that Magog wasn't literally accusing Zero of beating his wife; he was merely charging him with using implicit presuppositions in a misleading way in his own statement. Come on, people, everybody can see this. I've seen this precise sentence used dozens and dozens of times used in exactly this rhetorical way in Wikipedian discussions for just this purpose [298]. Completely harmless statement; very bad block. Please unblock immediately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you FPAS for confirming the content of rev-deleted diff, we have also got a redirect called, Do you still beat your wife. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks Future Prefect, I've unblocked, never heard it used like that before. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Among native English speakers, that's pretty much the only way it's used, nowadays at least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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.Zero^talk 09:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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 preceeding 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)

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)

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)

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)

• Support Darla Vise-Eye's self-proposed indef ban, per WP:NOTHERE and WP:NPA. This is ridiculous. For what it's worth, ASHRAE defines acceptable indoor temperatures as 68-74°F winter, 73-79°F summer ([299]). Ivanvector (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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

Stolen pieces of Wikipedia logo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)

Yawn. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have them. I borrowed them a while back and forgot to return them. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Pretty bold to confess that here, Skame. That's like wearing red and standing in front of the bull wiggling your bottom. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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

Immediate block request of User:Saint Kohser

Now at RFAR Spartaz Humbug! 18:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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) An admin, Fred Bauder, has requested that the user remain unblocked so that they may be allowed to correct the errors they've introduced. This seems a reasonable request if that is indeed what they're doing now. [300] Swarm we ♥ our hive 17:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC) An admin can not determine to override arbcom sanctions. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC) 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) It seems the most sensible decision, I can't find any way of figuring out what the vandalism was otherwise. Reverting the talk page posts is a good idea though, per WP:DENY. Sam Walton (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC) see [[301]]. Thats from the illustrious committee. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC) "A user who nonetheless chooses to do so accepts full responsibility for the consequences of the material so restored." I accept full responsibility for reverting vandalism. Sam Walton (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Ultimately we're administrators of an encyclopedia and the encyclopedia is our first priority. Again, there are rules but we're given flexibility under them. Swarm we ♥ our hive 17:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC) 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) To Arbcom we will go then.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC) WP:BOOMERANG On Hell in a Bucket. For effectively vandalising multiple articles for no good reason, other than seeking punishment of a banned editor.[302] [303] [304] [305] [306] Reverting vandalism is labelled as an obvious exception in WP:BANREVERT. Bosstopher (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC) “ The fixes should not be reverted. The talkpage comments can be. Newyorkbrad ” User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Hell in a bucket has now resorted to incivility and personal attacks at ArbCom. Swarm we ♥ our hive 18:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Who id I attack, I said holy fuck. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Uh, you blatantly attacked me in your edit summary. Blatantly. Swarm we ♥ our hive 18:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC) 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)

Editor making bulk changes against consensus

Serpren (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has for some time been making bulk changes to UK placenames. I informed him [307] on his talk page that per this consensus, it's very clear that bulk changes of this type should cease. This was in many cases mopped up by an admin (User:Redrose64), but Serpren has continued. I reverted him in a number of cases, but he has just reverted back.

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

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

I now see he actually reported me for vandalism [308] 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)

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)

If I may add, Serpren's haste to make these changes has introduced geographic or grammatical errors into at least a couple of articles ([309] [310]). 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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for your input, admins – sorry I had to repost the whole thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

Archiving matter at User:Proxima Centauri's talk page

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[ 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)

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)

(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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Trouble with User:Binksternet

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

---

Binksternet (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been attempting harrassment and edit-warring over the last three days: [311], repeating: [312], now stalking and systematically reverting: [313] + [314], [315] + [316], [317] + [318], and finally, a baseless attempt at cyberbullying: [319] - 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: [320]. 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)

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)

 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)

Agree with Andy Dingley. Totally legit reverts. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

 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)

• What I'm seeing with this user is a combative person who has probably been blocked and is now using various IPs to evade the block. At the Jessica Barth biography, the IPs that have been edit-warring are the original poster, 2001:7e8:c676:ae01:230:48ff:fed7:4cd7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 117.218.50.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which appears to be an open proxy from India. Another article of focus is Mercator (retail), which is significant because it is a little-seen topic. At the Freed from Desire article, the warring IPs include the original poster plus 218.71.140.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from China. A related IP is 2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), working on the same articles. Another IP is from Brazil, working on the Mercator article and using the same types of edit summaries: 200.145.14.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). So we have a tech-savvy person here, experienced with Wikipedia, edit warring and working Wikipedia's various levers to try and get preferred content into articles, using global IPs. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

 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: [321] here: [322], and you still weren't satisfied so you completely reverted all my edits again: [323]. 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)

(EDIT:) Also, no mention of Gloria (Umberto Tozzi song) and Love Shack outside my own talkpage: [324]. 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)

(EDIT 2:) I suspect this is what triggered the reported editor to take his gloves off: [325] + [326], which is only 12 hours away from the beginning of his attack: [327]. 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)

Move to close. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Agreed! If nobody is willing to do anything about all this (as I previously suspected: [328]), 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)

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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." [329] From discussions at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors [330] 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)

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)

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)

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)

A misunderstanding of the meaning of a word is not an outright lie, no.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

You'll see that I have explained.—chbarts (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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).
    • 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)
      • We get it. You are not a big fan of the traditions on Wikipedia for April Fools' fun. Why so serious? Or maybe you are joking around by being so serous. QuackGuru (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sure. :P --TMCk (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

Poor howcheng. Only Emperor for a day and nobody even liked his frock. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

On a related note

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 devasation 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)

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)

Thank you for the explanation. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe could ask howcheng to apologise to all Chinese people (individually) for his faux pas. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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

John Carter and Ret.Prof

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)

Discussion

Proposed topic ban of John Carter

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

Proposed topic ban of Ret.Prof

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

• There can be no topic ban without evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)

Response by Ret.Prof

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)

Fighting

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)

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)

Thanks for the kind words and help. I will ponder them. - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Other propositions

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

Hebrew page name change

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)

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

User:Aubmn and sockpuppetry

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)

Saddhiyama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WHO SAID WIKiPEDIA IS NOT RELIABLE ON MARIE ANTOINETTE TALK PAGE 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)

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)

April fools - Take two

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)

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)