Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#Behavior of User:Eightball

:::::Where did I say "sex life"? There are other allegations about her life, but not about her sex life. You are misquoting me left and right. Please stop immediately. --MASEM (t) 05:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::(And to be clear, these are allegations I am aware the proGG has made, but no RS has covered in any detail we can even start to use, and hence why I won't bring the specifics up at all) --MASEM (t) 05:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::That's breathtaking Masem. If you're not willing to drop the topic for a couple of months I think sanctions will be necessary. Meanwhile, readers here can thnk about what bad things Zoe Quinn might have done—that is, bad things apart from her sex life. Perhaps the allegations are that she has committed fraud or blackmail? Or that she threatened to kill or rape someone? Can't you see how utterly inappropriate it is for editors to use any page on Wikipedia to promote such nonsense? Please stop immediately. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::I am absolutely not promoting those. I am saying, as editors of an article that has received an inordinate amount of outside interest, that we need to be aware that there are other things the proGg side would like WP to say but we are nowhere close to having any sources to even speak to them, much less cover them. I don't believe any of said things are true in any remote way, but that doesn't change the fact that there are people that want to come to WP to ask us to add them, and to respond best to them it is better not to be ignorant of these other claims and broadly what they involve (as it tells us what other articles might be subject to outside influence because of the connection). I am absolutely not promoting adding anything more regarding Quinn. --MASEM (t) 11:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

:How much longer should the community tolerate these repeated attacks from MarkBernstein? Is there a reason his continued attacks and posts are tolerated? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

::{{reply|Thargor Orlando}} Apparently the enforcement page would be the revenue to have such issues dealt with as previously unfounded accusations were hatted by dreadstar [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGamergate_controversy&diff=635076868&oldid=635074969]. Avono (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

{{hat|I am hatting this because it was becoming too offtopic. This was probably a cultural misunderstanding because as a German I correlate right wing to Fascism Avono (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

}}

::: And this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement&diff=next&oldid=635030980] could possibly constitute slander, I would advise MarkBernstein to immediately retract that statement Avono (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

:::: In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement&diff=next&oldid=635030980], a topic-banned editor is found editing [Christina_Hoff_Sommers]. Now, many people might not know who Christina_Hoff_Sommers is, so I explain that she is "a prominent, right-wing GamerGate supporter." I repeat this deliberately, which Avono calls "slander". That she is prominent is clear: she has a Wikipedia page. That she is "right-wing" lacks nuance but is broadly descriptive of our lede and of her affiliation with the American Enterprise Institute. That she is a GamerGate supporter is evidenced by her picture and passage on the page we are discussing -- a picture and passage I believe to be unnecessary and undesirable but which GamerGate supporters have defended fiercely and which, in my view, does no urgent harm (unlike the repeated insinuations regarding Zoe Quinn’s sex life). If anyone believes this is slander, you know what to do. If anyone believes this characterization rises to the level of sanctionable or, indeed, less than commendable, the door to sanctions is that away -->. If anyone has a spare trout, Avono needs a fish dinner for this; I think it is sanctionable but I really would rather watch football than spend a couple of days helping Avono catch a fish. If anyone would like to offer some help to the project, the GamerGate pages need protection and their talk pages need scrutiny, and I need useful advice. Email always welcome. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

Right-wing politics states that

Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable

so please tell how a feminist can be right wing Avono (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

: Christina Hoff Sommers works for the American Enterprise Institute, a noted right wing think tank. They don't hire left-wing individuals (Well, not as contributors at any rate. Possibly as janitors). Ergo, CSH is right wing. She also claims to be a feminist, so it would be up to her to explain how she reconciles these seemingly contradictory affiliations. Most people say she does it by simply defining "feminist" in a way that does not match anyone else's definition of the word, much in the same way that Gamergaters use the word "ethics" in a wholly de novo fashion. But for a sourced answer as to how one can be demonstrably right wing and still claim to be a feminist, you would have to apply directly to Christina Hoff Sommers herself. ReynTime (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

{{hab}}

::This is fine and I agree in principle. Would you agree so readily, NE Ent, if we'd spent six hours yesterday discussing whom you, or your daughter, had slept with? If an edit war was conducted, as it was conducted yesterday, to change a section heading of the article from "FALSE ALLEGATIONS ABOUTNE Ent" followed by a paragraph on your sexual history, and replacing the heading with "ALLEGATIONS ABOUT NE Ent" or, as a compromise, ""UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS ABOUT NE Ent]"?

::More to the point, beyond being a tawdry toxic mess, Gamergate does involve sending countless threats of beatings, rape, and murder to numerous female software developers. Suppose, heaven forfend, the least-sensible follower of this tawdry, toxic mess decides to follow through. If that were to happen today, could you stand on Wikipedia's talk page and say, "we did an excellent job and demonstrated how sensibly we can handle a difficult situation?" If so, do you imagine that the New York Times or Der Spiegel would agree? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

::NE Ent, the precise problem is that there are a great many editors who are not here to build a source-based encyclopedia article about this issue, but are here to portray Gamergate as it wishes to be portrayed for public relations purposes while presenting a wide array of Gamergate's "tawdry, toxic, gossipy, juvenile" allegations against living people as something other than specious, disproven, ill-founded and frankly-nonsensical — which has been and is the clear and unambiguous conclusion of mainstream reliable sources. I would like nothing so much as to "run away," but it is my responsibility as a Wikipedia editor — and my responsibility as a humane person — to work to ensure that our project does not serve to perpetuate and propagate a series of anonymous, vicious and violent harassment campaigns targeting living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• At least in my opinion we should be TRYING to get gamergate back to being at least semi-protected. A very long term protect would be bad. Impose 1RR if needed, and then unprotect it (back to semi), if people start edit warring, temporary protect the page long enough to sort out who is edit warring (like 24 hours at most) and get them topic banned, and then unprotect again. Rinse and repeat until all those disrupting the page are topic banned. (and by edit warring I mean more then just propose removing false, and then someone reverts that and says take it to the talk page) --Obsidi (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

:: The Gamergate article is suffering from serious recentism and bloat due to it being a current event with a small but persistent group coordinating efforts offsite to keep the mess front and center at WP, all out of proportion to its actual importance. Keeping the page locked for a significant length of time will give a chance for things to die down and for the actual cultural impact -- IF ANY -- to be properly assessed and the article appropriately trimmed. Frankly, it seems unlikely that in six months anyone is going to care about the minutiae of Gamergate. It'll be remembered as just another nasty, ugly little crapstorm drummed up to try to drive women out of "men's spaces". There's no real reason to keep wasting the time of editors who right now have to keep a hawk's eye on it to prevent BLP violations and material "sourced" on Youtube personalities from sprouting in it like dandelions after a spring rain. Keep it protected. ReynTime (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Also it seem arbcom will take the case (6 supporting and 1 recuse with 12 active arbcom members seems likely to take the case at this point). So whatever we do now may be moot, arbcom is likely to have some kind of preliminary injunction. --Obsidi (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• IMO the best solution here would be to delete and salt the article, then start again in six to twelve months when the drama has died down and the RS (not just news websites) have had a chance to get into gear. The world would not be a worse place for Wikipedia not having an article on GamerGate for a year. That's my 2p; unfortunately, I can't see it flying. GoldenRing (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• :That suggestion gets thrown around a lot on a particular reddit forum.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• ::Er, right. Do you have a point to make here? GoldenRing (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• :::I'm guessing he means that removing the page is what the GGers want, except I disagree -- what the GGers actually want is to have a lengthy WP article that legitimizes their BS "movement." I tend to think that getting rid of the GG article entirely or at least paring it down to the two or so short paragraphs it may, possibly, deserve (due only to the extremes of harassment of women in the industry that occurred via the use of social media) would go further to indicate how meaningless, petty, and nasty the whole thing is than to have an insanely long entry going into every last little detail of the GGers terrible behavior. With a long and detailed WP article GG can run around claiming that (A) GG is REALLY IMPORTANT! and (B) WP is full of "SJW shills!" and other such tripe, which leads them to engage in coordinated offsite harassment of editors they don't like, and to try to drag in tangentially involved figures like Christina Hoff Sommers and David Auerbach (of Slate) to push their agenda for them via harassing Jimbo on Twitter and on his talk page, because they expect him to step in and personally "fix" things to their liking. (Not that JW can't handle it since this is by far not his first rodeo, but it's still really, really stupid.) Removing or severely trimming the article would reduce the potential for such behavior substantially, although WP would of course then have to deal with the shrieks of "CENSORSHIP!!" that would follow. As it is, I'm betting that the GG group has more SPAs and zombies they can bring in than WP has genuine editors willing to police the article properly until the GGers get tired of messing with it, and the GGers have more patience because they simply care much more about it. While WP:NOTPAPER holds, of course, having this crazy long and detailed article about GG gives it far, far more legitimacy than it deserves. (150 citations?! Seriously?!)ReynTime (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• ::::Just so. Reading the current article, it seems insanely long for such a storm in a tea-cup. So by suggesting that we delete the article and leave it alone for a year, I was trying to say that I think some historical perspective will pare this down to, as you suggest, a few paragraphs dispassionately describing the controversy. But we are getting into a content discussion here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Can someone point to another precedent of a fully protected article just because the article has problems without being fixed? I don't believe such an article exists. Tutelary (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'm 100% uninvolved but I looked to see what all the fuss is about. It looks like wikipedia is one of the battlegrounds for a real life war over nonsense. Native advertising for money is far more dangerous to journalism than someone bonking (or not) someone for a favor. A heck of a long article, poorly organized , which is just a tool for pro and con to engage in battle. Lock it down and control the flow of edits. Legacypac (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Bhaskargupta269 came on to BLP/N to complain about negative material added to the page by User:Leoaugust. The additions to the page were written in a way that came across as having a bias against Raheja and some allegations that were recently levied against his company. However at the same time I also noted that the page was written in an extremely positive, promotional manner. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navin_Raheja&oldid=635227307]) I noticed that Bhaskargupta269 had tried to remove the content but retain the promotional material and that Leoaugust had re-added the material. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navin_Raheja&diff=635227307&oldid=635210778]) I edited the article and removed the overly promotional content and edited the allegations to be more neutral in tone. I did notice that there wasn't an awful lot of coverage for Raheja outside of the company, as the majority of the sources were trivial mentions where he was being quoted in a paper- not the sort of thing that can give notability. His position with NAREDCO doesn't seem to be of any particular importance, which I'm noting because I've been asked by Bhaskargupta269 on my talk page to remove the negative material from the article by Bhaskargupta269. Removing the negative material would result in the article being a short stub that mentions that he runs a successful company and that he is the chairman for NAREDCO.

Why I'm bringing this here is because I'm concerned about conflicts of interests on both sides (although Leoaugust does seem more willing to compromise, as he did not argue that I changed the tone of the negative material) and I can't really seem to get anyone to step in and help with this article. I have just asked WP:INDIA for assistance looking for sources, but they're already overloaded with a lot of various articles getting nominated for deletion and this is mostly an issue of potential BLP violations and COI editing on both sides. What doesn't help matters is that shortly after leaving a note on my page, Bhaskargupta269 made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raheja_Developers_Limited&diff=635641030&oldid=635621842 this edit] to the company page adding very unambiguous promotional material. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raheja_Developers_Limited&diff=635658203&oldid=635641030 Which I have since removed.]) I need more people to step in with this, as I just need some sort of backup for this. This whole thing is just at a level where it's not overwhelmingly at ANI level, but it's something that would require some other admins and experienced editors to come in and help out. I can't help but get the feeling that at the pace it's at (where I'm the only person who is involved with this), it's going to turn into an instance where ANI would become inevitable. I almost didn't request this, but I'd like to get people stepping in now before it gets that bad. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:*Since the edits by Bhaskargupta269 have been so consistently promotional, I have asked him if he is being paid to edit the page. I would like to ideally avoid any blocks, but I'd also like more people in on this so it doesn't seem like it's me agreeing with one specific person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:* Thanks User:Tokyogirl79 for your editing guidance. I am a real estate expert in India, and have personally dealt with Raheja Developers in addition to many others over the last 9 years. If any bias showed up, I now realize it was not in the true spirit of Wikipedia. I hope to contribute to more articles on Indian Real Estate and started with Rahejas. All the 3 pages Navin Raheja, Nayan_Raheja and Raheja Developers Limited till last week were not only promotional, but gave a very false image of the builder, potentially misleading many including buyers & investors. Rahejas have been again in the news yesterday for laundering money, and robbing the exchequer in a sting operation conducted by Cobrapost. The specific story is here {{cite web|title=OPERATION BLACK NINJA: PRESS RELEASE|website=http://cobrapost.com/index.php/news-detail?nid=7290&cid=23|publisher=Cobrapost|} and the relevant sting video is here {{cite web|title=Cobrapost Sting Video of Raheja Developers|website=http://cobrapost.com/index.php/news-detail?nid=7292&cid=23|publisher=Cobrapost|}. A quick search in Google will show that this story of Cobrapost sting on developers has been covered in major papers like Times of India, Business Standard Business Today, etc. My aim is not to write a negative article on the Rahejas but to ensure that it is balanced (maybe neutral) and does not become another tool for them to attract more business by appearing in super glowing terms in Wikipedia. There is much more to the Raheja story that we at the grass roots know, and maybe why my bias showed. Am glad you edited out the bias. Leoaugust (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

The blocked user Thetoolkitbrah has posted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThetoolkitbrah&diff=635776915&oldid=635776009 a threatening statement] on their talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

:Talk page access revoked User:Jac16888. Amortias (T)(C) 15:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Hello.

An editor at {{history|Kenneth Stern (rugby player)}} is inserting content which appears possibly libellous, which I had reverted after being unable to verify the source. The editor continues to reinsert. Please advise. Thanks. 2602:304:59B8:1F19:518F:91C8:654D:E10A (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

:{{vandal|2601:c:6000:72f:541a:e213:6398:a696}} Lor^Chat 02:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

:{{A note|{{nao}} Note}} Not enough warnings to be worth blocking over. I have warned them though for the first (And only) Revert. Lor^Chat 02:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

::Blocked - if this were a good-faith addition and we were dealing with an editor who wasn't familiar with Wikipedia policies, I'd agree with going through a full course of warnings. However, given that this person added libelous content repeatedly using a source completely unrelated to their claim means they likely weren't trying to make good-faith contributions. m.o.p 02:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

{{abot}}

New User:IQBAL KHAN Director appears to be able to create users without the account creator permission nor access to the interface. New user log revealed the following:

09:08, 28 November 2014 User account Aryan Iqbal Director (talk | contribs) was created by IQBAL KHAN Director (talk | contribs) and password was sent by email ({{redacted}})

RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 10:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

:{{U|RegistryKey}}This is normal, it may need to be questioned why he even created the account in the first place. But all users can create more than one account technically speaking. The account creator permission just lets them create more than a certain amount in a certain amount of time. Lor^Chat 10:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

:Why are emails showing up in the log? --NE2 10:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

::The part in brackets at the end of an account creation log entry is the 'Reason' field on the signup page - the user must have written the email there. Sam Walton (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

{{abot}}

It seems that the editor objects to the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lord_Toby_Jug&diff=635782969&oldid=635782776 mentioning Jug's real name] (which is sourced to press coverage and does not appear to be secret) or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lord_Toby_Jug&diff=next&oldid=635774086 describing him as being "expelled" from his party] (which is what all the sources say). The editor seems to be a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lord_Toby_Jug&diff=635764817&oldid=635764107 fan of Jug's work] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lord_Toby_Jug&diff=635560417&oldid=635266941 to dislike his critics]. But when all of this is being blanked and reverted for being "typos", it's hard to know what the problem actually is. --McGeddon (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

:Blocked by Chillum while I was in the process of moving this report from WP:AIV. Amortias (T)(C) 17:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

::Given the edit warring, deceptive edit summaries and continuation of the same behavior after warning I have given a 72 hour block. I have also told them that if there are urgent concerns about the article they can mention it on their talk page, otherwise they should take it to the article talk page after the block has expired.

::If this continues after the block the duration will escalate. I have the page on my watch list. Chillum 17:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello. User:Ryulong decided to go on a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=634509124&oldid=634489313 self imposed topic ban due to his WP:COI] on November 19th, having been taken funds from http://www.reddit.com/r/gamerghazi and as a result, giving him said WP:COI. However, recently, he has begun edit warring on Draft:Gamergate_controversy, a violation of his self imposed topic ban and WP:COI. Proof of the former: https://archive.today/PEKH2 Proof of the latter: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Gamergate_controversy&diff=635547322&oldid=635547111], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Gamergate_controversy&diff=635548484&oldid=635548247], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Gamergate_controversy&diff=635549237&oldid=635549128]. This is in direct conflict of WP:COI and as a result, I am requesting that the user be community topic banned. Tutelary (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:Claiming they were paid to edit something on WP is a somewhat extraordinary claim, where is your evidence for that? (the being paid money part) --Obsidi (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:: They have received money from one side obviously affiliated with GamerGate, took a self imposed topic ban due to WP:COI, and then broke that self imposed topic ban. See WP:EXTERNALREL, I do not claim they are a paid editor, but a WP:COI editor. Tutelary (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::'Received money' from who? Where is your source for that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:: Archive links because some of the information has been deleted in order to cover tracks. Firstly is the thread Tutelary linked: https://archive.today/PEKH2 wherein the moderator mentions talking with Ryulong about the latter's stepping away from the article "admitting that they may not be able to continue to approach a subject objectively" (the moderator's words). The linked GoFundMe campaign http://www.gofundme.com/hhqw0c/ (https://archive.today/hF8c8). A subsequent thread was launched dedicated to the gofundme here: https://archive.today/PbN6M. Here is a later archive of the same thread including Ryulong's reply thanking them: https://archive.today/7jXsq. Weedwacker (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::Why do you gamergate people constantly rely on archive.today? And isn't this blacklisted sitewide or is that just in the article space?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::::Archive today saves pages that may have been changed, so "evidence" can be kept even if the source refactors/deletes their comments. It is also used to deny ad revenueRetartist (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::That doesn't explain why it's been used to archive pages on Wikipedia when Wikipedia does not use advertising and has existing permanent links to pages so long as they haven't been deleted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::: I don't see how that's relevant to the current discussion as none of those links are archives of wikipedia pages. Weedwacker (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::Not all that important Ry-san, but just remember some of us didn't use wikis before this. They aren't understanding that wikias and wikipedia don't need archiving. I typically only correct typos on fan wikis, so I'm still pretty inexperienced myself, which is why I didn't do any editing here.Ihadurca Il Imella (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:::: As far as I am aware, article.is is blacklisted, and possibly on in article spaces, I have no knowledge of archive.today's status on wikipedia. It is useful in providing snapshots of webpages where changes can be made. Weedwacker (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::Aren't archive.is and archive.today the same thing? And I recall trying to add the phrase "archive.today" to the Gamergate page weeks ago but got hit by the spam blacklist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:Ryulong made edits to a draft page, not a live article, and his edits reverted a brand-new WP:SPA who leaped into an edit war against longstanding consensus that the lede does not need inline citations, per WP:LEDE. The edits in question were clearly tendentious (a "citation needed" template on every sentence? Please.) Would it have been better for someone else to make the edits? Probably. But don't pretend it's not obvious who's feeding the flames here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:: I really don't believe there's a difference here. A self imposed topic ban and a WP:COI is a self imposed topic ban and a WP:COI whether it's a live article or not. And do tell me where it says in WP:COI where one of the exemptions is edit warring against a SPA. Tutelary (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::So basically you're admitting that Ryulong is guilty of nothing more than taking the bait from tendentious single-purpose editors with a demonstrated vendetta. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::: Ryulong is guilty of violating WP:COI by editing GamerGate topics after receiving money from one side affiliated with GamerGate. He edit warred with one of these topics. Also read your own essay. WP:BAIT is about making uncivil comments. It's not my doing that Ryulong violated WP:COI. Tutelary (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::Either provide evidence to support that claim, or withdraw it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::: I've already provided it within my opening post. Tutelary (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::::(ec)I can see nothing in your post that supports a claim that Ryulong has received money for anything. Pleas make clear exactly what it is you are suggesting is evidence for this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::::: I think the claim at least is based off this: [http://www.gofundme.com/hhqw0c] a crowd sourced request for money. and on some reddit posts by someone with the name on reddit of "ryulong67" thanking them for donating ([https://archive.today/7jXsq]. However 1) I don't see how you prove that this ryulong is the same one as the WP user 2) I have not seen a request by this ryulong asking people to donate money in any way related to gamergate (or promising anything related to gamergate). (I would also support the move of this to WP:COIN) --Obsidi (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::Evidence has been provided above by myself as wellWeedwacker (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::Reverting a single purpose account on a draft space page that in no way will ever necessarily be a live article and the edits (reverts) I made that will be overwritten by any sort of subsequent edits to the page (do you really want {{tl|fact}} tags on things that are suitably cited?) does not really weigh much in the end. I should not have taken the bait today but I did and thats all I'm really guilty of in the end.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::: That's not what this is about. You took money from /r/gamerghazi, a party affiliated with GamerGate via a GoFundMe and your defense is that it was an WP:SPA and therefore, it was justified? I don't believe so, and it's a heavy violation of WP:COI to be commenting verbosely on GamerGate topics here and at WP:AN given your COI and self imposed topic ban. (This one is an exception per WP:BANEX.) Tutelary (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm not aware that individual members of a message board forum can be considered "a party affiliated with" anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::It's funny coming from a guy who claimed 8chan doxxed him and blamed GamerGate for it. Are we really getting into playing dumb here?

:::::::::I posted a link on my personal blog to the gofundme page and never once personally posted any link to it on Reddit in any way. When I did so, I posted to the arbitration case page saying I would now have a conflict of interest and I would voluntarily step away from the Gamergate page and other topics. I would not know who necessarily donated to the page and where their affiliations lay. I was however notified that it was to be posted to both GamerGhazi and apparently some other unnamed pro-GG forum. I have the email to back that up. But saying that my conflict of interest extends to an unofficial sandbox version of the article being proxy edit warred over is ridiculous. All I've done is breach a self-imposed topic ban and for that I'm sorry.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:Assuming this goes on I'd like to toss out a generic recommendation that this could be moved to WP:COIN to avoid further cluttering up on ANI. It's been shown that sanctions have not been broken thus this is exclusively a COI matter. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 22:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:Following OP's logic, Ryulong has imposed a topic ban on himself thus we have no need to impose one from the community. Ivanvector (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:: Then he's fragrantly violated it. If they can't be enforced, then why even have the ability to apply one for lesser sanctions? Tutelary (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::1) If you can prove this is the same Ryulong and 2) if he had actually made an edit to mainspace or say voted in an RFC about gamergate, I would agree, but this wasn't that. --Obsidi (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::: Proof that ryulong67 is the same Ryulong: Reddit AMA [http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2mj5ds/im_ryulong/] (archived [https://archive.today/SLSG3]) which includes this proof shot [http://i.imgur.com/81p6PgG.png]. Specifically this comment chain [http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2mj5ds/im_ryulong/cm4r9vd] (archive [https://archive.today/Y1QLd] which asks him to make an edit with the thread's url code, which he does here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ARyulong&diff=634184695&oldid=630686589]. Weedwacker (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::I take [http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2mj5ds/im_ryulong/cm4r9vd] that as sufficient proof when combined with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ARyulong&diff=634184695&oldid=630686589] that it is the same ryulong (although its possible that the reddit post was done after ryulong posted, I don't have time to track down exact timestamps, so I will presume it to be accurate unless ryulong objects and then ill go examine the timestamps closely). --Obsidi (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If the only supposed 'evidence' that Ryūlóng have been engaged in paid editing is that provided so far, there is no COI involved as far as I can see. And given the fact that the 'evidence' singularly fails to support the assertion, I have to suggest that Tutelary be sanctioned accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

: I never said Ryulong was a paid editor. He's not (as far that I can tell). He's a WP:COI editor who was rewarded money from /r/gamerghazi, a subreddit affiliated with GamerGate, not necessarily being paid by /r/gamerghazi to edit Wikipedia. He took a self imposed topic ban which he violated (not just on the draft, but on WP:AN and WP:ANI, this thread is the exception) and so far has only apologized for taking the bait, not for anything else. Tutelary (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::Bullshit. You started this thread by stating that Ryūlóng had a conflict of interest due to having "taken funds". How can that mean anything other than paid editing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::: His placement of editing GamerGate after he had taken funds is called into question. And WP:COI does not mean paid editing. It means biased editing based on certain factors in a situation, Per WP:EXTERNALREL {{tq|Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense.}} That he received funds from a GamerGate affiliated site for his living expenses makes me question his ability to be neutral in the GamerGate topic. The self imposed topic ban which was not followed is another issue. All I'm asking is to upgrade the self imposed topic ban to a community based one, one that has actual teeth if broken, unlike the self imposed one. Tutelary (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::::So you have no evidence that any funds he may possibly have received are in any way connected with his Wikipedia editing? Just as I thought. A 'COI' based on nothing but insinuation. As for Ryūlóng 'breaking' a self-imposed voluntary topic ban, since he 'self-banned' himself, he can self-unban himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::Lets say you worked for company X, wouldn't you say it is a violation of COI to say nice things about company X in their WP page? Now Company X may not have paid you to say those things at all, but that doesn't mean it isn't a COI. As the WP:COI page says "Paid advocacy is a subset of COI editing". But that said it also says "COI editors causing disruption may be blocked" and in this case, it is at least arguable that he was not causing disruption. --Obsidi (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::No lets no 'say' anything. Let's stick with the facts - that a claim of paid editing was made, and no proof of this has been provided. Hypothetical digressions that assume things we have seen no evidence of are irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::No accusation of paid editing was made only editing with a COI, WP:COI:"Paid advocacy is a subset of COI editing". Proof has been provided sufficient to show that he has accepted money from a source which is clearly biased as to the articles content. Now that may not mean Ryūlóng should be topic banned, but it is well within saying that this isn't just worthy of WP:BOOMERANG for lack of evidence (as to the WP:POINT problems discussed below about posting here rather then talking about it on the DS page, that might be a much stronger argument). --Obsidi (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with first principles here. User:Ryūlóng, do you think that there is the possibility of a COI if you edits on the topic at this point or not? I don't care about what other think at the moment. If not, then we can argue about whether other can or should as a separate point. That's two different issues. It sounds like Tutelary is assuming the first as an argument for the second when I don't know if that true. AndyTheGrump seems to disagree on the second even if the first was true but we don't know if Ryūlóng has another basis for believing it that Tutelary hasn't mentioned. Ryūlóng, if so, then I think it's fair to say that live or not and versus SPA or not, if that'd be violating the COI on the topic and so actually voluntarily withdraw. A voluntarily imposed ban that only a ban as long as it's kept is meaningless. And if it's acknowledged, then whatever, why not state that we agree to a three-month imposed one here for now and move on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I separately politely inquire as to why this was posted here when it has not been posted at the appropriate enforcement forum, and can I request that a proper filing be made there? Ivanvector (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

: Because I'd rather this be seen by more than 55 people watchlisting that section, and for the basis of a community based topic ban. Tutelary (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::{{ec}} The community has authorized community sanctions for this topic area under WP:GS/GG, thus any sanction imposed there is pre-authorized by the community. The appropriate place to request such a sanction is WP:GS/GG/E. You may be aware that there is already a thread there about this editor, and I think about this specific incident (I'd rather crush my nuts in a bench vise than delve into the details), why don't you add your comments to that request? Ivanvector (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::Furthermore, respectfully, if you were aware of that thread (I guess that you were because you know how many people are watching the page) and you decided to post here anyway, you may be disrupting this noticeboard to make a point. Ivanvector (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::: I don't wish for it to be there. Per WP:BUREAUCRACY. Tutelary (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:It appears the topic has been posted there Weedwacker (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:There's also the issue that the sanctions don't work for certain editors who have a certain point of view. Regardless, of all of Ryulong's problems in this topic space, this is a bit of a reach. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

His self-imposed topic-banned, if at all seemed to be taken to avoid getting banned, this isn't the only time he's edited GamerGate related topics, he has added a notability tag and a neutrality tag to the 8chan article, twice. After getting reverted, he vented on his personal talk page about it. I ask admins to see this for what it is, it's paid editing, even if unintentional. The subreddit GamerGhazi is a self-admitted forum in opposition to the subject in question. He has recieved $350 after having made an AMA on their forum, in an obvious display of gratitude, and I'm SURE if any so called "pro-GamerGate" editor as Ryulong has called some, had been caught in this, he'd be, not topic banned, banned site-wide. Jimmy Wales, for what it matters, has referred to this on multiple occassions on both Wikipedia and his personal Twitter page and advised him to back down, not only for this but because it has according to him caused him stress since he's taking this into a personal matter. Ryulong then proceeded to say Jimmy Wales was "retweeting conspiracy theories" and then proceeded to delete his tweets. It doesn't matter if the money was for editing or buying some clothes or whatever, an anti-GamerGate forum wouldn't give a random user money if it wasn't because they saw it as a way to thank him, and if he had admitted this conflict of interest, it would have been left at that, but this is now outrageous that he keeps his constant behaviour, a behaviour that has been noted ad nauseum yet he refuses to take advice from the community, and moderators refuse to even reprehend him Loganmac (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:I wrote on my talk page first. I made the donation page and posted it to my blog. I announced I'd be leaving the article. I went to sleep. I woke up to see one person gave me all I asked for. I don't know the affiliation of this person. I've informed Jimbo of all of the events that unfolded. His request that I extend my self-imposed topic ban from other topics, my attempt to tag a page that I perceive as having issues, and reverting someone in a sandbox page should not mean anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::If I had taken that money from KiA you'd be the first to have made the general sanctions thread and we both know it, the gofundme wasn't posted anywhere else, if by "another pro-GamerGate subreddit" you mean /r/againstgamergate which allows dissent unlike GamerGhazi, then it's hilarious considering the subreddit title. That's the problem, this is the 4th time you've announced leaving the article, every time you get an ANI you say you're steping back but you're back in less than 48 hours. Loganmac (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Participating in discussions and editing non-article space drafts is permitted (if not encouraged) for editors with a conflict of interest. That being said, the evidence for a conflict of interest in this case is shaky, at best. CIreland (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:He hasn't only edited a draft, he has added a POV tag and a notability tag to the 8chan article, after getting reverted he insisted, he went on the talk page and continued to push for it, he then vented on his personal talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=8chan&diff=635366408&oldid=635345896] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=8chan&diff=635417767&oldid=635409371] he has admitted to taking money from GamerGhazi, hence his self-imposed topic-ban, which has since been violated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganmac (talk • contribs)

::If the topic ban was self-imposed, he is free to self-un-impose it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::Okay. Here's where you're wrong Loganmac. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&diff=635366291&oldid=635158792 posted to my user talk] at 6 am my time and then minutes later I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=8chan&diff=635366408&oldid=635345896 tagged] the article. A few minutes after that I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:8chan&diff=635366832&oldid=635348217 posted to the talk page]. Four hours later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=8chan&diff=635389130&oldid=635370313 the POV tag is removed]. Two hours after that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=8chan&diff=635405156&oldid=635389130 you remove the notability tag]. Another two hours pass and I agree with the fixes to neutrality that I had issues with but I still felt notability was an issue so [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=8chan&diff=635417767&oldid=635409371 I tagged it again]. Then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=8chan&diff=635419865&oldid=635417767 Pepsiwithcoke] removes it. There's nothing to the effect that you're suggesting.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Just so we're clear, I support the upgrade of the self imposed topic ban to a community based one for a period no shorter of 3 months just to make sure that Ryulong does not edit pages relating to this topic, given his WP:COI and his frequently broken self imposed topic ban. Tutelary (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY - Ryulong's edits while self-topic-banned improved the encyclopedia. Well done. Ivanvector (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::{{ec|∞}} I also question whether a self-imposed topic ban is really a ban at all. There's no consensus for restrictions, thus they are invalid. Therefore, Ryulong's edits were not subject to the restrictions he attempted to impose on himself against consensus. So there could not have been any misconduct. The only misconduct was attempting to impose a ban on himself, and for that I propose he be sanctioned by having his self-imposed topic ban immediately reverted. Ivanvector (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

::: You have voted to oppose twice, perhaps you should condense your edits to a single one. Weedwacker (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:::: Not a duplicate - opposing separate proposals. See comments [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=635589422&oldid=635588909 added below]. Ivanvector (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about what WP:COI actually says. {{tq| If the following applies to you: you are receiving, or expect to receive, monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (as an employee or contractor; as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public-relations purposes; as owner, officer or other stakeholder; or by having some other form of close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about.}} I don't see any evidence that Ryulong is an employee or a representative of any organization, nor do I see that there is any "form of close financial relationship" with the topic that is meaningful. Moreover, Ryulong hasn't actually edited the article in question, only a non-articlespace draft, and the COI policy expressly contemplates that editors with COIs may edit outside of articlespace. This seems to me to be an incredible amount of heat with absolutely no light. Oppose proposed topic ban. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:That section title for that quote is "Paid editing" with the link WP:PAY, however the WP:COI also says that "Paid advocacy is a subset of COI editing (see WP:PAY below)." One does not need to be paid to edit to have a COI (and no accusation was made that he was paid to edit anything, only that he had a COI). --Obsidi (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

::The section title for that quote is "Paid advocacy." The allegation is absolutely that he was "paid" to edit something — otherwise no, there isn't a conflict of interest here. There are five categories of COI discussed on the page: {{tq|Financial}}, {{tq|Legal}}, {{tq|Political}}, {{tq|Campaigning}} or {{tq|Writing about yourself and your work}}. As the latter four are obviously not implicated here, the allegation must relate to the first. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:::He does have a Financial COI, just not that he is a paid advocate, he has other financial COI. --Obsidi (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:::: Correct. He's not been paid to edit, but he's been rewarded for editing he has done. Tutelary (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support declaring that Ryulong's has a COI for Gamergate This does not mean he would be topic banned. As it says on the WP:COIN page: "The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits." In this case the edits appear to have been uncontroversial on a draft document, and as such I am not willing to ding Ryulong's too hard for that. That said he does appear to have a COI and that should be recognized and declared. This does mean that someone could add to the talk page of gamergate {{Connected contributor}}. And future edits to article space without discussion could cause a topic ban on them latter. --Obsidi (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose and trout proposer for violation of WP:OUTING. No evidence has been presented that Ryulong has received compensation for editing Wikipedia, and being a user of an online forum does not create a conflict of interest. (ec to add) That the user voluntarily stepped away from a contentious topic area when they were unduly accused of a conflict of interest does not establish that they have a conflict of interest. Ivanvector (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:: I've struck your !vote as you cannot !vote twice. Tutelary (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

::: You can make that argument but he unambiguously received money from /r/gamerghazi, via a GoFundMe. What's being debated is whether that was intentional and affects his editing via WP:COI. Tutelary (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

::::I've reverted your refactoring of my comment. There are two proposals in this thread and I am entitled to oppose both. I am opposed to the topic ban, and I am also opposed to declaring a conflict of interest where none has been disclosed and none can be established through evidence presented. Ivanvector (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support per evidence of WP:COI. The self imposed ban which has been violated should be upgraded to an actual topic ban of some amount of time. As Ryulong himself admitted when he stepped away from the article that further action of his on it would be seen as a conflict of interest, the topic being brought here is not a surprise. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=634509124&oldid=634489313] Weedwacker (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

::That's not an admission of COI. That's a (reasonable and it turns out accurate) prediction of further drama. Ivanvector (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

::: It should be noted that we're not debating on whether Ryulong has received financial assistance from /r/gamerghazi. We're debating on whether that has financial assistance is a WP:COI for him to edit the article. He's admitted to having received financial assistance via a GoFundMe. The version of events that differ is whether that GoFundMe being funded by /r/gamerghazi and presenting it to be a WP:COI or whether or not that /r/gamerghazi just happened to pick it up and that was no fault of Ryulong. But the fact that he also does AMA's (Ask me anything, like an interview kind of) on the same subreddit is also a concern. Tutelary (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per complete failure to demonstrate that anything Ryulong has done on Wikipedia has been influenced by 'funds'. And because you can't sanction someone for changing their mind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. And looking in from a distance, I start to wonder if a WP:BOOMERANG might have to be brought out at some point. These repeated reports are really starting to smell of harassment. Resolute 01:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:: Or maybe, just maybe, that these repeated reports of a person's behavior is a sign of something...no not harassment, actual misconduct. When someone repeatedly is mentioned at the noticeboards, shouldn't that be a sign that maybe, they're doing something wrong? Of course it can't always be said to be true, as there are frivolous WP:ANI's made genuinely to attack a subject. But even truer still a person repeated brought to WP:ANI should have their conduct examined more thoroughly on -why- they're being brought to WP:ANI so much. Tutelary (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:::When all the complaints come from the same group of people, many of whom are SPAs and many of whom are known to be using an off-site venue to coordinate campaigns against specific, named long-term Wikipedia editors, it tends to suggest that there exists an ulterior motive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:::: Got a source for that serious accusation? Or please withdraw it. Tutelary (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::Sure. See the Pastebin, see the array of 8chan/KiA threads, etc. Just because they're "anonymous" doesn't mean we have to ignore the WP:DUCK in the room. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose both proposed declaration of COI and proposed topic ban. Adding this here per multiple requests for me to strike duplicated oppose comments which I maintain were not duplicates, but this thread needn't be more disruptive than it already is. I think my actual comments are best left where they are but I have struck through the bolded text for the sake of the admin who closes this, who I don't envy. Also, since several of us have gone and commented now at WP:GS/GG/E about this specific thread, it may be best for future comments to be made there, but I'm not telling anyone to do anything. Now if you don't mind my fiancée just snapchatted me a picture of a KFC order and a fridge full of beer, so I'm out of here. Ivanvector (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose community-imposed ban and ask for consideration of a boomerang on the original complainant. Also to close discussion. For starters, ArbCom is taking up this case and it's almost certain topic bans will be included there. More importantly, stones in glass houses something something. There are other editors in this thread who seem at least if not more "dedicated" to this matter as Ryulong. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 01:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC) (Previously failed to sign on the last edit)
• Oppose This is laughable, there is no evidence for anything claimed. Tutelary should be careful of WP:BOOMERANG, there are still some tensions after their last ANI. With that mentioned, isn't linking to associated accounts doxxing now Tutelary? How can you be sure this is said editor. After all, we were all convinced you were a hacker but apparently there is a completely different person using the same username as you to hack individuals --5.81.52.82 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

::This thread may be of notice to editors: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive857#Tutelary] --5.81.52.82 (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

::As to your question "How can you be sure this is said editor." [http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2mj5ds/im_ryulong/cm4r9vd this thread], combined with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ARyulong&diff=634184695&oldid=630686589 this Wikipedia edit] shows that reddit user ryulong67 is Ryulong. --Obsidi (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and WP:BOOMERANG. Can an admin just step in and topic ban Tutelary from all articles related to gamergate and feminism? Add the other fringe POV pushers to that too. Also, just block all fo the SPAs that have infested the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&action=history Gamergate Talk page], the clusterfuck of a GG/GS page and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:8chan&action=history 8chan Talk page]? All being coordinated offsite, with Tutelary and others. How bad does this bullshit have to get before sane Wikipedia editors just say "Enough!"? Dave Dial (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

::: I've not been active too much on the 8chan article, I was mostly on about the name and due to the 0RR obligation I can't do much about the content. There are some obvious problems with the page, namely WP:NOR and euphemism of Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, and Zoe Quinn. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=8chan&oldid=634741730 Please see the revision that I originally reformed it to.] Also, this request against Ryulong should not turn into some harassment campaign against me because I dared to initiate the request against somebody who I believed violated WP:COI. Tutelary (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

::::Yeah, but what about people who might 'believe' that you started this thread to harass Ryulong? Aren't they entitled to their beliefs too? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

::::: Oh sure you can have that opinion. I just don't think people should be insulting me by claiming I'm a fringe POV pusher for daring to make a post on a noticeboard. I'm sure Dave Dial will also substantiate his accusations that I coordinate off site, or withdraw such a serious claim, right? Tutelary (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::There is nothing daring about making postings. As for accusations of off-site coordination, isn't that what you were claiming? Or does being paid to make edits to Wikipedia not imply coordination between the person being paid and the person doing the paying? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::: Again misconstruing what I said. Conflict of interest is not always paid editing. I and other users have provided sufficient evidence for as a counterpoint to the 'daring to make such postings' remarks. He's garnered donations to his GoFundMe through an influence of /r/gamerghazi. That's not disputed. Ryulong has not disputed that. What is disputed is whether or not /r/gamerghazi picked it up randomly and without any influence of Ryulong. If so, that's not necessarily a WP:COI. However, since he's done AMAs on Reddit on the same subreddit, that's kind of suspect. Tutelary (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::::Nothing is 'kind of suspect' until you stop talking in unexplained jargon, and tell us what it is that you are claiming Ryulong has done to indicate that his editing has been influenced by 'donations'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:{{ping|DD2K}} you claim that {{blue|All being coordinated offsite, with Tutelary and others}} without evidence, because you obviously don't know that 8chan doxxxed Tutelary. I'm not going to link to that. starship.paint ~ regal 02:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:: Mmm, twice I've been doxed for Wikipedia edits. Dave Dial, the revision of the 8chan article is what they did it to me for. Tutelary (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Saying "I am now going to step away from the page" is not "a self-imposed topic ban". Softlavender (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction on Ryulong based on unsubstantiated off-wiki allegations. It is possible, and likely, that Ryulong67 is not Ryulong, but a joe-job deliberately set up by Ryulong's enemies. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:: Except it's been confirmed that ryulong67 is Ryulong on Wikipedia. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ARyulong&diff=634184695&oldid=630686589

::http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2mj5ds/im_ryulong/

::Tutelary (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:::I would link to [http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2mj5ds/im_ryulong/cm4r9vd this part] of the thread directly so people don't have to read through all those comments. --Obsidi (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Ryugate is about ethics in encyclopedia editing! I don't think there's anything it see here, as hyped as all of Ryulong and Jimbo's tweets were on reddit. Protonk (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

: I hardly see how this comment is beneficial to the discussion. Weedwacker (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

::It made me laugh a lot. That's clearly beneficial.ReynTime (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

Since this very same issue is already being discussed on the proper enforcement page (WP:GS/GG/E#Request concerning Ryulong) I request that this thread be closed and editors invited to submit their comments to the enforcement request. Ivanvector (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

: No, I've already given you my response to this. WP:BUREAUCRACY. Tutelary (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

: Nope. Arkon (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:I think WP:COIN is the better place for this (but I guess this board, or GG enforcement would work and there are already thread here and on GG). --Obsidi (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:I am against this motion Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

: I also disagree with this motion. Weedwacker (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

As {{U|Tutelary}} aparently cannot keep themselves from stirring the drama pot unnecessarily by looking for minor infractions to disqualify and banish editors in opposition to the GG camp, I propose that Tutelary be topic banned from under the GamerGate General Sanctions authorization from GG (including talk pages, other editors actions reasonably within the GG topic space, requests for enforcement against other editors, Arbitration, etc.) for a period of no less than 30 days subject to the singular exception of appealing this sanction using a WP:NICETRY crafted appeal. In short, the it's time for the community to stand up and say that we will not tolerate Wikipedia being disrupted by witch hunts and personal vendettas in this topic space any more. Hasteur (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:I would hardly call Tutlelary someone who is opposed to the opposition of the GG camp and specifically targetting those editors. She has been doxxed by 8chan and GG has raised issues about her. I myself would not say I always agree with her. If anything I would say she is a neutral party concerned with WP:COI issues that are threatening the integrity of Wikipedia. Weedwacker (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:: You know what to me seems like a witchhunt? A user trying to topic ban me [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement#DungeonSiegeAddict510 because I disagreed with their enforcement request of DSA.] While you seem to say that I'm 'stirring the drama pot', here you are making a subsection purely because you didn't like the comment I made at general enforcement requests. I'm also a bit sick of the WP:BOOMERANG mentality, which is an essay btw. The fact that people request sanctions against the person who decides that yes, a person's conduct needs to have a look taken into it to the proper avenue--WP:ANI you wish to ban them for the sheer act of daring to disagree. The personal attacks such as {{tq|In short, the it's time for the community to stand up and say that we will not tolerate Wikipedia being disrupted by witch hunts and personal vendettas in this topic space any more.}} are unacceptable. I propose a counter ban proposal for Hasteur trying to silence other user's who took the notion of disagreeing with them. I've also been doxed, my house phone called (yes, one of those 8channers were skilled enough to get that far) and along with that, a death threat. I'm sick of being harassed for my Wikipedia edits. Hasteur seriously needs to stop. Tutelary (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC) See below. Tutelary (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:::See also WP:BATTLEFIELD and thanks for proving my point. Hasteur (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:::: The pot calls the kettle black. Weedwacker (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm neither here nor there about this boomerang proposal, but I'm personally tired of reading about the doxxing. It seems to get mentioned way out of proportion to its actual relevance to matters under discussion, and has been to my mind repeatedly used as a card to justify behavior which should be justified on its own merit, not by events which happen off-wiki which have no actual bearing one way or another on this and some other matters. One off-wiki victimhood story, even concerning GG, has no bearing on wiki policy. Can we give it a rest? We get it. But victimhood ≠ innocence or license to abuse wiki protocol/policy/etc. (not saying she is, just saying one doesn't justify the other if she is). Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:: Oh I got it. I should just stay silent about it. No one wants to hear that a female Wikipedia editor got doxed for her edits. Completely irrelevant and no one wants to hear it. Got it. Doesn't matter that I'm seriously fearing for my freakin' life from the stuff that's happened in real life. Guess that gender gap might get just a teensy bit bigger on Wikipedia should I get sanctioned for wanting to bring stuff to admins' attention. Tutelary (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:::Yeah, I'm sure it's going to put scores of female editors from joining the project if an editor who relentlessly pushes an anti-feminist POV and is known for hacking [https://archive.today/GvtvT] [https://archive.today/ejQJ4/b1d4f129af02c1287fb6403030de19813294405b.png] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tutelary/sandbox/Hackforums] leaves the project --5.81.52.82 (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• If any user wants to request a topic ban against Tutelary under the GG sanctions, I recommend that he or she make an enforcement request at WP:GS/GG/E and provide the appropriate evidence. The reason we created that page was to keep this stuff out of AN/I, and to allow it to be dealt with in as a gentle a fashion as is possible. Let's take advantage of the resources we have, rather than muck up this place more. RGloucester — ☎ 06:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for the editor Tutelary, who must, in the end, be judged strictly on their contributions to and/or disruptions of this encyclopedia, as opposed to their real life or claimed gender. In my judgment, this editor is a cleverly tendentious and disruptive contributor in this specific topic area. Perhaps they can be productive in editing completely different topics. We shall see. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:Even our Dear Leader has asked Ryulong to step away from the issue due to various conduct issues and yet, despite repeatedly promising to step away, Ryulong is going all [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwlYo8EYTWI Brokeback Mountain] on this topic. I don't think Tutelary is in error in asking for action against Ryulong as a result.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban for Tutelary. The frivolous throwing around of WP:BOOMERANG in this topic has become over-utilized to dissuade editors from raising concerns about the questionable conduct of other editors. Weedwacker (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Trout and close discussion on this thread. We're clearly not going anywhere and there was arguably never anything to discuss in the first place. Trout the boomerang-related editors with final warnings on ANI frivolity and personal vendettas. Users should be encouraged to post at WP:GS/GG/E if they want to seek topic restrictions. {{nao}} ♪ Tstorm(talk) 07:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:*Nah, people should just wait for the ArbCom case to open, because it is painfully clear that silly enforcement page was only ever a doomed-to-failure attempt at blocking the inevitable ArbCom case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

::* I have to mournfully agree with this sentiment. An admin at WP:GS/GG/E said this should be here yet here it's said it should be there. That enforcement page has shown it's ineffectiveness. Weedwacker (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:::* Very well, I can agree on both points. The does leave things in the air as to whether short-term sanctions will be put into effect at the start of the case, so that's my only concern. I will stand by the trouting recommendation and desire to close, however. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 07:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Because a boomerang is offensive to me as an Australian. (and im sick of all these grenades going everywhere) Retartist (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment It was suggested above that this be sent to WP:COIN. I don't think we can fix it over there. At WP:COIN, we mostly check references, remove unverifiable content, trim peacocking, propose article deletions, and clean up messes created by COI editors. If an editor has to be sanctioned, that's referred to WP:AN/I here. John Nagle (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tit-for-tat bullshit like this is by far the worst thing about this site. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Cullen328 put it very well. There have been more repeated frivolous attacks on users (of which Ryulong is clearly a frequent target) than there have actually been productive discussions on the articles in question. This kind of thing is exactly what the sanctions should be working to curb. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 08:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Tutelary is not helping the encyclopedia but is instead using every opportunity to push a discredited line regarding their favorite topic. That would normally be standard operating procedure for Wikipedia, but there are only a small number of good editors willing to spend hours every day combatting the nonsense, and Tutelary is working hard to knock them out—WP:NOTHERE. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support This is the second time Tutelarys edits have seriously disrupted the encyclopedia. They have been relentlessly pushing an anti-feminist POV for some time and are now focused pretty much exclusively on promoting fringe views per GamerGate. It is not unusual that they are attacking Ryulong because he has been the target of repeated harassment from GamerGate message boards. I am almost certain that Tutelary reads these message boards and most likely contributes. What is happening here is that the harassment from said message boards has been taken to the website and Tutelary is using their account (that has many edits) in an attempt to legitimise said harassment. Do we have no rules on the website to prevent harassment? There are plenty of websites on the internet if a person wants to harass another individual, Wikipedia shouldn't be one.

:Furthermore, this users support of adding libelous content to BLP articles (such as Zoe Quinn), the repeated promotion of fringe anti-feminist views and part in creating dedicated articles to the fappening are just some ways in which Tutelary has used Wikipedia as a platform to attack women. I recommend any blocking admin reads this past ANI [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive857#Tutelary]. There are multiple editors who are uncomfortable with Tutelarys actions --5.81.52.82 (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Tutelary's attempt at bringing up WP:COI issues was misunderstood by some to be an accusation of paid editing. Also unfortunately for Tutelary, she didn't bring up all the key evidence in the first post. More evidence was brought up slightly later by Obsidi and Weedwhacker, and I have a feeling that not everyone has read all of the other evidence. Compound these two factors together and you have a situation which seemingly paints her in a bad light when all she wanted was to bring up a potential conflict of interest [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=634509124&oldid=634489313 Ryulong has even admitted to]. Trout, at most. starship.paint ~ regal 12:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per Johnuniq. ReynTime (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, close and trout: Ryulong has, at least, an apparent conflict of interest (as acknowledged by Ryulong and Jimbo), that makes it not an example of "witch hunts and personal vendettas" and as such not a valid WP:BOOMERANG to bring up. Furthermore, many of people on this thread seem to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as to there being actual evidence that Ryulong did actually accept money from what he at least believed to be someone on /r/gamerghazi. Now you can believe that doesn't create a COI, but it is silly to call that WP:BOOMERANG worthy. --Obsidi (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I think that Tutelary's edits in the topic area GamerGate/men's rights movement tend to be unconstructive. I expressed and provided diffs for my concerns in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive857#Wikipediocracy_doxxing this] ANI discussion. Since then, it looks to me as if Tutelary's editing in the topic area has become more, not less, problematic. Take a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misandry&diff=633390444&oldid=633299136 this edit], for example. They restored and later fine-tuned a rambling mess consisting almost entirely of MRM original research. When I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Misandry&diff=633705251&oldid=633672775 explained] on the article talk page that they added back original research, Tutelary was unresponsive at first and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMisandry&diff=635008010&oldid=634425335 seemingly unwilling] to fix their own mistake. It seems strange that they would restore claims from an MRA book that doesn't mention the article subject but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misandry&diff=633573116&oldid=633572970 delete] a feminist study that does. Tutelary has made valuable contributions in other areas (e.g., fighting vandalism) but I don't think that their involvement in the GamerGate/men's rights topic area is helping the project. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seeking administrative intervention for disruptive editors is not in and of itself disruptive. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. If it all this belongs to WP:GGE Avono (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: {{Ping group|Opposers on venue grounds|RGloucester|Avono|Tstormcandy}} I'd have brought this up at the subpage for enforcement if I believed that there were any administrators there that were willing do do anything about it. I initially was for the subpage as a way to pigeonhole the drama from this, but when threads go on for multiple days with numerous SPAs/Sockpuppets juming up and down like angry monkeys trying to press any kind of removal of their opponents, the good faith on behalf of those administrators that monitor the page to do the right thing has been burnt up and the purpose of the subpage wasted. If accusers are allowed to lob accusations on whatever page tickles their fancy (and out of order on whatever page they want), then we should have no problem with proposing topic bans on any page we want. TLDR: If the enforcement page actually worked, I'd have used it Hasteur (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:When general sanctions are steamrolled in without community support, and then only used on one side of the issue, you can't then complain that they're not working. You should have thought of that before proposing them to begin with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support Cullen calls it right. Except that Topic Banning Tutelary will only ease the drama, because the editor will find other means to disrupt the project. Topic Banning from all GG articles broadly construed should help though. Dave Dial (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• {{Ping|Hasteur}} You are not allowing it to work. SPAs are rightfully ignored, I'm sure. It isn't as if the administrators don't have common sense. However, it takes time to evaluate evidence. If evidence can't be provided, they can't take action. Multiple people say "it isn't working", but that's because no one is providing a good case for why action should be taken. I wish you'd read the comments of the administrators there, and you'll see that they've been asking repeatedly for tangible evidence of sanctionable behaviour. Running to AN/I because one isn't satisfied with a process when one hasn't provided any evidence is essentially WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This does not apply to you, as you've not opened a request. However, this is exactly the type of behaviour you are encouraging. Subverting the system is only likely to result in more muck on these pages. RGloucester — ☎ 14:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• {{Ping|RGloucester}} See the request that I made at WP:GS/GG/E against annother editor that was fully reasonable that you yourself closed as "No action. Resumption of this behaviour may result in a block. RGloucester — ☎ 18:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)". Now do you understand why I have exactly zero confidence in your attempts to solve this? Hasteur (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Sonicyouth86. I've observed long term pattern over multiple articles of non-constructive and tendentious editing from Tutelary, specifically in areas related to men's rights issues/interests. The topic ban proposed above seems generously limited in scope considering, and hopefully would serve as a wake up call regarding a general editing issue regarding this user which is disruptive to the encyclopedia.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per *spins the Wheel of Crapulence* WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. When you go fishing in this pond, all you catch is trout. Besides, it has been thoroughly established here and elsewhere that no community action can prevent the disruption from Gamergate spilling out into other forums, despite a clear community desire for all such requests to be posted to WP:GS/GG/E, thus not only is the proposal WP:POINTy, there is no conceivable way one could believe this would prevent further disruption, thus any block resulting from it must be punitive, which violates WP:NOTPUNISHMENT. To those of you griping about GS/GG/E "not working" because there aren't enough watchers, it seems it hasn't occurred to you that maybe there's a reason nobody is watching that page. Maybe the relentless petty drama is just not that important to those of us who are here actually trying to build an encyclopedia. Why don't we block all of you and nuke the whole GamerGate topic area from orbit? That would actually prevent disruption. Ivanvector (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• : I would support nuking the topic because it is clearly too contentious for progress to be made when enforcement of sanctions is so one-sided. In several months perhaps the idea of the article could be revisited. That decision is in ArbCom hands now and not ours to make. I question what you mean by blocking "all of you" as "those of you griping" sounds more like "those I disagree with". We all saw what happened the last time Ryulong tried that broad stroke. Weedwacker (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:::Retracted. That comment was out of line; I apologize to anyone who interpreted themselves as being part of all of you. However, "those of you griping" is indeed "those I disagree with", as I've indicated quite a few times here that this is the wrong forum, thus I do disagree with "those of you griping". Also on a "told you so" note, it seems that GS/GG/E is currently leaning towards a long topic ban for Ryulong, while the thread above was shut down as out-of-line forumshopping, so to those of you seeking that result, I'll reiterate one more time that GS/GG/E is the correct forum for these complaints. Ivanvector (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This is ridiculous, Tutelary's worries were logical, since even Jimmy Wales considered this a matter to look carefully. Tutelary didn't act in bad faith. It would also be better if topics regarding Ryulong weren't closed by admins like Gamaliel, Dreadstar and Future Perfect At Sunrise since they appear to be involved Loganmac (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I noticed this while looking for something else and am otherwise uninvolved with this entire mess. Support indefinite topic ban. WP:OUTING states "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block" so Tutelary should be thankful for getting off as lightly as that for this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=635569983]. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

I learned via e-mail that {{user|72.196.204.230}} fraudulently attempted to get my user password reset. What is the standard procedure, if any, for dealing with that kind of behavior? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

:Ignore it. There have been lots of comments in various places about this, example: VPT archive. Don't bother with the advice from one user there to change your password, except, anyone with a weak password should change it anyway. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

::What if you're a weak user with a strong password? Wikipedia body lifting?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

:::Then you don't know your own strength ;). But yeah, what John said; the password reminder hack is still the most amusing attempt to 'hack' your account, which as far as I've known has never succeeded. Nate • (chatter) 01:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

::::Of the various attempts trolls have made on me over the years, this was the first time for this one. I can imagine a convoluted approach which might succeed, but it would scarcely be worth the effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

{{archivebottom}}

:He appears to be edit warring to get his contested claims into articles and demanding that other people discuss it before they revert. I've explained that it is supposed to work the other way round and that consensus is needed before adding it again. Squinge (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

::I've re-added this comment as it was removed in an edit conflict. — Strongjam (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

:::As an indication of the problems with this contributor, consider for example his statements on Talk:Essiac, where he describes material from the American Cancer Society as "grossly misleading", and argues that our article should state in the lede that "A page about Essiac Tea on the American Cancer Society website says Some reports of interactions and harmful effects may be published but has not included any citations or references to studies to back this up". So (contrary to Wikipedia policy), 'Mr Truth' demands that sources in turn cite sources themselves. Or does he? He goes on to suggest that we add an "Unconfirmed and possible reports of success from notable publications section" with the following text: ""In the Beaver County Times on Apr 6, 2000, Dr Doug Knueven said he had heard of pet cancer patients that were helped by Essiac. Reference: Beaver County Times on Apr 6, 2000 C5 New pest treatment is safe and effective Dr. Doug Knueven" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Essiac&diff=631978852&oldid=631101427] Needless to say, Dr Knueven fails to actially cite any specific sources. 'Mr Truth' rejects statements from the ACS for not citing sources, but wants Wikipedia to include vague assertions from a vetenarian who not only doesn't cite sources, but doesn't actually say that the stuff works - merely that he has 'heard' that it does.

:::This is but one example of 'Mr Truths' self-evident disruptive POV-pushing in promotion of a substance which has not only been tested as a supposed cancer treatment and found to be ineffective, but has actually been shown in some animal tests to increase the rate of cancer growth. Needless to say, 'Mr Truth' has repeatedly been told that Wikipedia content regarding medical claims needs to comply with WP:MEDRS, but to no avail. 'Mr Truths' next effort on Talk:Essiac starts thus: "Despite these claims, there is evidence that it does help, as in the case of Billy Best. Therefore, the statement that there is no scientific evidence is completely false, since at least one case exists to refute those claims. Nearly 20 years later Billy Best is still cancer free. In 1939 at a cancer commission hearing in Toronto, there were nearly 400 people who were ready to testify about the restoration of their health and the role of Essiac in this restoration of health. In 1924 Rene Caisses's aunt was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Following the non cobnventional treatment of Essiac, she lived for 20 more years." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Essiac&diff=634942685&oldid=634438233] Anacdotal 'evidence', not even remotely compliant with WP:MEDRS. WP:RS, or any objective standard of evidence whatsoever, sourced to the usual credulous 'alt med' sources we have been rejecting per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Fringe theories and pseudoscience for years. And this fingers-in-his-ears-I-can't-hear-you exercise in spamming the talk page with worthless anecdotal drek continues - today he has posted yet more 'sources' he wishes to cite in promotion of this so-called 'treatment':

:::::''* Billy Best cancer free [http://books.google.com/books?id=1V9pVauZxmkC&pg=PT168&dq=Billy+BEst+Essiac&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KgtrVKbbDIHKmwWewoKQDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Billy%20BEst%20Essiac&f=false 50 Critical Cancer Answers: Your Personal Battle Plan for Beating Cancer By Contreras Francisco, Kennedy Daniel]

:::::''** Billy Best made the national news in 1994 [http://books.google.com/books?id=0Jb_-oxOAwsC&pg=PA69&dq=Billy+BEst+Essiac&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KgtrVKbbDIHKmwWewoKQDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Billy%20BEst%20Essiac&f=true The Boy and His Death: A True Story By Marga Beukeboom - page 69]

:::::''** Billy Best rejected Chemotherapy. Yes strict diet was adhered to which could have aided the Essiac treatment [http://books.google.com/books?id=aVTMqaclr_kC&pg=PA80&dq=Billy+BEstEssiac&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KgtrVKbbDIHKmwWewoKQDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Billy%20BEst%20Essiac&f=false Cancer: Conquering a Deadly Disease By Alvin Silverstein, Virginia B. Silverstein, Laura Silverstein Nunn]

:::::''** At 20-something years later, Billy is cancer free! [http://news.therawfoodworld.com/16-year-old-boy-cured-cancer-using-essiac-tea-now-alive-well-natural-health-advocate/ The Raw Food World News Posted in: Health, Lifestyle, Medicine, News by Heather Suhr, Staff Reporter/Editor on 31 Aug, 2014]

:::::''** 400 people were ready to testify that their health had been restored, [http://books.google.com/books?id=XdaoKpyNqjwC&pg=PP10&dq=Essiac+Success&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1w5rVP3qG6LbmAWz3ID4Aw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Essiac%20Success&f=false Essiac: A Native Herbal Cancer Remedy By Cynthia B. Olsen, Jim Chan Caution And Disclaimer]

:::::''** One doctor who came from California intending to stay for a day. She stayed there to observe for a month! She left Rene’s clinic, convinced that Rene had a cure for cancer. Womens Health Watch [http://womenshealthwatch.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/rene-caisses-natural-cancer-cure-essiac-tea/ Womens Health Watch Rene Caisse’s Natural Cancer Cure – Essiac Tea]

:::::''** Dr. Banting who was the co-discoverer of insulin, found that Essiac tea had stimulated the pancreas to produce insulin in a woman who had diabetes. The woman had type I diabetes The woman didn't need insulin anymore! [http://womenshealthwatch.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/rene-caisses-natural-cancer-cure-essiac-tea/ Womens Health Watch Rene Caisse’s Natural Cancer Cure – Essiac Tea]

:::::''** Dr. Charles Brusch cured his own cancer of the lower bowel, using Essiac alone. One of the most respected physicians in the US he was also John F. Kennedy’s personal physician [http://womenshealthwatch.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/rene-caisses-natural-cancer-cure-essiac-tea/ Womens Health Watch Rene Caisse’s Natural Cancer Cure – Essiac Tea]

:::::''** Hundreds of testimonies to Renee Caisses credit [http://www.rethinkingcancer.org/resources/magazine-articles/4_3-4/essiac-press.php Rethinking Cancer - Essiac-Press release to Detroit newspapers By Pat Judson, President of FACT Metro-Detroit] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Essiac&diff=635752511&oldid=634943682]

:::It should be noted that 'Mr Truth' has also added content regarding Billy Best into the article - adding his own personal opinion on the case, claiming that Best shows that "the statement that there is no scientific evidence is completely false". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essiac&diff=prev&oldid=634936298] As the above demonstrates, it seems self-evident to me that 'Mr Bill Truth' has no intention whatsoever of providing material compliant with Wikipedia sourcing requirements - in fact I can see no evidence that he has even bothered to read WP:MEDRS, despite repeatedly having it pointed out. Instead, we have been confronted with the same worthless repetitive anecdotes and unreliable sources, time and again. And apparently he has been doing much the same in regard to other articles (see e.g. Talk:Mānuka honey). What we have here is a 'contributor' who is not only promoting fringe 'treatments' based on sources rejected per long-standing policy, but is doing so in a manner that makes meaningful dialog impossible - he simply refuses to accept that Wikipedia policy in regard to this matter exists. Whether this is a simple lack of competence, an attempt at stonewalling intended to sap the willpower of other contributors, or actually an act of trolling from someone who doesn't actually give a damn about Essiac or anything else I'm no longer entirely sure, but however you look at it, it is almost impossible not to draw the conclusion that 'Mr Bill Truth' is a contributor Wikipedia can do without, as a waste of time, effort and brain cells. 'Contributors' who repeatedly and disruptively refuse to acknowledge the existence of Wikipedia policy can play no useful role in this encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

::::Has Mr. Truth been alerted to the WP:ARBPS discretionary sanctions? Ivanvector (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::Not as far as I'm aware - but given his refusal to acknowledge the existence of Wikipedia policies in general, I'm not sure it really matters. Compliance with policy (as opposed to sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending it doesn't exist) applies everywhere, not just in regard to pseudoscientific quackery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::Discretionary sanctions are in place so that we don't have to go through this every time. You are absolutely right of course; all I'm saying is if he's been warned and continues to disrupt, a discretionary block is an easy solution. Ivanvector (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::Anytime a user includes words like "truth" in their ID, it's usually a big red flag. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::::I've alerted the user using the pseudoscience template and logged the alert. Later it was pointed out to me that this page doesn't fall under the subject of homeopathy, thus my note below the alert may have been inappropriate. I'll note here that regardless of whether the edits to Essiac fall under the topic of homeopathy or not (I think now that they probably don't) the editor has posted about pseudoscientific medical claims, thus the alert is nonetheless valid. I don't think alerts can be retracted, nor should this one be, but I will accept whatever consequence comes out of my error, if it is determined to be sanctionable. Ivanvector (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I know I'm lodging quite a bit of reports here, but {{IP|99.247.57.5}} appears to be making undiscussed changes in violation of WP:NPOV. Thanks. 2602:304:59B8:1F19:21CB:A4AF:A6F9:1D0 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

:Per the note at the top of this page, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page". AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lift_%28force%29&diff=prev&oldid=635606254

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lift_%28force%29&diff=next&oldid=635628095

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lift_%28force%29&diff=next&oldid=635634376

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lift_%28force%29&diff=next&oldid=635714074

Request semi-protection of talk page and parent article (so far the problems are isolated to the Talk page, but I dont want semi-protection to spill over to the article itself). Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

: Looks like a rotating IP address but there's other IP addresses that seem productive so I don't know if semi-protection is the best option. Maybe a short range block? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

::With all due respect, there has not been a productive ip address contribution to the talk page in the last six months - I didn't look back any further. I don't know how one blocks a rotating ip, other than maybe a ip range block. A short term block would probably help. Meanwhile, the abuse has been re-posted. Diff:

::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALift_%28force%29&diff=635837295&oldid=635758314

::Hard to have a productive discussion with this sort of disruptive abusive nonsense being injected.

::Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the Taylor Hayes (The Bold and the Beautiful) page, there have been two actresses who played the part. The guideline states they should be listed in chronological order. User:Arre_9 doesn't like that and feels one actress should be left out simply because she "doesn't think she needs mentioning." You can see that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Hayes_%28The_Bold_and_the_Beautiful%29&oldid=615869643 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Hayes_%28The_Bold_and_the_Beautiful%29&oldid=629641391 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Hayes_%28The_Bold_and_the_Beautiful%29&oldid=633338519 here]. I repeatedly show her the guidelines which state she should be there as she has portrayed the character but, she continuously removes her. She's even gone so far as to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Hayes_%28The_Bold_and_the_Beautiful%29&oldid=629828919 grant me his permission to leave her there] (which I don't need and is total [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#Examples_of_ownership_behaviour owning of wikipedia] and not allowed) but, then she went and removed her again anyways even though that violates the guideline rules. She's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_on_Wikipedia vandalising wikipedia].

Another lack of respect for wikipedia's guidelines are her ignoring of character portrayals and durations which state they be listed with breaks reflected. However, she doesn't like that either and feels that if a character appeared in 1990 and again 2014, they should be listed as "1990-2014" even though there were multiple years in between where the character just wasn't there. That goes against wikipedia's guidelines that I have posted and I've made her aware of that to no regard. Instead, she's gone and brought User:Raintheone into the conversation because she knew he would agree with her. Raintheone then brought user:5_albert_square into the conversation for the same reason. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29#Meatpuppet Meatpuppeting] is not allowed on wikipedia.

There are multiple other pages she has done this on as well but, I'm going to try and keep this as short as possible.

All the while, the three of them are saying there has been a consensus conversation that overrules the guidelines but, they don't remember/won't prove where the conversation happened. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiBullying Bullying]. That's not allowed either. I have repeatedly asked where this conversation happened as, the guidelines specifically mention any consensus conversations that have taken place and this "phantom" conversation is not there but, have been repeatedly told, "No." Most recently by Raintheone where he stated, "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raintheone&diff=prev&oldid=635460405 I cannot be bothered to link it. I know my stuff. You feel the need to be the policy cop and link to what everyone knows. Bored now. Shame you cannot display the same enthusiasm searching for consensus. You just need blocking ASAP!]"

So, now I need blocking because I'm following the rules (rules, I might add, Arre9 showed me in the first place LOL) and, according to them, wikipedia now operates on an "I said it happened so you better just believe me or get the heck out of here" philosophy? I'm pretty sure that's not right.

Can I get some insight to this please? Are guidelines not to be followed anymore? Are Arre 9, Raintheone, and 5 Albert Square correct? Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:This is ridiculous and biased, but okay. Firstly, would you be kind enough to edit your post and refer to me as she, not he? In regards to this, you are really presenting a one-sided version of our conflicts. You have constantly made several personal attacks and disregarded any type of assistance or guidance. Brief break-down of all the problems you have noted:

• In regards to the temporary actress, most temporary actors have not been included in soap articles like this, unless they have a lot of coverage by the media and were of some notability. There are barely any sources which support Wolter as a temporary actress, so its best to only mention her in the casting section. Don't act like I am suddenly making things up in that I don't think that information should be present, because that is how it has been done to avoid clutter.
• I did not go and bring Raintheone into things because I knew he would agree with me. Stop it with your nasty accusations. I told you why I consulted Raintheone on his talk page, if you read it, you shouldn't have brought that up again here.
• In regards to breaks in duration on those infoboxes, it has been clarified constantly that if the actor wasn't gone for a full calender year, it is silly to list every single break - especially for some actors/characters who have various breaks a year. Once again, this is only to avoid making these articles cluttered up.
• I never said the duration should be 1990-2014, it should be (if correct): 1990-2002, 2004-2014. Stop making things up to suit your argument.

Overall, it's not just me here. Several other editors have come into encounter with you and you have shown a blatant disregard of their point of views, opinions, pointing out of guidelines, attempts to help you and their feelings as well. Vandalism is an overblown statement, which is rather dismissive considering I have made constructive contributions to this site for a couple of years. And bullying is a very serious accusation which you should not mention lightly; its also uncalled for, considering how you have handled yourself at times when encountering other editors. — Arre 04:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:I'm fully aware that bullying is a very serious accusation and I made it very seriously.

:You have also just proven my points: you don't want one actress mentioned because she was brief even though the guideline states "multiple portrayers should be listed in chronological order" NOT "only add the ones Arre9 thinks were around for a suitable amount of time." You claim this other "consensus conversation" happened stating breaks should be noted only when they've lasted more than 12 months but, you don't link to it or state where it happened, the rest of the wiki world should just believe you. And in one sentence, you state that accusations are not called for and then make a personal attack. HAHAHAHA.

:As I said on your talk page, sorry for thinking you were a guy. It's not like we haven't had multiple, multiple conversations in the past where you could have corrected me before today.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::And you have proved my point as well...why should temporary actresses (barely any source on the internet even supports her portrayal - we don't even know how long - was it for a week? A day? Half an episode?) be listed when there is nothing to support notability, and it simply ends up being clutter. The guidelines of that template are immensely vague, and you keep treating them as if they are the 10 commandments. Also, I never dictated anything to you about info-box guidelines, my issues with you were about around your inability to understand what non-free/free images meant. How did I attack you personally? You are being a tad petty. Claiming that you have been bullied is not laughable, as it is a serious matter, but sad, as it is a serious thing which you are using to try and prove a point. No one has bullied you.— Arre 05:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::The guidelines specifically state that only years should be listed and she only played the part in 1990 so whether it was a week, a day, or half an episode isn't relevant. Mentioning THAT would be clutter. You mentioning the infobox guidelines was our first conversation ever. It was on your talk page but, you deleted it recently. Do you want me to go find it?Cebr1979 (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::::Cebr1979, Raintheone [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:5_albert_square&diff=next&oldid=635041180 asked for my advice about you], because you were not listening to what they were saying. They were confused because they told you that there is consensus on Wikipedia that soap opera characters who have had breaks of less than one year, the duration field does not change, yet you told them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Hayes_(The_Bold_and_the_Beautiful)&diff=prev&oldid=635445248 consensus talks do not take place on Wikipedia]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:5_albert_square&diff=prev&oldid=635453504 Something you later contradicted].

::::I then sent you a message advising you that consensus is basically how Wikipedia works so there's no way that consensus talks would not take place as per your claim. I explained to you that this consensus was reached to avoid infoboxes becoming cluttered every time a character decides to disappear for a few months. When you say we haven't told you where these discussions took place, you have been advised on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:5_albert_square&diff=next&oldid=635454655 numerous] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:5_albert_square&diff=next&oldid=635459657 occasions] that I think it was at WP:SOAP, as that is the project page for soap articles. As the consensus has been in place now for the best part of some 4 or 5 years I'm not 100% sure.

::::I have also told you, again a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:5_albert_square&diff=prev&oldid=635458798 number] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:5_albert_square&diff=prev&oldid=635455176 of times] that you will need to take this discussion to WP:SOAPS, something which you are refusing to do.

::::You have also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:5_albert_square&diff=next&oldid=635456635 refused to accept the warnings issued to you] and have been generally [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:5_albert_square&diff=next&oldid=635455916 quite rude] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:5_albert_square&diff=next&oldid=635458401 to] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:5_albert_square&diff=next&oldid=635451885 myself] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arre_9&diff=prev&oldid=635460709 and] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arre_9&diff=prev&oldid=635473587 others].

::::Cebr1979 please take this up at WP:SOAPS--5 albert square (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::My error in regards to consensus talks was because I had confused that with meatpuppeting and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:5_albert_square#Consensus_Talks I've made that clear]. I have not ignored warnings issued to me, there were none correctly issued to me, they were bogus and I explained that to you in that same conversation. Plus, they were reverted back by both you and Raintheone even after I told you both you're not allowed to do that to my talk page (in that same conversation and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:5_albert_square#My_talk_page here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raintheone#My_talk_page here]). WP:SOAPS is for when someone wants something changed, not when something is already there in black and white. You three have been incredibly difficult with your phantom conversations and made-up policies when I have stuck to one thing and one thing only: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_soap_character#Parameter_descriptions wikipedia's guidelines are there for a reason and that reason is because they should be followed]. You guys need to go to WP:SOAPS if you want the guidelines changed, I don't need to go there and ask permission to follow them as they already are! Telling one editor not to do something that wikipedia say's they are allowed to do is wrong. Again, why don't you know this?Cebr1979 (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::P.S. You realise your first example of me being rude was actually me quoting what you had said to me, right? That's why I used quotation marks. I was QUOTING YOU but, only I was being rude (hint: since I was quoting you, you said it first)? The rest of them aren't rude at all. Frustrated, yes. Rude, no.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

All of our conversations have been linked to now. There's no point in us continuing our debate when it's clear we're not going to resolve this on our own. I propose we just let others chime in now.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::I've checked my talk page and you said that consensus is allowed when it's relevant, you've then accused Raintheone of coming to me because they know I'll agree with them. You haven't said that you got them confused, unless I'm not seeing something on the diff you provided, and I've already explained why Rain approached me above. I don't know why you won't accept this.

::::::I'm not being difficult, I'm trying to help you. I would suggest that you ask at WP:SOAPS about it, aside from anything else maybe someone else there can remember then consensus discussion? However, as you are the one disputing this it will need to be you that asks about it

::::::With regards to civilness, in my opinion you're even being a bit rude above by making out that we know nothing when we do know our policies. The diff that I posted above, I found the whole comment rude, but you were extremely sarcastic at the end of it. I had been trying to explain something to you I think on your talk page and I did say to you that I apologise if you found it offensive. Myself and others have pointed out that we found your comments rude and you haven't apologised once.

::::::I agree with you though that we need to let someone else in now--5 albert square (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::What would like me to apologise for, Albert? Getting reverted when my edits follow the rules? Asking for clarification when you say phantom conversations happened but, don't remember when they happened or where (the template has been updated multiple times in the last "4 or 5 years," if your conversation had happened, it would be there like all the other consensus conversations are and you specifically stated you aren't even sure the conversation happened at WP:SOAPS)? Me having to show you, a site admin, many wikipedia policies and then you still arguing that you're right and they're wrong? The fact that we're at ANI (mainly) because you, a site admin, are encouraging others to ignore guidelines you now know are real? Well, that won't be happening. Now, since you've agreed with me that leaving this conversation is a good idea, why don't we do that.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::::I was actually meaning the uncivil comment you made to me. As for ignoring guidelines I haven't told anyone to ignore any guidelines. I was trying to help and I suggested that you bring this up at WP:SOAPS as I thought that's where the discussion was 5 albert square (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::There was no uncivil comment to you. I've already pointed out I was quoting something you said to me first. That can be seen right there in the diff you posted (along with more examples of you being wrong about things all admins should know *cough*talk page rules*cough*). You like apologies so damn much, go ahead and make one to me then. "Think about it" and then make your apology. I'll be here.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:5_albert_square&diff=next&oldid=635453867 already done] 5 albert square (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Given Cebr's long-standing history of incivility (ie the majority of categories founded under "1" and 2A) with other editors, and their continued mis-interpretation of Wikipedia policy, this seems a case of if it quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's ultimately a duck. User continues to make accusations, something they've been warned against and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cebr1979&diff=612404475&oldid=612114762 blocked for] by a Wikipedia Administrator, as well as personal attacks by DarkFalls and Diannaa, and their editing history clearly shows a continued line of edit-warring in the position of owning an article, by simply stating "no" or continuing to take things in their own perception, and feel they are above decisions and warnings heeded by Administration. They seem to be unable to take accountability of their own actions, and not accept that they might just be wrong from time to time. They've continued to edit an a destructive manner towards articles and other editors. If an edit is made they are not happy with, they revert it and then if someone (who they haven't achieved conflict with) re-does the edit, they allow it to stay — I do have proof of said situations, so if you'd prefer them, I will provide. Their editing pattern (DUCK) shows their mild attention to bait editors into conflict. They seek their own interpretation and desired result of their own desire, and when someone tries to edit alongside that, if they disagree, the edit(s) in question are automatically reverted, without talkpage discussion, yet if someone reverts their own edits, they have to open a discussion? Their editing on their own pretenses within Wikipedia, and their editing pattern with myself and other editors now show their incivility with other editors, and an inability to co-edit in a peaceful and respectful matter, especially if you disagree with their editing beliefs and opinions. It's disappointing this kind of editing has been allowed to continually fall through the cracks of this website by Administrations, and the fact another Admin has been dragged into this editor's disruptive behavior is quite disgusting, and as someone who has reviewed all diffs given in this ANI, the accusations of vandalism and bullying is not founded on Arre 9, but on Cebr1979, based on their interpretation of policies and things spelt out, and as someone who has edited alongside every single editor mentioned in this ANI, I just don't see how these accusations could be founded to be true. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

:Wikiprojects with many members have discussed the infobox. Duration discussions have taken place in years that have passed. Two recent ones in my mind are [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 9 here] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_EastEnders/Archive_13#Durations here]. The current infobox used for Soap characters is actually a result of a large merge with the table origninated from WP:EE (highlighting the latter discussion's relevance). It went onto shortening as much as possible, without detracting from the important bits. There are many discussions of recent times viewable in WP:SOAPS archives regarding the overall agreement cluttering an infobox with many elements of in-universe and minor detail is not needed.

:Bullying is a strong accusation. Just because three editors disagree with you does not mean you are being bullied. I think it is all to easy to play that card. There are actual people going through actual bullying. A disagreement lasting an two hours on Wikipedia is no comparison. You are the one making jibes at editors, adding a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARaintheone&diff=635448047&oldid=635447355 bait] aimed at Arre on my talk page. Expressing laughter in your replies at our expense. Accusing anyone with a differing opinion of making their own rules. Dismissing warnings and acting ignorant to them. They are valid and you do not want to accept that. I reverted because as a long standing editor, I disagreed at their dismissal - why not archive them as suggested. My verdict is that you are using Wikipedia as a battleground. You are using guidelines as weapons to gain your own way. This ANI is another tactic. I backed off to prevent any escalation of a pointless drama. User:livelikemusic provided some interesting information - noting that you have a history of this pull-all-in drama which resulted in a blocking. You also appear to participiate in edit wars. It appears that you feel the need to have it your own way and disregard anyone with a different opinion - in this case three editors. The meatpuppeting accusation is the most flawed. No one has recruited anyone off-site. No one has approached a group of people off-site likely to agree. These are long-standing members editing similar stuff. An editor contacted me regarding an issue and I asked for admin advice all on here. Seems more than reasonable and run-of-the-mill action to take.Rain the 1 03:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::I have looked and I have found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas/Archive_9 this]. Cebr you have accused every single editor of lying and making up this discussion, as you can see there have been many discussions about this--5 albert square (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It’s okay to disagree, to debate, to revert an edit, even to qualify an edit as “inaccurate” or nonsense (which is an opinion, that I can react on, if I want to), but it is not okay to vaguely threaten someone with “I’ll report you”. This is not kindergarten. What does he want to report me for? Firstly, I’m not targeting his edits—as he calls it—I’m just frequently editing one page, recently, which simply is a page that nowadays seems to need a lot of updating, debate, etc.—just normal Wikipedia developments, that are. Secondly: I’ve always exactly motivated why I’ve scrapped Australia and Canada, several times, in that list. If Legacypac wants to refute that motivation, he is welcome to do so, but “utter nonsense” is not really an argument. Just today (!), Legacypac has brought in the proof about Australia in the article. Fine. He could perhaps have done that earlier. But why does he get back at me with that shouting and cursing and threatening? It simply was not sourced in the article, and by now he has sourced it. ‘Canada’ was before today vaguely sourced with a Wikilink to Operation Impact, perhaps I ought to have understood that Wikilink better, but he can just say that, and should not threaten with such (childish) “I’ll report you”. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

:::(edit conflict) Repeatedly removing (by his own admission) that Canada and Australia are bombing in Iraq is poor editing. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq&diff=635001263&oldid=634998500 Doing so] with this edit summary is pretty strange: "Revision as of 19:54, 22 November 2014 (edit) Corriebertus (as I’ve said 4,6,13 and 18 Nov: we see no proof in the article of Canadian/Australian airstrike. 22Nov Legacypac(whom I already corrected 18Nov) again inserted this. Please stop pushing such fantasies)" I find the logic humorous since Wikipedia is not the only source of information in the world - and not even a citable source for wikipedia. If all truth resides at WP we can quite the project now. Policy says we don't delete easily sourced material [http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canadian-airstrikes-hit-isis-construction-equipment-in-iraq-1.2084244 (like this Nov 3 article)], we try to improve the articles. As he points out the summary material was linked to Operation Impact which has a whole section on the airstrikes which started 22 days ago. I doubt the dead and wounded ISIL fighters enjoyed the Canadian "fantasies" that hit them. Reporting me for suggesting I'll report him for edit warring if he continues such behavior is even funnier. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

:Legacypac has a long history of extremely aggressive interaction and a unilateral edit style that includes page moves and blanking against consensus in this specific topic area; he probably will drag you to ANI, he is a regular visitor here. If it's any solace, none of his reports result in any action: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive793], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive263#User:Signedzzz_reported_by_User:Legacypac_.28Result:_Not_blocked.29], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Skookum1_reported_by_User:Legacypac_.28Result:No_violation.29], PBS and countless others more times than anyone can count for unilateral page moves and page blanking. At this point it appears he basically has carte blanch so, unfortunately, we all just have to grin and bear it. I gave-up on editing these topics as the amount of time it took undoing unilateral page blanking/moves, and being screamed and threatened with the ANI cudgel just wasn't interesting anymore. I'm sorry you're the latest one to be on the receiving end of this. Honestly, you'd be better off just giving up and editing something else. I regret I don't have more up-beat advice to offer. DocumentError (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yawn, Mr Error is a specialist at Admin processes - which generally go against him. I no longer interact with him because it makes my head hurt. As for the ANi reports just posted - first user was 3 month topic banned. Second user was 48 hour blocked just before and no action taken at link because they agreed to stop editing the article, and third user's edits are being dealt with via an RfC instead. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

:FYI, I just undid your edit of my comment. You have been repeatedly told not to edit others comments by moving them out of sequence or changing verbiage. Stop it. You have also been repeatedly told not to engage in name calling against other editors. My name is not "Mr Error." DocumentError (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

::Repeated editing of your comments by you was causing edit conflicts. If I inadvertently edited your comment, sorry about that. As an editor who intentionally misused my user name all over the place to falsely imply an association with an organization, you are hardly one to talk. You make demonstrably false claims about other editors all the time. Now go away and stop harassing me. Legacypac (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

:::The history of your Talk page - for those who dive into it - is essentially a parade of dozens of other editors pleading, cajoling, and imploring you to stop 3RR, personal attacks, and against-consensus edits. You declare all of these attempts to engage with you as editors "harassing" and spreading lies about you. You are, quite possibly, the most combative, "take no prisoners" editor on WP as of today, 27NOV2014. DocumentError (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think at this point Legacypac and {{ping|DocumentError}} could benefit from a self imposed two way IBAN. Now as for {{ping|Corriebertus}} and {{ping|Legacypac}}, have either of you had any other contact about the above material other than this "threat" on the talk page?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks -Serialjoepsycho- for your comments - I've been operating under a self imposed IBAN for several months related to DocumentError and he knows that. I stupidly broke my policy only to respond to his comments here - and I already regret it. I would welcome a formal IBAN on him (or both of us) because such an IBAN will result in no change to how I live my life. I already avoid his unpleasantness. Not having him attack me would make my WP experience much nicer.

I have been in the same discussion threads as {{ping|Corriebertus}} on other issues, but was not aware he had an opinion about fantasy airstrike until after I noticed Canada and Australia had been reclassified as not in the fight in the body of the article and had fixed that. Then I thought I'd check who was responsible for the changes and noticed his snarky edit summary that turned out to cover the same issue in the lead. I don't follow that article very closely, did not dig deeper in the history, and assume his claimed responsibility in that edit summary is correct. Legacypac (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

:I don't think this is really an ANI issue. I recommend that both of you in the future consider civil conversation with each other, Legacypac and Corriebertus, instead of snarky reverts and overeactive page warnings.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

::Thanks DocumentError and Serieljoepsycho for your comments. Some terms (IBAN, ANI, PBS) I’m not acquainted with. Serialjoeps asks: have you two had earlier contact about that material? No, I believe we have not. The tricky, dirty thing is, that after I had deleted about five times some listing of Canada/Australia, with clear motivation, after those five times Legacypac at last came up(24 Nov) with sources that corroborate his standpoint, and then apparently considered that a good opportunity to start screaming and lying and threatening and cursing AND even making a personal attack ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq&diff=635256603&oldid=635253664 “user pushing some agenda”]) at me. By the way, Serial: what is my ‘snarky revert’ and what my ‘overreactive page warning’?
I understand from DocError that Legacypac has had his way with DocError in scaring him away from editing certain pages by screaming and threatening him and whatever other aggressive interaction and unilateral editing style. If that would be true, we would seem to have in Legacypac an editor that basically threatens Wikipedia. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

::::DocumentErrors edits from a clear pro-Iran, anti-American POV and did engage in forum shopping, but his efforts to push the Iran intervention in Iraq over the American-led one were largely unsuccessful. I'll go so far to say that DocumentError specializes in error - I and quite a few other editors have spent far to much time refuting his erroneous accusations. I ignore him and yet he continues to HOUND me damaging my reputation (which is my job, thank-you very much).

::::To Corriebertus I am sorry you feel attacked. My initial edit summary was not directed at you specifically as I did not know who deleted the Canadian airstrikes at the time. I did not like your edit summary (repeated above) that called me out by name. Let's try to improve your wikipedia experience. In Wikipedia we do not automatically delete everything that is not directly sourced. We just write stuff that is widely known or easily confirmed like "Canada is a country in North America" or "there is a civil war in Syria" with no need for a specific reference everytime. There are lots of things that are opinions or maybe gray area facts, but it is undisputed fact (not my opinion or standpoint) that Canada is bombing in Iraq in November 2014. Adding a cite to the fact improves the page, deleting the fact 5 times because you perceive some other editor(s) failed to provide a cite is really annoying. This behavior is perceived by other editors as POV pushing because you are making changes in a strange direction suggesting some unknown agenda. Editors get blocked and banned for behavior regularly. Your edits left the article saying Canada was NOT doing airstrike yet - which you can not support with any cite because it just is not true. Now can you understand the issue and withdraw your complaint here?

::::WP:IBAN is an interaction ban, ANi is here-Admin Noticeboard incidents. PBS is a specific Admin editor. Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Corriebertus}}What ever comment that Legacypac felt was snarky. I don't know if actually was snarky. Please do find that edit and review it and take into account that they felt that it was snarky. This may help you in your dealings with them in the future. They seem to have realized that some of the things they have said may have offended you and it does seem they are going to try to take that into account into the future. As far as 'Overreactive page warning' I was referring to Legacypac warning or (as you called it threat) that they would report you. You both seem reasonable. There's really nothing for ANI to do here in my opinion. I do think you to can work this out amongst yourself.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks Serialjoepsycho for your level headed comments. To clarify - I never said anything was snarky (not a word I use), my only concern was the edit summary I quoted in the third paragraph from the top. I think Corriebertus and I can carry on happily. Now as for the comment below... Nothing in the next paragraph is true and the accusation that I have been cautioned about race-baiting is new and novel. I'd be interested in even one diff showing even a suggestion I engaged in race-baiting (perhaps DocumentError can't count past zero?) - That accusation is a HIGHLY offensive allegation against me for a bunch of reasons. I've spent more time defending these unwarranted attacks then anyone should need to - so how can I get the IBAN against DocumentError? Legacypac (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

::::If I had more time at the moment I would file a separate ANI about this as you've already been cautioned about race-baiting, LP, more times than I can possibly count. You've also been told not to revert other editors contributions on the basis that they are "anti-American" as "anti/pro-American" is not a WP policy.

::::Corriebertus - the acidic style of LP's interaction with other editors, and his occasional penchant for vandalism (specifically making edits on topics that are open for RfC and unilaterally moving entire pages and, in one instance, simply deleting an entire page he declared was "anti-American") for which PBS (and many others) have cautioned him, is not worth your sanity. Search his name in the ANI or talk to other tenured editors like User:Supreme Deliciousness, User:GB fan, User:Drmies, or a thousand others who have crossed his path on articles related to political violence in the Muslim world (which are 90% of his edits). He's on a one-man crusade to save Apple Pie and Baseball, though frequently (as he did above) invokes the name of some vast assemblage of nameless "other editors" backing him up. The edit summary he left you in reverting one of your edits "What the hell is wrong with this guy?" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq&diff=635253360&oldid=635252618] is eerily reminiscent to one he's previously left me. Every edit he approaches as a battleground in some vast war for the defense of western civilization against the circling hordes. As frustrating as it can be, I recommend you disengage completely and stay as far away from him as you can. Feel free to email me if you'd like to discuss it in detail or need to commiserate. DocumentError (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment {{ping|User:Serialjoepsycho}}I am in complete sympathy with DocumentError and Corriebertus, and am another that he's abusing process and community standards repeatedly; and he's just done it again with a complete OR fabrication on Ottawa shootings article; please read this comment of mine on the other ANI launched by LegacyPac against me below, and note his edit warring and abuse of the RPA template on the article in question's talkpage. It's endless, it seems; I invite you to explore his usercontributions as indicated by DocumentError and Corriebertus above re this being a chronically disruptive and "hostile" editor and "edit warrior".Skookum1 (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill%2C_Ottawa&diff=635621007&oldid=635619743 This censor-deletion] of my criticisms of his conduct on that article I have not restored due to intervening edits, and a mounting sense of irritation and futility dealing with him. Note that he did not just remove my comments but those critical of him for mis-using RPA for what were not personal attacks, but very provable notes about how his presence has impacted the article and the discussion page both. And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill%2C_Ottawa&diff=635367913&oldid=635367784 note here] {{ping|User:GBFan's}} reversion of his second reversion of his censoring of my posts with invalid abuse of the RPA template; GBFan's comments were among those deleted/censored in the previous link. "If you don't want to be talked about for doing bad things, don't do bad things"....screwing with other peoples' posts and acting as a one-man censor are not a "good thing" are they? The persistence of this behaviour is noticeable all the way through his usercontributions, which I spent a day exploring while he was drafting the ANI below. IMO a broader ANI on "terror POV" is needed, but also in that context the behaviour of "terror campaigners", as mentioned in this section of the talkpage in response to another "terror campaigner"'s attempt to euhemerize/neuter content on an "agenda" basis. i.e. that on that article, and on the Saint Jean sur Richelieu one, an ongoing abuse of sources mis-quoted, distorted, with OR claims/wording used willy-nilly, is an ongoing problem, just as it seems to be with the other articles such people frequent in their busy not-paid, not-at-the-office {yeah, sure} wiki-days.Skookum1 (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Skookum1}}This is my opinion, There is nothing for ANI to do here. As far as the other ANI, in my opinion, some of the deletions were justifiable. The one that you linked to doesn't seem to have much to do with the article. It does seem to have alot to do with your views of the editors behavior. That would not be appropriate for the talk page of that article. The users talk page perhaps. If you feel they have violated some policy and have the evidence ANI may have been appropriate.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:Context to discussion: One context in which the above complaint can be viewed regards the thread started by Legacypac (#Related Article nominated for deletion) which related to a content (2014 U.S. and allies versus Islamic State hostilities and conflicts) created by Corriebertus. I think that both of these editors can have tendencies to take solo paths and, although I have not had as much direct contact with Corriebertus, I think that Legacypac, to an extent and not to excuse solo behaviours, operates more closely in line with consensus. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That account, which is clearly still owned by Jaros, Baum & Bolles, is now being used to insert the same blatant advertising of their business into Two World Trade Center, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two_World_Trade_Center&diff=635521070&oldid=635519553 here], and after a revert by someone else for blatant advertising [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two_World_Trade_Center&diff=635524579&oldid=635524220 here] (now also reverted by yet another party).

This account is clearly being used by Jaros, Baum & Bolles to push their company within Wikipedia in flagrant disregard of the conflict of interest policy. Jaros, Baum & Bolles were made aware of the conflict of interest policy on the 15th Nov [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EngcolLab191480&oldid=633932983 here]. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:Totally agree with the contribution from DieSwartzPunk. I have reverted what seems to be blatant advertising only to see my edit reversed, without any explanation. These "edits" appear to disregard Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. They have already been warned by several editors and taken no notice whatsoever. Stronger action needs to be applied. David J Johnson (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:It has just occurred to me that since the original account was the name of the company involved and has merely been renamed, that the advertising is originating from the same location (that is: the company involved). It thus has to be the case that the editor adding the advertising is being paid by Jaros, Baum & Bolles contrary to WP:PAY. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This can probably be closed with no action because it is stale by now. {{u|EngcolLab191480}} has made no further attempts to insert their advertising anywhere so good faith suggests that it can be assumed that they have taken notice of the warning that I placed on their talk page. If this proves not to be the case, I (or anyone else) can raise a fresh ANI. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

:{{ping|Homeostasis07}} Blocked for 72 hours to prevent further disruption. Thanks for the heads-up, we might consider blacklisting this URL considering it's unlikely to be of value. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::I'd say the site is unlikely to ever be of value. The site seems to exist solely to provide illegal download links (ie, Mediafire, Uploaded.net, etc.) to officially released material. I'd suggest immediate blacklisting. Homeostasis07 (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

:::*Yeah... if the page frequently links to places to illegally download stuff (and especially if this is its sole purpose), then odds are high that this isn't something that we'd want on any Wikipedia article ever. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::::{{replyto|Tokyogirl79|Homeostasis07}} Not being familiar with using the blacklist myself, I've made a report of this at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#firstleaks.com. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

:In other words, he is asking for someone to edit-war on his behalf because he has maxed out his 3 reverts for the day [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Himar%C3%AB&diff=635888799&oldid=635867298] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Himar%C3%AB&diff=635922372&oldid=635921796] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Himar%C3%AB&diff=635925720&oldid=635925177]. He claims that sources from 2010 are "twenty years old" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himar%C3%AB#cite_note-7] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Himar%C3%AB&diff=prev&oldid=635924413], and makes false claims of consensus. Athenean (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

:: And you still continue with the WP:PERSONAL . I am not claiming anything , neither i am removing those 20 year sources , i was just advocating the fact that by the same right that those sources have a place in the lead , so does the 2011 census especially considering the fact that the census does not support what those sources claim . You seem to be looking this as a Revision war , rather than a discussion to find a platform of consensus . And is especially ironical that you value so much your sources , while you deny the right of a sourced 2011 census to be on the lead too , which in fact was put there as per consensus . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

:::P.S Needless to say , his 3RR warning on my wall was posted after he replied here , as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGjirokastra15&diff=635930576&oldid=635401542 shown here] . And i find it ironical given the fact that he has the same amount of reverts as me Gjirokastra15 (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::::Nothing personal, just pointing out the inconsistencies in your behavior and false claims you make so that the community knows what kind of editor it is dealing with here. Athenean (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

:::: I hope you understand that this was also a personal attack . What kind of editor am i and where are the inconsistencies ? It does not take much , what someone can do is check the article's talk page , the established consensus and the revision history ... Gjirokastra15 (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::1. You claim that I won't discuss with you, even though I am the one who started the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHimar%C3%AB&diff=635922117&oldid=635899087]

:::::2. You claim that the sources I have posted are twenty years old [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Himar%C3%AB&diff=prev&oldid=635924413] but they are not [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himar%C3%AB#cite_note-7].

:::::3. You claim that no sources have been provided regarding the boycotting of the census by ethnic minorities, but there are sources to that effect. You just choose to ignore them.

:::::4. You claim the your edits were added by consensus, but you can't point to that consensus.

:::::5. You claim that I am making personal attacks, but nothing of what I have written is a personal attack.

::::::Credibility is very important, don't be so careless with it. Athenean (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to intentionally pretend like you do not understand the point . And let me make it very clear , my point is NOT removing those sources , i have never objected them neither tried to remove them . I am here because you remove the 2011 census results , yet you want to keep those sources , of which 1 DOES NOT WORK , and 1 other is from 1993 (i have not had time to check the other 2 yet ) . That's called double standards . Did you even bother to check them ? That is absolutely fine with me ... after all i am not the one removing referenced assertions using the 3RR game . Said more simply , i am more than fine with that referenced assertion existing in the lead as long as the 2011 sourced census which is being used by the CIA world fact book remains on the lead too .

Here your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Himar%C3%AB&diff=635926722&oldid=635925720 revert] shows exactly why i am here : Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

:You are here because you are hoping to recruit someone to edit-war on your behalf ("I ask that the referenced assertion (established as per consensus) to be restored"). And you do not understand WP:LEDE. The point of the lede is to provide a summary of the article, not to have a lengthy discussion on demographics. That's what the demographics section is for. The fact that you insist that the census results be included in the lede, even though they conflict with reliable sources, is very POINTy. And you falsely state that my sources were 20 years old, as if that would somehow discredit them. Athenean (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::You say that there is a consensus. Link to it real quick so we can see.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::I am here because your actions show a very non collaborating attitude . As per wp:lede the phrase that that area is predominantly populated by Greeks cannot be put there because the census does show the exact opposite . Thus the best solution was to include both of them on the lead , thus the established consensus .... And you came and deleted everything on a wp:idontlikeit basis and on top of that you even refused to discuss Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

:::@Serjaljoepsycho , the consensus is located on the talk page of himara with the title : wp:lead problems . Is number 29th , continue reading from there . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::::Are the two of you aware of the various processes of dispute resolution on wikipedia? WP:DR? There's a number of processes and noticeboards you can use. This seems to be more of a content dispute than a conduct dispute. ANI does not handle content disputes.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::::As per your advice i have already opened a dispute resolution . Although i believe that removing referenced material which is a product of a consensus and then refusing to discuss is a conduct dispute also . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::It does seem that they have been discussing it with you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

:I've only made just three reverts, which is not going beyond three reverts. Try actually reading rules before citing them. Oh, wait, if you did read it, you'd just plagiarize it like you did with that article, for at least the second time.

:The article Woodie (musical artist) still uses plenty of lines from the original sources, which you removed to cover your tracks. Considering that your current account is a sockpuppet account (and clearly a WP:BADHAND account), that you don't seem to be able to learn from any of your previous accounts blunders... One cannot assume both good-faith and minimal competence from you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

::And now he's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodie_%28musical_artist%29&diff=prev&oldid=635964373 intentionally readded the plagiarized material]. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:::Thanks to User:Barek for the quick clean up. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:{{user|Bin4K2}} is now blocked for one week due to repeated posting of copyvio content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

::Just a quick reminder that "Removal of clear copyright violations" is one of the exceptions to WP:3RR; even if he'd made a dozen reverts, we wouldn't have sanctioned Ian. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:It looks and sounds as if they may have done a move wrong.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::He (it's one user with two accounts) did this yesterday as well, and an admin was able to deal with it then. I've moved the article back to 808s & Heartbreak (the original and correct title). 808s & Heartbreak (Kanye West album) (the one they copy-pasted to) needs to be deleted, and probably protected to prevent another copy paste move. The recently uploaded image :File:808's & Heartbreak (Kanye West album cover).jpg needs deletion (it's a duplicate of :File:808s & Heartbreak.png). Portal:Redirect 808s & Heartbreak (Kanye West album) needs to be deleted too. That seems to be the gist of what needs to be done, besides possibly blocking the editor in question to prevent further disruption. As a further note, it appears {{IPvandal|5.81.225.225}} is related to the user in question per the contributions. -- Calidum 20:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

:::The original article needs deleting; people without any admin or roll back or whatever can not edit it; which to be honest is unfair and it should be redirected to the one that was created Rihanna-RiRi-fan (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::::Hi Rihanna-RiRi-fan or Che'Nellefan. There's no obvious reason why you are unable to edit 808s & Heartbreak; the page is not protected in any way. Regardless, creating a duplicate article is not the solution. Please don't do that any more. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

:::: The only reason I can think of why you won't or can't edit the main article is because these are sock accounts of MariaJaydHicky. I have requested checkuser assistance at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::Thanks. -- Calidum 05:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Could use more eyes here and help from an admin to close this and carry out the associated blocks on the sockmaster and socks.

It's a clear case of WP:DUCK, with the sockmaster and socks using the exact same wording: "I am a publicist from Bengal", etc.

Unfortunately right now the sockmaster is carrying out disruption posting to multiple different user talk pages, ignoring advice to them, seemingly per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:FORUMSHOPPING.

One article page in mainspace already had to be WP:SALTed because of this disruptive user.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, — Cirt (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:You opened an SPI. Admins and check users will review this as soon as possible. Is there any immediate reason to block them other than uour sock suspicions?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

::Not anymore; I took care of it all. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:::Thanks very much to {{u|Jpgordon}} for taking care of it. — Cirt (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FC_Bayern_Munich&diff=635980532&oldid=635972279 said this to me] on a discussion page: "Don't bother posting another word here". Is suggesting other users to stop discussing content a good behaviour? SLBedit (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

: He actually said, "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FC_Bayern_Munich&diff=635980532&oldid=635972279 if you can't find a reliable source that states that your club has more than 251,000 members your old sources are no longer relevant and I'm done talking with you. Seriously. Don't bother posting another word here unless it's a RS that supports that claim.]" Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

::You said it. SLBedit (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Your diff shows they said more than that. Their statement was qualified. This looks very much to be a content dispute. It seems to be about a source and that sources reliability. We have a noticeboard set up for that. The reliable sources noticeboard. Here is a link: WP:RSN -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

User:Shawn in Montreal has blatantly misused his Rollback facility here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Somerville&diff=636059314&oldid=636057785]. It is a sensitive ongoing issue on a matter which is in the process of discussion on my own talk page (User talk:Amamamamama). Neither is my edit vandalism nor is the purpose of the rollback usage "totally clear". --Amamamamama (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:You do understand, I hope, that administrators here are quite capable of researching and understanding the totality of a series of edits by a reporting user, and do not generally act on reports here without doing so. You may want to review WP:BOOMERANG. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:::I am happy for the case to proceed and will happily defend myself on any matter where I am accused of wrongdoing. --Amamamamama (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

::::Given this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Somerville&diff=636057163&oldid=636016441] edit summary, I would have to suggest that the appropriate course of action here would be an immediate and indefinite block on User:Amamamamama. We have no use for new 'contributors' who think such comments remotely appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::{{ec}}As per AndyTheGrump a block would be in order for that comment, secondly can you please show where you have consensus for the removal as per your edit summary here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Somerville&oldid=636057785]. Amortias (T)(C) 19:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::The reporter will likely be unable to respond, as they have been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Amamamamama_reported_by_User:Shawn_in_Montreal_.28Result:_Blocked.29 blocked for 72 hours] for 3RR. The editor continues to introduce new evidence in support of {{U|AndyTheGrump}}'s recommendation even as they appeal the block on their Talk page. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::Amamamamama's first edit is ample evidence in itself for why we don't need such 'contributors'. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philip_Hammond&diff=prev&oldid=632740362] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

{{archivebottom}}

• Template:History of South Asia
• Mehrgarh
• Template:History of Pakistan
• Soanian

And more, you will find two IPs who are actively editing and reverting, they are 99.247.57.5 and 76.69.36.238, with pseudo-historical theories like "History of Pakistan begins with evidence of early human activity 500,000 years ago in the Siwalik region of Pakistan's Potohar Plateau, during the Soanian culture" and edit summaries like "WHAT ARE YOU DOING? STOP VANDALISING MY WORK IT TOOK ME HOURS TO DO THIS!)"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Pakistan&oldid=636032642&diff=prev](also see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Pakistan&oldid=636032733&diff=prev]) IP hopper has already proven himself to be Wikipedia:NOTHERE. On Wikipedia:RFPP board, I had requested protection for 1 page and 1 template, but I don't think that pages are going to be protected because admins there usually look for on going disruption for multiple days. He is also using a sock account now, called User:‎HistoryPK15. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:Socks have been blocked for pretty obvious block evasion. If this behavior resumes after the blocks end, protection for the targeted pages would be an appropriate course of action. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• Atherogenic dyslipidemia partially from [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2941780/] ([http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/disclaimer.html copyright disclaimer])
• Atherogenic diabetic dyslipidemia (at least 3rd paragraph) from [http://www.dovepress.com/articles.php?article_id=4952] (site asserts copyright, article asserted to be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial unported, v3.0 License)

Thankfully, the sites state that the information should be released under copyleft so there should be no threat of COPYVIO concerns in the article, however I recall reading somewhere sometime back that there was a nitpick with that - something about us having to state that the information was acquired from the site or something to that effect. Does this mean we need a make an explicit note of that fact, or is it enough that its released under copyleft and cited in the article? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:{{u|TomStar81}}, I'm afraid I do not agree. As I see it, the publisher makes clear [http://www.dovepress.com/permissions.php here] that its Open Access articles are published under a CC-By-NC licence, which is not compatible here. So those are copyright violations, and should be dealt with as such. I see that the user has already been blocked for just this reason. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

::Oh. Well then some good did come of posting this here. In that case, I'll leave it to more experienced folks to handle this. I'd congratulate myself for playing a hunch, but this isn't the sort of thing that should be celebrated. In any event thanks, for the help. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:::I will remove the copyvio portions of the articles. The person who created them has already been blocked for serial copyright violations. — east718 | talk | 11:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

::::One of the articles was entirely copyvio which I removed. I tried to rewrite the other one with the copyvios cut out but was left with a single sentence which didn't describe the article's subject, so I had to end up deleting that one too. Somebody will need to get in touch with a Commons admin regarding {{user|Hardikjoshi22887}}'s uploads, since those are copyright violations too. — east718 | talk | 12:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction on men's rights movement pages expired on October 27, 2014. {{U|NE Ent}}, who is more on top of this than I am, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Men%27s_rights_movement/Article_probation&diff=635703226&oldid=635674870 removed] the restriction from the sanctions page.

The restriction originally expired in October 2013 and then was extended another year. The question is should we extend it again. On the one hand, the last time anyone was sanctioned for a 1RR violation was in June of this year. On the other hand, the restriction undoubtedly prevents disruption on MRM pages.

I propose we extend the restriction for one more year from the date this discussion is closed. I've created two subsections below, one for votes, and one for discussion.

:Try the talk page here. Amortias (T)(C) 20:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

::{{replyto|Saehrimnir|Amortias}} That would not help in this case. per the page listing group permissions, the only user-group that does what you want is "Account creators", which I will assign to you (Saehrimnir) in a sec, using a diff to this message as a reason. Graham87 08:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

::: Glad to know I am not the only one who has to have that permission for the Wikipedia Library. Not having the permission means you can only do a few emails per day. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a user by the name of Lukenos at Barelvi article who keeps reverting my edits after I have provided reliable sources during an extensive discussion with other editors at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barelvi#Usage_of_proper_terms]. He had reported me for reversions and an administrator instructed him to continue discussions but he has not done that. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive263#User:Lagoonaville_reported_by_User:Lukeno94_.28Result:_No_action.2C_discussion_in_progress.29]. He has never discussed on talk page and in his edit summary he only says "i dont agree or no consensus" It is very frustrating. Lagoonaville (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Considering that I've not even had a chance to go and state my position at the talk page, and that Lagoonaville is misrepresenting exactly what was going on there, I would request that this frivolous case be speedily closed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe you had many days to discuss this issue but you remained silent. During reversions you are active but in discussion absolutely nothing. I have done only what the editors had requested on the talk page. Lagoonaville (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:OP seems to be editing against consenus, marking edits as minor when they arent and appears unwilling to use reliable sources to back up their claims. Amortias (T)(C) 00:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:*That, and they brought me here 20 minutes after my second reversion; I was doing other things in that time, after cleaning up a mess elsewhere, so had no chance to actually explain my position. Which I have now anyway. I did not participate in the discussion due to preferring to let the editors with more experience of the subject decide what to do; I have merely acted as a tool to uphold consensus. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the whole discussion? I have provided tons of reliable sources in the talk page and the RS noticeboar. Lagoonaville (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:Lukeno94 is now involved in that talk page's discussion. Your complaint there is null. This can be closed unless there's anything else.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

::Just to add before closing, I was the other editor with whom Lagoonaville discussed the edits. I suggested that he supply a draft version. He's new, and perhaps he thought I was suggesting that he edit the article itself and didn't realize that drafts are typically proposed on talk pages for controversial articles first. That is likely just a beginner learning the ropes.

::The edit warring against Lukeno is problematic as it isn't the first time Lagoonaville has edit warred, nor the first time he has been beliggerent and combative in edit summaries and on the talk page. I just felt that should be added here before the closing, as I don't think Lukeno has done anything wrong and that warrants being stated by a third party. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no controversy here I provided multiple reliable sources. It seems like some kind of mob rule is in order on that article. Lukenos has admitted to not knowing anything about the subject but is ready to revert at will. Lukenos, how would you know who is experienced in the subject? Blindly following other editors is unacceptable. A perfect case to describe this situation is mutiple editor ownership. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#Multiple-editor_ownership]. If administrators dont intervene they will continue to censor material. Lagoonaville (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:There's no conduct issue on the talk page that I can see. There is a content issue. ANI is not for content issues. Read wp:DR to learn about dispute resolution. There are plenty of ways to seek dispute resolution. A number of noticeboards. You could also open a wp:RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The editors in question are giving me the "runaround". They do not give any clear answers and care only about defending each other regardless of the situation. I cant even establish the dispute at this time. This does not look like a content issue because they are not giving any reasons for objecting to it. One of the editors Mazo who states in the talk page that he agrees with my suggestions but is asking for a draft and advising me not to edit the artlcle. The other editor recently removed my edits and is asking for terms to be put at the beginning(i did what he had requested) until Luke as discussed reverted with a "no consensus" accusation. This is in my opinion a behavioral issue although RFc is a good idea. Lagoonaville (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Not remotely true; MezzoMezzo and User:GorgeCustersSabre have been engaging you, and have often agreed with you on the things you have actually discussed. I'm not sure if it is because your English is not strong enough, or the fact that you simply haven't looked at the policies, but you are making a stream of inaccurate assertions about other editors, and I suggest you stop. Again, I request that an uninvolved admin closes this thread; it is just a waste of time, and I really don't want to be posting at ANI any more nowadays; I've had enough of this drama board. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

I have not discussed this with TParis as I do not believe it will help. I do not appreciate good faith edits being https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightbreather&diff=636208296&oldid=636192471 classified as disruptive or grave dancing as it is clear I am not doing either. This is the second time this has happened, the first at a SPI when I was discussing the application of WP:Cleanstart. The odd thing is that overall I was agreeing it was not a new user. I'd appreciate my comment restated as I think it was important if the person is alleging threats. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I will be back in 2 hours. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:I stopped reading after "I have not discussed this with [the user in question]." Not really, but, you know, you need to try and resolve any perceived issues before running off to a drama board. GiantSnowman 19:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

::{{reply to|Hell in a Bucket}} I think it's time for you to find something else to do rather than comment on or about Carolmooredc, Lightbreather, or Neotarf. Find an article to edit.--v/r - TP 20:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:::If you think you're being accused of threatening violence, you may want to contact oversight or whoever it is deals with such things here. On the refactoring, I think you should drop the stick. TP's comment may have been a bit rude but I know there's a dispute here, and your "I have not discussed this" statement does make it look like you're just picking a fight for no real reason. Remember what board you're posting to. Ivanvector (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

::::To be fair to Hell in a Bucket - I don't think either of us have personalized it yet so this isn't a 'picking a fight' ordeal. And I probably wouldn't have been open to the idea of reverting myself, so he's probably right that ANI was the next logical step.--v/r - TP 22:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for that fairness and yes it certainly isn't personal on my end eitherhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&diff=prev&oldid=636125234. My only issues is the classifications of the edits as disruptive or baiting or gravedancing. The only person I had a personal issue with was Neotarf and as you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hell_in_a_Bucket#A_barnstar_for_you.21 there was no gravedancing at all. I attempted to ask about what behaviors User:TParis thought was inappropriate last night and this was ignored. I however do think that refactoring or reverting the comment would actually do nothing at this point though now that I've seen the last linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lightbreather#Attempted_outing, I'm not sure the user has the ability to understand WP:OUTING and anything that I say will be taken out of context by her or who appears likely, TParis. As to your build the encyclopedia link I was doing that this morning and I only stopped when I saw the physical threats allusion of Lightbreathers and I didn't want my name to be connected to that at all. I ignored the innapropriate talkpage pinging, I ignored the second plea for my block, I attempted to show empathy and apparently this was inappropriate. I dislike the classifications of my edits because I do not mean bad for Lightbreather or indeed anyone on this encyclopedia. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

To avoid stirring the pot and reverting myself https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightbreather&curid=40200300&diff=636235361&oldid=636232030 Refactoring completed discussions. I'm going to ask at what point should talkpage access be yanked?Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

: How about you WP:DROPTHESTICK and leave {{user|Lightbreather}} alone for a while? AnonNep (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

::That's what I find questionable, I've interacted with Lightbreather for 2 days now and other then me doing a SPI, I hadn't engaged her for over two months. I'm not taking a victory lap here, I'm not gravedancer and you and Tparis make it sound like she's been target number one for months. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

::: The point of WP:DROPTHESTICK is about backing off no matter who wins/looses, who is right/wrong, etc/etc. Sometimes it is just for the best of Wikipedia all around. AnonNep (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Two servings of {{tl|minnow}}s -- Hiab, just walk away from the drama. TP, it's rather uncharitable to describe If you are referring to me in anyway I want to assure you I bear you no ill will and certainly would not try and find you to hurt you. This is an online dispute and nothing more for me, I'm sorry that you may have experienced something like that in the past but it's definitely not me nor would i want to. as "gravedancing," don't ya think? Not saying Hiab should be posting, but maybe a simple "not helpful" or something next time? NE Ent 23:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:For simplicity's sake I agree that it would be best for me to disengage. Thank you for at least agreeing with me, hopefully Tparis will see that too. That's my only issue I'm not asking for action just verification that wasn't baiting or gravedancing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

::How about verification that it obviously wasn't your intent to bait or gravedance, but it could be perceived that way, due to extent of massive prior conflict? (I mean in general, not Hell in a Bucket specifically.) NE Ent 23:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:::I seriously think it takes a mind not completely thinking clearly who couldn't see that it was not meant to hurt. There really is better things for everyone's energy so whether TParis agrees or not with the request I'll let it die. I get a little frustrated asometimes and I really didn't like that summary given the context. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

::::{{reply to|NE Ent}} Grave dancing isn't always the obvious "Haha, you're blocked." Sometimes it's the passive civil words with the real meaning being "I'm still around and free to edit even on your talk page" behind it. If HIAB didn't send threatening emails, then she isn't talking about HIAB. If he knows he didn't send such an email, then what is his need to reply to her? The fact of the matter is that the editors that contribute to the systems that get an editor blocked should not feel free to engage with the blocked editor while the blocked editor is blocked just because they can. It is the action, and not the words themselves, that is gravedancing.--v/r - TP 00:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

::::::I didn't make them sock, or make it look like they socked. I was under the understanding it was a collaborative environment and that editors were expected to move past disagreements. I'm more then a little surprised by that interpretation and I think it assumes utter bad faith but it is what it is. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::::It's just bad form. If I contribute to someone else's block, even if it's just reporting them socking or being in a dispute with them at the time of their block, I generally avoid their talk page. They don't want to talk to me, we aren't going to settle anything, and any help from me is going to be seen as patronizing. So I let uninvolved editors help.--v/r - TP 00:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's traditional that some of those left standing after a long and bitter arbcom battle will continue for a short while after the final curtain, but please stop now. Let's say TP is totally wrong (he's not, but let's say that)—so what?. Just stop. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

}}

The subject of this article has publicly complained about her Wikipedia profile on her Twitter account. See [https://twitter.com/chsommers here], especially the post titled "we heart games" made on November 26, in which she objects to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Hoff_Sommers&diff=634070791&oldid=633484965 this] edit by Objectivesea. I have been trying to do what I can to make Sommers's article neutral and in accord with BLP, but numerous recent edits to that page, where full article protection only recently expired, have been destructive and unhelpful and I'm unsure how to deal with them. Some edits, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Hoff_Sommers&diff=635928224&oldid=635924216 this] one by Dashing Leech, have been well-intentioned but misguided. Other edits, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Hoff_Sommers&diff=635933911&oldid=635931405 this] edit by Maunus and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Hoff_Sommers&diff=635939388&oldid=635937677 this] edit by Sonicyouth86, seem seriously biased and dubious under WP:BLP. Sonicyouth86 has unfortunately suggested that Sommers's objections to her article should simply be ignored, which I find unacceptable from an ethical standpoint. I would like to see administrators step in to prevent the continuing biased editing at that article, and if need be protect it again. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• The page has had visits from several SPAs and sleeper accounts in the past few days ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SatansFeminist][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Matthew1J][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Metalmunki81][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dashing_Leech]) as well as some editors involved in the GamerGate stuff. Sommers is a vocal GamerGate supporter so that was to be expected. Still, I'd appreciate more admin eyes on the article. Now on to ImprovingWiki's statement. It's important to understand what ImprovingWiki understands when he says neutral. He originally wanted the article to say that Sommers is a feminist: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Hoff_Sommers&diff=prev&oldid=626151374][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Hoff_Sommers&diff=prev&oldid=626525854][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Hoff_Sommers&diff=prev&oldid=626945452][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Hoff_Sommers&diff=prev&oldid=627075137][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Hoff_Sommers&diff=prev&oldid=627204768]... He has argued that it's sufficient if someone describes themselves as something, a feminist in this case. We should accept it and move on. For the record, not even Sommers call herself feminist. She says that she's a "freedom feminist" or "equity feminist". I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChristina_Hoff_Sommers&diff=635845714&oldid=635827545 asked] ImprovingWiki to provide some reliable sources stating that Sommers is a feminist but ImprovingWiki hasn't provided any such sources so far. Here is the list of RS that we have so far on the question whether Sommers is a feminist or antifeminist:

{{collapse top|title=Collapsing links and quotes. Click to expand.}}

• Freedom feminist - [http://reason.com/archives/2014/01/12/can-christina-hoff-sommers-save-feminism Reason.com - Book review, attributes "freedom feminist" to Sommers herself; not said in own voice]
• Freedom feminist - [http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/how-to-get-more-women-and-men-to-call-themselves-feminists/277179/ The Atlantic - Written by Sommers herself]
• Equity feminism - [http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/sommers.html Scott London.com - Interview with Sommers; calls her self this term]
• Antifeminist - [http://books.google.com/books?id=2b88BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA74 Modern Misogyny: Anti-Feminism in a Post-Feminist Era by Kristin J. Anderson. Published by Oxford University Press. "Anti-feminist boy-crisis trailblazer Christina Hoff Sommers helped solidify the industry with her 2000 The War Against Boys..."]
• Antifeminist - [http://books.google.com/books?id=jI-NAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA187 Chapter by Michael Kimmel (gender scholar and academic) published by Routledge. "By far the most sustained fusillade against feminism as the cause of boys' woes comes from Christina Hoff Sommers, formerly a philosophy professor and now a resident anti-feminist pundit at the American Enterprise Institute.“]
• Antifeminist - [http://books.google.com/books?id=4tWmAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA31 Printed by SCM Press. "...hypotheses of the philosopher and anti-feminist Christine Hoff Sommers."] (RS status questionable)
• Antifeminist - [http://books.google.com/books?id=G7nuj3bAkyIC&pg=PA2 The Feminist Difference: Literature, Psychoanalysis, Race, and Gender by Barbara Johnson. Printed by Harvard University Press. "...anti-feminist polemicists like Katie Roiphe or Christina Hoff Sommers."]
• Antifeminist - [http://books.google.com/books?id=UhDLYmoRBzsC&pg=PA50 Race 2008: Critical Reflections on an Historic Campaign edited by Myra Mendible. Chapter by Françoise Coste. Printed by BrownWalker Press. "Interestingly, like Sarah Palin, some of the most outspoken female anti-feminists since the 1990s have presented themselves as feminists: writer Christina Hoff Sommers considers herself a “legitimate feminist”, as opposed to “gender feminists”...]
• Antifeminist - [http://books.google.com/books?id=ycIuGP3ZlVwC&pg=PA71 Watching Rape: Film and Television in Postfeminist Culture by Sarah Projansky. Published by New York University Press. "Another assault on feminism within postfeminist discourses comes from antifeminist (self-defined) feminists, such as ... Christina Hoff Sommers..."]
• Antifeminist - [http://books.google.com/books?id=wC9_3wBJX6QC&pg=PA67 Misframing Men: The Politics of Contemporary Masculinities by Michael Kimmell. Published by Rutgers Press. "...anti-feminist crusaders from Rush Limbaugh and Lionel Tiger to Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers..."]
• Antifeminist - [http://books.google.com/books?id=K-J-AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA41 Reassessing Gender and Achievement: Questioning Contemporary Key Debates by Becky Francis, Christine Skelton. Published by Routledge. "The arguments of Christina Hoff Sommers (2000) and Michael Gurian (2002) fall into that category identified earlier with 'men's rights'/recuperative masculinity theorists which has a particular anti-feminist stance."]
• Antifeminist - [http://books.google.com/books?id=CN4PxodWeHUC&pg=PR20 Subject to Debate: Sense and Dissents on Women, Politics, and Culture by Katha Pollitt. Published by MODERN LIBRARY, part of Random House, Inc. "It has done more, ironically enough, for antifeminists like Christina Hoff Sommers, who, it's safe to say, would not have become a tenured professor of philosophy..."]
• [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08821127.2010.10677772#.VHkbwof6LOE "The avowed anti-feminist Christina Hoff Sommers, writing in the Washington Post, accused best-selling titles including Redbook, Mademoiselle, Good Housekeeping, and Parenting of advancing..."]
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=KTb9d7vZhA0C&pg=PA147 ''"This critique of gender is not presented as an opposition to feminism, but only to (so-called) “gender feminism,” by contrast to a suitable feminism of “equality,” or rather “parity,” a formulation borrowed from antifeminist Christina Hoff Sommers."]
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=KmnNxL_mHiMC&pg=PA168 "This perspective was propagated thoroughly during the 1990s by very positive media coverage given to Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers, two self-proclaimed feminists who have written antifeminist tracts..."]
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=DMOD6bRtMl8C&pg=PA19 "Several anti-feminist pop psychology books on boys' development became best sellers. Christina Hoff Sommers' (2000) book, The War Against Boys, and now more recently, Kate O'Beirne's (2006) book, Women Who Make the World Worse..."]
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=3iPBLCETMekC&pg=PT13 "The structure of gender equality policy, therefore, created an opportunity for anti-feminist politics. ... This is most clearly seen in the United States, where authors such as Christina Hoff Sommers (2000)..."]
• "One of these was the seemingly endless debate between Christina Hoff Sommers, an anti-feminist (though she calls herself a feminist in her own sense of the term)..." (A History of Philosophy by Anthony Serafini, International Scholars Publications, 2001)

{{collapse bottom}}

:ImprovingWiki [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers&diff=635940370&oldid=635940171 argues] that we must disregard these RS because Sommers objects on Twitter. He call it "biased editing" if someone tries to reflect both what Sommers says about herself and what reliable sources say about Sommers. I restored a stable version of the lead once, only to have ImprovingWiki re-revert again. I'd appreciate it if someone explained to them that he needs to establish consensus for his changes. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::It's quite true, I did originally want the article to say that Sommers is a feminist. Then, I changed my mind. I consider that I have a perfect right to change my mind, and I'm not sure why that should be a problem. I have no idea what Sonicyouth86 is trying to accomplish by mentioning this. The "reliable sources" that Sonicyouth86 lists to try to show that Sommers is an anti-feminist (and which include, for instance, a book by Katha Pollitt, who is a poet and an essayist, not a political scientist) are only a diversion from the issue of the rights or wrongs of the particular edit that Sommers objected to, as none of them is a source for the statements in the lead to which Sommers objects, as you will see if you bother to actually look at that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Hoff_Sommers&diff=634070791&oldid=633484965 edit], linked above and in this post too. Sommers appears to be objecting to the change of "Christina Hoff Sommers ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|s|ʌ|m|ər|z}}; born 1950) is an American author and former philosophy professor who is known for her critique of late 20th century feminism, and her writings about feminism in contemporary American culture" to "Christina Hoff Sommers ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|s|ʌ|m|ər|z}}; born 1950) is an American author and former philosophy professor known for her opposition to late 20th-century feminism in contemporary American culture". Her objection is reasonable, since that change is one editor's interpretation of her and her work, one she finds to be a misrepresentation. It isn't based on those sources Sonicyouth86 makes so much of. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

:::You have been arguing that Sommers is a feminist, that "antifeminist" is a slur and that Sommers rejects the notion that she is an antifeminist who opposes feminism. That's why you reject the stable version of the lead that said "opposition to feminism". I suggested that we find reliable sources that call Sommers feminist or antifeminist and see how she is portrayed in RS. I started adding quotes from RS, you weren't able to find RS in support of your opinion. It's all here in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers#This_article_is_a_BLP_article this] section on the article talk page. Most changes made in that one offending edit were removed several days ago. It's about the "opposition to feminism" part in the lead and you know it. It's the part that you changed without consensus and then re-reverted despite my objections on the article talk page. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::::Excuse me, but I'm the one in a position to say what I am arguing, not you. I do not argue that Sommers is a feminist. I don't even care about that point. I reject the version of the lead that said Sommers opposes feminism, which although you call it "stable" was introduced only very recently, because it offers a biased account of Sommers and her work. There was no source in the lead that backed up the description of Sommers that she objected to, and removing it was the right thing to do. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::There were plenty sources on the article talk page and there was an ongoing discussion in which you participated. But you disregarded the RS and the discussion and changed the lead, justifying your change with Sommers' objections. Your version is the one with no RS. "I do not argue that Sommers is a feminist. I don't even care about that point." – the diffs show that you do. Let's wait for comments from uninvolved editors. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::No. As I said on the talk page, neither version is supported by reliable sources, which is why there is a need for careful discussion on the shape of the lead. Your behaviour and comments are not helping in this respect. As I said, I do not care whether Sommers is a feminist or not. It is fairly petty and childish to tell me that I hold views that I explicitly reject, and I cannot imagine what you think you are accomplishing that way. It hurts your credibility, not mine. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

{{od}} {{replyto|ImprovingWiki|Sonicyouth86}} So, let's be clear that [https://twitter.com/CHSommers/status/537725065626800129 the Twitter complaint] was specific to the removal of content about her book's recognition from the New York Times and its replacement with critical commentary, not the other issues discussed here. That inappropriate removal has been addressed already, so there's nothing else to say on the matter. The complaint indeed unspecific, so stop using it as a rationale for reverting content— it's disruptive. This argument over "called antifeminist" / "considered antifeminist" / "known for being an antifeminist" seems somewhat frivolous given the number of RS that refer to her and her work in exactly that manner (though non-RS should be avoided here, of course). "Considered," as was pointed out, does not imply definitive fact, and "known for" should describe how most RS describe the subject and/or their work. Both seem fine here. I don't see any evidence of actual bias in editing on the matter in the provided diffs and description. ImprovingWiki, contrasting RS will absolutely be needed to contest these matters and nothing less than that. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Statements like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EvergreenFir&diff=635982264&oldid=635972577 "Third-parties that are characterizing Sommers as "anti-femminist" are acting like TERFs by excluding her"] exemplify what's wrong with the article and discussion so far. I appreciate JethroBT's statement. With the influx of new SPAs and editors from the GamerGate discusions the page needs more uninvolved and experienced editors to help enforce our content policies. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:If Sommers objects to the edit, it's perfectly reasonable to suppose that she objects to all of the changes made. If you look at Sommers's twitter account, it's clear that she considers the entry biased in general. Why, then, assume that her intent was to complain only about the removal of content about her book's recognition from the New York Times? If you take the trouble to read what Sommers has said on her twitter account, you will see that she has said, "My Wikipedia profile now calls me an "opponent" of feminism. Not so. Strong proponent of equality feminism--always." The argument over the anti-feminist issue thus raises serious WP:BLP concerns and is hardly frivolous. "Considered" may indeed not imply definitive fact, but it does suggest that the views in question are true when they are identified as the view of scholars. So, I am not satisfied with your response, I JethroBT. You are factually wrong about what Sommers is complaining about, and a quick look at twitter confirms as much. I have just been told by Sonicyouth86 to shut up because an admin disagreed with me. I intend to do no such thing. I wait to see the view of the larger Wikipedia community, admins included. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

::Show me the diff where I told you to "shut up" or retract your false accusation. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:::It's a figure of speech, not a false accusation (or an accusation of any kind). Sorry if you misunderstood. The relevant point is that one admin saying something that is factually wrong about this issue, saying that Sommers did not object to being called anti-feminist when she did just that, does not end the discussion. The larger community needs to respond. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

::::So I didn't tell you to shut up, you just made that up to portray me as the bad guy. It's a good example of your interaction with other editors on the CHS pages. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::It's an example of the kind of rhetoric people sometimes use in heated situations. I apologize for using it. I don't consider this an issue of massive importance. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:The twitter post quoted above, in which Sommers identifies herself as a feminist and objects to being called an anti-feminist, can be found [https://twitter.com/CHSommers/status/537615141379264513 here]. I await the response of both I JethroBT and the larger admin community. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

::Her identification as a(n equity) feminist is included in the article, as is criticism that describes her as anti-feminist. What is the issue exactly?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:::If you take a look at the article's talk page, you'll see that the issue is that editors opposed to Sommers have repeatedly argued that it is acceptable for the article to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that Sommers is an anti-feminist, and for it to say that she is known for her opposition to feminism, even though Sommers identifies herself as a feminist and even though they have no source that directly and explicitly states that she is known for her opposition to feminism. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

::::Again, the article describes both points of view, equally.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::Take a look at the talk page. There is an ongoing dispute with BLP implications. I don't believe the article does describe both points of view equally; currently, it is somewhat subtly slanted against Sommers, and there are several editors trying to make it worse in that regard. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::"...editors opposed to Sommers have repeatedly argued that it is acceptable for the article to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that Sommers is an anti-feminist" – that is a misrepresentation of what I and other editors said. Only a few minutes ago, I wrote "Wikipedia describes how someone sees himself or herself and then we describe how reliable secondary sources see them". Nobody demanded that we state in Wikipedia's voice that she is an antifeminist. For the umptieth time, no Sommers does not identify herself as feminist. She identifies as an "equity feminist" while scholars (not just "some feminists") describe her as an antifeminist. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

::::{{ping|ImprovingWiki|Sonicyouth86}} Thanks ImprovingWiki. I appreciate you pointing me to [https://twitter.com/CHSommers/status/537615141379264513 the actual post] this time-- links to the general twitter page, as you have probably realized, have resulted in me (and others) interpreting your argument based on [https://twitter.com/CHSommers/status/537725065626800129 a related but different message from Sommers]. In the future, it's best to provide specific links to avoid misunderstandings. It is certainly important to note in the article that the subject herself objects to being characterized as antifeminist, and to omit that information would violate WP:BLP. I don't think anyone is in disagreement on that. Whether her objections should be noted in the lead or just in the body is something you will all need to decide on, and if you're unable to find a solution, an RfC is probably in order. Her objections alone, however, do not merit removal of those claims. Sommers needs to be described with respect to the concept of due weight based on the coverage she has received. This isn't a "subtle slant" like ImprovingWiki describes above, it's reporting what RS report. If the issue is a question of whether the "antifeminist" sources are reliable or not for the claim (and that is really what you should all be talking about), the RS noticeboard is over that way. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As it appears no administrative action is forth coming, perhaps discussion could continue at Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers? NE Ent 00:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:Very well. I'm tempted to further respond to Sonicyouth86's comments, but to avoid ongoing discussions at multiple pages, I refrain from doing so. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{U|Aromavic}} has been engaged in a long running campaign of disruptive editing on the article Amanda Eliasch. Among the abuses are repeated frivolous AfD nominations, repeatedly attaching non-applicable maintenance tags, vandalizing the text, and falsely accusing editors working on the article and who reverted their vandalism of being sock puppets to the point of opening a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spikequeen&diff=prev&oldid=624237736 patently bogus SPI]. Aromavic is a SPA whose sole purpose since registering appears to have been to sabotage the article in question. This [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aromavic pattern of behavior] has continued to the present day despite an endless stream of advice from other editors, warnings and reversions ad infinitum, all to no avail. In the end I have reluctantly come to conclude that this is a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE. To which end...

I respectfully propose to the community that Aromavic be permanently topic banned from any and all editing on the article Amanda Eliasch and its talk page, with the stipulation that any violation of the topic ban would result in a long term block.

CC:  Philg88  -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

:Could you provide evidence in the form of diffs or any form at all?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::Their contrib log is linked in my opening statement, as is the bogus SPI. Almost all of their edits are attacks on the article. You can also peruse their talk page and the talk page of the article. I am proposing the topic ban as a last chance alternative to a block. But to be honest they should probably be indeffed on the basis of NOTHERE and I would have a hard time arguing with any opposing !votes that take that position. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Is this still going on? I closed the last AfD as Speedy Keep on 5 September and assumed that was the end of {{u|Aromavic}}'s crusade. Based on their behaviour since, including addition of g11/a7 CSD tags less than two weeks after the AfD, I would concur that a permanent topic ban is in order. Should this SPA then pick a new target, an indef block for WP:NOTHERE seems appropriate.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for now in the hopes that a indefinite block isn't needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per costs outweigh the benefits. To do a topic ban, we all gotta vote, and then an admin has to close it and leave the blah blah on the user talk page and they or a gnome add the entry to WP:Editing restrictions, not to mention the ban appeals that follow ... for what? This is an SPA on a mission -- they've done nothing in three months except pursue their grudge against Eliasch; look at User_talk:Aromavic -- many volunteers have taken their time to try to engage and Aromavic has replied never. Someadmin please just indef the account already. NE Ent 14:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - User:NE Ent appears to be opposing the topic-ban because they support an indef block instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - User:Aromavic is an SPA whose sole objective is to delete or disrupt Amanda Eliasch. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support an indef block. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban as the second choice. As NE Ent has explained, an indef is easier to administer than a topic ban, and the effect is the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - Personally, I don't think an indef ban is needed. I don't see any disruption outside this subject, on this account. If this continues after the topic ban, and there's no forseeable sign of the user stopping, then yes, maybe an indef really is necessary. At the current time though, no. George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 18:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Time to close? As there has been no comment on this topic for the better part of two days, could an available admin review this and take whatever action is deemed appropriate before it gets archived? Thanks -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

:The discussion on the MoS page was a bit minimal: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_119#City_names]. Jeremiestrother made a decent point that was never really addressed, and after the discussion went stale there was more discussion on his talk page supporting the idea: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeremiestrother&diff=420928810&oldid=412264775]. Personally I would go with our established convention but please consider being gentle with this user - he's clearly acting in good faith on not-so-good advice. Ivanvector (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

: I do explain, both in edit summaries and on the talkpage. I have written 7 posts (in 10 edits) on that talk page section. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chabad_messianism&action=history the talkpage history]. My [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chabad_messianism&diff=636010562&oldid=635971033 latest edit] was very detailed, because I really want to help you, and I really dislike edit wars. And, as I said on the talkpage, if you don't want to be called a "prick", don't behave like one. You undo my reverts, even though I try to explain to you why I revert you. However, you don't seem to get the point, and make the same mistakes time and time again. So either you don't understand or you ignore my explanations, but insisting on your edits, knowing and acknowledging that you are a new editor, is the way of a prick. Debresser (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::There have been several discussions about the pronunciation and particularly the term "sequel" at Talk:SQL (which is hopelessly unstructured in terms of dates) but this particular IP did not participate there nor in any of the archived talk page threads. However, in November 2012 they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SQL&diff=prev&oldid=525035349 referred] to the talk page when removing the "sequel" variety from the article. The consensus since 2013 seems to be though to include "sequel" as it is backed up by reliable sources.

::::Because there are also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SQL&diff=635598292&oldid=635274021 other IPs] involved in this long-term edit war causing persistent disruption I have now semi-protected the article. De728631 (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

{{archivebottom}}

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

(cur | prev) 00:37, 2 December 2014‎ Formerly 98 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (70,456 bytes) (-1,356)‎ . . (→‎Suicide warnings: remove redundant) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:32, 2 December 2014‎ Formerly 98 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,812 bytes) (-44)‎ . . (→‎External links: remove link to WP:FRINGE site per WP:ELPOV) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:29, 2 December 2014‎ Formerly 98 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,856 bytes) (+460)‎ . . (Undid revision 636211624 by Corpuskrusty (talk) sexual dysfunction <> efficacy in treatment of PE) (undo | thank)

Removed link by this user did not meet WP:FRINGE criteria. In fact the external link provided news stories where SSRIs were mentioned.

It gathers articles from all media sources regarding SSRIs. It's removal was inappropriate

This user also undid 2 other links that were inappropriate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{archive bottom}}

:In fact, there is another edit war going on on Kosovo war where people are removing a statement about low moral that was clearly inconvenient. It is interesting to see that just FkpCascais is filing this case, as he was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FkpCascais&diff=prev&oldid=635752529 canvassed] to join in in this dispute. As far as I can see, the IPs all geolocate to Serbia. I do not know why [[user:Bobrayner mention the meat puppets and sockpuppets, I leave it to him to explain. The Banner talk 22:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

:Page 332 [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B4YbP0fPcMYC&pg=PA332&lpg=PA332&dq=For+the+entire+time+I+was+in+Kosovo,+I+never+saw+an+enemy+soldier+and+my+unit+was+never+once+involved+in+firing+at+enemy+targets.+The+tanks+which+cost+$2.5+million+each+were+used+to+slaughter+Albanian+children&source=bl&ots=vmFZBB5xnd&sig=Ume-_nDP3uVLOlF9-utBDC_BVzA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yUB6VLHBNYKSPZKPgYAG&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=For%20the%20entire%20time%20I%20was%20in%20Kosovo%2C%20I%20never%20saw%20an%20enemy%20soldier%20and%20my%20unit%20was%20never%20once%20involved%20in%20firing%20at%20enemy%20targets.%20The%20tanks%20which%20cost%20%242.5%20million%20each%20were%20used%20to%20slaughter%20Albanian%20children&f=false]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

:::LOL, I can not help to notice that you were also talking about POV-pushing and a fake-page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo_War&diff=635937646&oldid=635934148 Removing clear POV pushing by users that dont even provide a page for their edit. If you restore the edit without page or with a fake page youll be reported]) And sorry, I do not buy your bluff and rude behaviour. Ow, you may find this interesting: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo The Banner talk 22:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

{{od}}

It's the most reliably sourced content on the entire page; citing an acclaimed historian published by a university press. However, an obvious sockpuppet of a banned editor canvassed both [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FkpCascais&diff=prev&oldid=635752529 FkpCascais] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanjagenije&diff=prev&oldid=635752025 Vanjagenije] to remove it. Both happily complied; this is normal in the Balkans. (You should see how many times FkpCascais helped with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Evlekis/Archive Evlekis'] editwars). The sooner the meatpuppets and sockpuppets are stopped, the sooner our articles on the Balkans will reflect what reliable sources say. bobrayner (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

:::False claims about sourcing are just one of FkpCascais' tools for whitewashing any mention of what Serb forces did in the Kosovo war. See also: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Horseshoe&diff=prev&oldid=635325503]. Of course FkpCascais does not apply such demanding requirements to all the other content - some of the text that FkpCascais adds has genuine sourcing problems. This is tendentious editing, as is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Serbia&diff=631212190&oldid=631117034 canvassing], and the regular tag-teaming with socks of banned editors, and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=635703908 personal] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FkpCascais&diff=prev&oldid=631523909 attacks], and encouraging blocked editors to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FkpCascais&diff=635573832&oldid=635367123 use more sockpuppets and meatpuppets], and adding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbian_Empire&diff=632089704&oldid=631657641 copyvio]... Nobody really believes that text is badly sourced; such claims are just one more tool that FkpCascais can use in POV-pushing. bobrayner (talk) 13:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

::::::Also, stop removing IPs comments, what is a matter with you? FkpCascais (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=636032239&oldid=636029869 What sock]? Show me the sockpuppet investigation link first. FkpCascais (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

{{od}}

You know it's a sockpuppet. I know it's a sockpuppet. We all know it's a sockpuppet. There are so many Serb pov-pushing socks that it's hard to keep track of them all. FkpCascais regularly tag-teams with these socks and pretends that they're legitimate editors; that's just what he does. However, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo_War&diff=636036358&oldid=636032332 deleting my talkpage comments] and overwriting them with comments by the sockpuppet that canvassed him - that's a new variation. It's unfortunate that the community has let this continue for so long. bobrayner (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

{{od}}

{{ping|FkpCascais}} I see that AndyTheGrump has found the quote in the book (it's [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B4YbP0fPcMYC&pg=PA332&lpg=PA332&dq=For+the+entire+time+I+was+in+Kosovo,+I+never+saw+an+enemy+soldier+and+my+unit+was+never+once+involved+in+firing+at+enemy+targets.+The+tanks+which+cost+$2.5+million+each+were+used+to+slaughter+Albanian+children&source=bl&ots=vmFZBB5xnd&sig=Ume-_nDP3uVLOlF9-utBDC_BVzA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yUB6VLHBNYKSPZKPgYAG&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=For%20the%20entire%20time%20I%20was%20in%20Kosovo%2C%20I%20never%20saw%20an%20enemy%20soldier%20and%20my%20unit%20was%20never%20once%20involved%20in%20firing%20at%20enemy%20targets.%20The%20tanks%20which%20cost%20%242.5%20million%20each%20were%20used%20to%20slaughter%20Albanian%20children&f=false here]). Doesn't this pretty much verify the quote? --Biblioworm 18:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Name and activity totally implies that this is Pearson, and yet [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roger_Pearson_%28anthropologist%29&diff=prev&oldid=635654732 he] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roger_Pearson_%28anthropologist%29&diff=prev&oldid=635656798 regularly] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roger_Pearson_%28anthropologist%29&diff=prev&oldid=635658379 refers] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roger_Pearson_%28anthropologist%29&diff=prev&oldid=635666651 to] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roger_Pearson_%28anthropologist%29&diff=prev&oldid=635667547 himself] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roger_Pearson_%28anthropologist%29&diff=prev&oldid=635669490 in] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roger_Pearson_%28anthropologist%29&diff=prev&oldid=635671226 third]-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&diff=prev&oldid=636049480 person].

When I asked if the account was run by Pearson, an associate, or shared, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARoger_Pearson_1927&diff=636076988&oldid=636074541 the response was a bit of an overly-protesting non-answer especially focused on the "shared account" question]. When User:Dougweller asked further, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roger_Pearson_%28anthropologist%29&diff=prev&oldid=636095153 Roger gave this combative non-answer with a claim that they had changed their username].

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

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

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

::Looking at the first post by them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roger_Pearson_(anthropologist)&diff=prev&oldid=635643447] This does seem to suggest they are Roger Pearson. Have they at any point suggested they are not the subject of the article?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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

::::See also the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Teddyguyton contributions] and talk page of User:Teddyguyton. BMK (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

User hasn't taken kindly to my warnings for submitting unsourced future content at List of Breadwinners episodes, for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Breadwinners_episodes&diff=636093032&oldid=636073487 here], which was supported by the incoherent summary "Bad people that was mean On what you did you need to learn to accept it now look at this to learn your lesson and appologize". Also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Breadwinners_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=636114214 here], where they resubmit the same unsourced content. To get back at me, they have started adding jive warnings on my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyphoidbomb&diff=636113842&oldid=636100479 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyphoidbomb&diff=636254574&oldid=636252538 here]. Not sure what warning template would be effective here, but I think it best to ask an admin to intervene here, please. It's obviously disruptive, but these sorts of reports don't go over well at AIV. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

{{archivebottom}}

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

:This [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASkippertheeyechild&diff=636235284&oldid=636233340], I think. NE Ent 23:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

See also Talk:El Marino/GA1

User:Diego Grez, a long-term Wikipedia contributor (under that name - his real-life one - and as User:Küñall) recently created an interesting and well researched article on El Marino, a provincial Chilean newspaper produced for a few months in 1917. Or rather, he produced the article, and then denoted half the space to coverage a website (www.diarioelmarino.cl) which has now taken up the 'El Marino' name. The owner and editor of this website is none other than Diego Grez Cañete - the creator of the article. Despite the obvious conflict of interest (which per COI guidelines would suggest that he should not be making edits concerning his website at all), and despite the fact that no evidence whatsoever has been provided to suggest that there is any meaningful historical continuity between a newspaper published for a few months in 1917 and a 2014 website, has repeatedly restored the COI-violating material after I removed it as off-topic promotion of his personal website. It should be noted that this is not the first time that Diego Grez has ignored Wikipedia policies and guidelines in regard to self-promotion. As a thread on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a now-deleted article on Memoria Pichilemina an earlier personal website owned by Diego Grez notes, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_75#Memoria_Pichilemina] he had also engaged in relentless self-promotion in an article on his school Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu, created a self-promoting article on the Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu Students' Center (a student body representing around 500 students aged 4-19 years) and created :Category:Presidents of the Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu Students' Center for no other purpose than to get his name blue linked. It seems self-evident to me that while Diego Grez is a competent article creator, he has a blind spot when it comes to self-promotion, and cannot be trusted to conform to expected standards of behaviour in this regard. Accordingly, I suggest that it is in the best interests of Wikipedia that he be topic-banned from any subject with which he has a personal connection. I have little doubt that he will respond to this with indignant bluster and attempts to side-track the discussion, as he has in the past when asked to explain his repeated violations of WP:COI policy, but such bluster should not be permitted to distract us from the simple facts of the matter - that Diego Grez self-evidently regards Wikipedia as legitimate a platform for self-promotion, and needs to be stopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:I want to say that Diego Grez is making some very offensive comments to AndyTheGrump in his talk page ("Stop being a dumbass and discuss this shit on the talk page"), as can be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndyTheGrump&diff=636055638&oldid=635795368 here]. --Sfs90 (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

:::Because he says so: "Indeed, I am the owner of El Marino...". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:El_Marino/GA1&diff=634652195&oldid=634641982] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:User:MusikAnimal, there is only [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/AlbinoFerret&offset=&limit=500&target=AlbinoFerret one consistent editor] where [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=635354679 the majority of editors disagree with a number of his edits]. I don't think it was necessary to protect the article because of one editor. For example, User:AlbinoFerret claims he is rewriting the text for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=635380235 readability] but he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=635054912&oldid=635054459 got reverted]. He claimed the text [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=635309859&oldid=635308100 FV] but the text is sourced. He claims the text is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=635344807&oldid=635342674 OR] but he got [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=635382395&oldid=635378595 reverted]. He has a history of making bad edits that are disputed by other editors. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=632401419&oldid=632400081 The WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless.]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=632401419 And we all [k]now that you Qack, are the master of ridiculous.]
• They have also been involved in a fair bit of WP:CANVASSING. For example he recently put these notes on a couple of users talk pages requesting their participation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mihaister&diff=prev&oldid=631144289] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen&diff=prev&oldid=631144175] and others. They earlier requested the support of one of these users after having made some controversial changes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen&diff=prev&oldid=631008440]

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

:Excuse me? Cherry-picked quotes? And a complaint about canvassing relating to a case where you were remanded for inappropriate notification[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive260#User:Doc_James_reported_by_User:AlbinoFerret_.28Result:_Both_warned.29]? This seems more like a play to remove editors that you disagree with, than a true complaint, sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

:{{nao}} I'm not sure that what is described here is canvassing. AlbinoFerret neutrally notified seven different editors, each of whom had previously edited the page or engaged in Talk discussions and had expressed different views, of an RFC occurring on the page: the two above plus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayaguru-Shishya&diff=prev&oldid=631189487][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:C759&diff=prev&oldid=631189683][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Limelightangel&diff=prev&oldid=631189939][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:I_dream_of_horses&diff=prev&oldid=631190121][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yobol&diff=prev&oldid=631190419] This appears to be allowed according to WP:CANVASSING. I don't understand the purpose of this report, especially given that Doc James has already engaged in edit-warring with AlbinoFerret on this article. Ca2james (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

::In the very beginning AlbinoFerret only notified the two editors who have the same POV as he does.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMihaister&diff=631144289&oldid=629929706][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen&diff=prev&oldid=631144175] After editors commented AlbinoFerret was canvassing then AlbinoFerret notified the other editors. Another editor stated "Now that I read the discussion, it looks like inappropriate canvassing."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=631322365&oldid=631322236] The editor was referring to this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&diff=631315999&oldid=631208343 this edit]. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I will address all these false accusations.

• The so called canvasing was going back a week or so in history and notifying every editor of the article that wasnt an IP of a rfc. Including ones I knew would probably disagree with my position like Yobol.
• #85 is out of sequence and happened the night before the rfc was made, all I ws doing was asking another editor to look at the edits I had done to see if a NPOV tag/banner she had placed could be removed. This distorting of the timeline to suggest something wrong is intentional. It has been pointed out the Doc James before. As such it, in my opinion the retaliation is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive260#User:Doc_James_reported_by_User:AlbinoFerret_.28Result:_Both_warned.29 a continuation of the war Doc James was warned to stop but has not]. These accusations were addressed in the report on Doc James linked to here. I was warned for edit warring, resuscitating them here is a desperate ploy.
• My opinion of the WHO (World Health Organization) is just that my opinion, and I have a right to it. The WHO is treated like some kind of God on the article. While he has me saying my opinion of the WHO on a talk page, he doesnt have diff's of me removing statements of the WHO from the article.
• The third was a sarcastic response to a well known edit warrior QuackGuru with a long ban list history calling the additions of another editor ridiculous.

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

:I still think the two tags are unnecessary. You [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlbinoFerret&diff=632452382&oldid=632432577 disagree]? You restored the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=631741560 tag of shame to the lede without explaining what is wrong with the lede]. Please explain what is wrong with the lede or remove the tag from the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

:::You haven't shown what is the issue with the lede and yet you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=631741560 want to keep it in the lede]? QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Yes it appears that a few editors want to exclude the position of the World Health Organization and a review article published in Circulation (journal), one of medicines most respected journals. They instead wish to replace these with the position of a single author review published in a 1 year old journal with an impact factor of zero.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Request_for_comments_2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

::I am sure it will. My motivation is to accurately reflect the best available sources. Personal attacks are unfortunately becoming more common [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&curid=15087626&diff=632479552&oldid=632478624] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

::While we have this comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=632401419&oldid=632400081 The WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless], which sounds like a desire to exclude the WHOs position IMO. If some come to the discussion with this perspective it makes it difficult to edit health related content. And than we have the personal insults. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

:::Yep, that sarcastic comment, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=632384570 at a person who made a negative comment on another editors edits using the same word.] Who has been pointed out a few times for disruptive editing of the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_10#Continued_disruptive_editing_contrary_to_Talk_page_consensus #1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_10#POV_problems_are_more_and_more_sneaking_in...._Again.21 #2]. Where can we find the entry on this page from you for QuackGuru who shares your point of view? Nobody has tried to remove the WHO from the article. There is a report they commissioned, that is used 36 times, its use needs to be scaled back, but its used more and more.AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:#I do think AlbinoFerret's comments on the WHO being treated as god-like appear problematic. This could be a misunderstanding of WP:MEDRS with the degree of weight (usually quite a bit) we give statements from respected scientific organizations and WP:IDHT behavior to a degree. Not really actionable by itself though.

:#For personal attacks, even sarcastic statements should not be used in spiny topics because they will rarely be taken as sarcastic. If there are many attacks though, then there would be something to consider for action there. AlbinoFerret definitely appears to have a spiny attitude in some cases after skimming over the talk page. I'm not sure the case has been made for personal attacks with just one diff though (feel free to provide more diffs if I missed a lot going through that mess).

:#I can see how you are looking at canvassing considering that those requests you mentioned (while worded neutral) did result in opinionated editors entering the fray. That does pose the question on whether canvassing was going on, but is there anything to substantiate that AlbinoFerret knew what their stance would be already and was recruiting? An extremely dicey question to tackle, but that would seem to be the only way to demonstrate canvassing here.

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

::I recently edited the acupuncture article so what did AlbinoFerret write? He wrote "I think I want to add another article to my list of ones I want to edit, perhaps acupuncture would be nice."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=631357177] AlbinoFerret also wrote "If you look at the text that comes after it goes on to point out bias in other studies. so if you intend to change it, the bias statement will come in."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=632044856&oldid=632042930] Lots of sourced text was removed from the article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=632878532&oldid=632878291][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=632879731&oldid=632879544] but there was no reason to delete the text even if it was recently added. He undid the removal of text later when an editor commented on his [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlbinoFerret&diff=632880104&oldid=632452382 talk page]. Now he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=632949218&oldid=632946745 deleted sourced text again]. Please review the problematic RFC. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Unknown.2C_Concerns.2C_Unclear.2C_Uncertain.2C_and_Possibilities_RFC. The RFC is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=633041414&oldid=633039359 unhelpful] and the Talk:Electronic cigarette#RFC goes against policy.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&curid=15087626&diff=633051513&oldid=633050907] QuackGuru (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

:::I hear you on deleting swathes of text while claiming no consensus though when saying order or section names haven't been decided. That is inappropriate, not to mention the Unknown (etc.) talk section is a plain silly premise and WP:JDL. You guys should be summarizing what the reliable secondary sources say whether the source says something does happen, doesn't, or is unknown. It looks like AlbinoFerret does need help understanding NPOV/due weight when it comes to their concerns about "negative bias", such as this diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=632975328&oldid=632974590], but that's not a matter for this noticeboard, but over at WP:NPOVN unless that behavior related to all this content discussion has become either a WP:COMPETENCE issue or advocacy. The acupuncture comment is threatening to WP:HOUND you in this context, no doubt there. Basically, I do agree now that there is a problem with this user.

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

::::User:Kingofaces43, I think this is mainly a case of he does not like what the MEDRS compliant sources say.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=631831291&oldid=631830976] I think he will continue to delete reliably sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

1. The "canvassing" does not seem to be an issue, other users were notified in time, and I'm sure AlbinoFerret is now aware of the protocol.
2. The comment about the WHO is not a big deal, and we should be able to accommodate different opinions without allowing it to chill discussion. OF course that does not mean that AF gets to veto WHO sources that meet RS/MEDRS.
3. The personal attack against Quack Guru is unwarranted, and should be struck by AF. AF should be warned about making personal attacks.
4. The suggestion that AF will follow QG to acupuncture is unhelpful at best. AF should be advised not to make these types of comments in future.
5. AF's comment "This is just retaliation for bringing a charge of being involved in an edit war on ..." suggests that AF was deliberately edit warring. AF (and if necessary others) should be reminded that edit warring is not a good solution to disputes. However this ha already been done: AF was warned about edit warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AlbinoFerret&oldid=632902418#November_2014 here] on the 7th. They seem to understand, though there is resistance to other advice offered.
6. There is no reason for a few hour cooling down block, this section is already several days old.

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

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

:User:Bbb23 warned AlbinoFerret against further WP:EDITWARRING. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive260#User:Doc_James_reported_by_User:AlbinoFerret_.28Result:_Both_warned.29. He was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AlbinoFerret&oldid=632902418#November_2014 warned again]. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is probably the root of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=631831291&oldid=631830976 issue here]. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from electronic cigarettes, broadly construed. AlbinoFerret is a straight-up WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:Single-purpose account who is engaging in disruptive WP:GAME-playing editing regarding the topic. AF joined the e-cig conversation on Sept. 30, with only a relative handful of edits before that and long gaps in Wikipedia participation. A review of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=1000&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=AlbinoFerret AF's contributions] shows 272 of his 284 article edits since Sept. 30 to the topic itself, and ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of his 681 Talk page edits(!) just since Sept. 30 related to the topic. This does't take into account his User Talk page involvement, WP:DRN discussion, or WP:3RRNB and WP:ANI activity related to his behavior regarding his editing of this topic.

  For the game-playing, one example: AF was involved in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_10#Consensus_for_adding_this this] Talk page discussion regarding one source, it concluded with no consensus to include the source because it didn't meet the WP:MEDRS standards. It was added back anyway by another editor, which led to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Electronic_cigarette.23Violation_of_consensus&oldid=633073740 this] DRN discussion that AF was involved it. It was closed as successful by the DRN volunteer against AF's position, with "no consensus to include". AF appears to have taken this as a license to open up RFCs at the article Talk page over content he doesn't like, and then use that as an excuse to removed lots of well-sourced content while stating "no consensus to include". For example, review this RFC AF started: Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Unknown.2C_Concerns.2C_Unclear.2C_Uncertain.2C_and_Possibilities_RFC, which asks "Should more claims of the Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, Uncertain, and Possibilities type be added to the e-cigarette article?" Several experienced editors pointed out that this is a flawed RFC from the get-go. {{u|Formerly 98}}, {{U|QuackGuru}}, {{U|Doc James}}, {{U|Cloudjpk }}, {{U|Johnuniq}}, {{U|FloNight}}, {{U|Alexbrn}} and myself have all stated that the RFC itself is at best unclear and at worst impossibly out of line with policy, particularly WP:NPOV; only {{u|EllenCT}} has responded in support. This didn't prevent AF from going ahead and removing a ton of well-sourced content with edit summaries like "remove non consensus edits": [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=632946502&oldid=632926540][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=632947965&oldid=632946745][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=632948159&oldid=632947965][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=632948369&oldid=632948159][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=632948369&oldid=632948159][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=632948824&oldid=632948704][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=632949040&oldid=632948824][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=632949218&oldid=632949040]

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

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

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

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

::

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

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

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

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

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

• Support editing freeze - the cadre trying to omit the conclusive, prescriptive statements from the MEDRS reviews they otherwise support need to step aside and make way for editors who have respect for the NPOV policy. At this point I agree that a two week ban on edits by those who have previously edited the article is the only way to accomplish that. A topic ban alone would make things worse. EllenCT (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban It is obvious that the RFC mentioned above is formulated as a vague motherhood statement to be used as a pretext to revert unwanted edits. Contributors wanting to tell the world about the benefits of e-cigarettes will have to excuse the slow and methodical approach of the WP:MEDRS editors who correctly want to wait for suitable sources. AlbinoFerret has 272 edits to Electronic cigarette and 680 to Talk:Electronic cigarette, all made in the last 42 days, and the frenetic pace is not matched by improvements to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• :Banning someone because editors with an opposing POV don't like the way an RFC is worded would be abhorrent. Issues with the RFC should be addressed within the RFC itself, not by begging admins to squelch the voice of its author. EllenCT (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• ::Three hours after my above comment, AlbinoFerret removed verified text from the article (diff) with edit summary "{{tq|remove speculative statement added while RFC on topic is ongoing}}". In other words, the RFC is already being used as a pretext to remove information verified by a reliable source. The point about e-cigarettes is that they are new and it will be many years before proper studies are available to provide accurate information. Until then, reliable sources will make many tentative statements such as the one removed on the basis that it was speculative. The big problem is that every statement about the efficacy and benefits of e-cigarettes is speculative (other than statements such as the one removed). The article talk page shows AlbinoFerret still arguing that the RFC is valid—that is why a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban based on above comments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. The construction of an off-policy RfC and the subsequent mass deletion of content because of its assumed authority is damaging the page; the torrents of WP:IDHT text on the Talk page are similarly unwelcome. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What looks to me like a 3RR violation as well, at a minimum getting very close for someone previously warned against edit warring: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=633190869&oldid=633186951 Diff 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=633191846&oldid=633191639 Diff 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=633192219&oldid=633192015 Diff 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=633195774&oldid=633194268 Diff 4] Another large set of reversions the day before, about 12 hours outside the 24 hour window. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=632964911&oldid=632926540 Diff 5] Formerly 98 (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Striking and reversing based on some good progress today. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban It is sad reflection of the state of relations between users who edit the e-cig article that what is effectively a content dispute gets raised here. From all that I have seen AlbinoFerret's behaviour and actions have been mostly positive ones (and certainly in good faith). In regards to the points originally raised, AlbinoFerret's low opinion of The WHO that was voiced on a talk page is not a violation of any policies/guidelines that I know of, he is fully entitled to an opinion. The point regarding him calling QuackGuru "the master of ridiculous" also carries little weight since the intention was clearly to highlight QuackGuru's (an editor with an https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=QuackGuru&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= exceptionally long block log, last blocked for disruptive editing on the e-cig article) own derogatory use of "ridiculous". WP:CANVASSING, well if it was canvassing AlbinoFerret very soon realised their mistake and notified editors with opposing opinions. WP:SPA is not specifically prohibited as I understand it, I see no evidence that they are engaging in advocacy and little evidence has been presented that they have a WP:COI. Better to WP:AGF in the face of a lack of evidence I think.Levelledout (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

:Levelledout is another SPA editing the e-cigarettes page according to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Levelledout&offset=&limit=500&target=Levelledout contributions]. QuackGuru (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

:::Thank you for the comment Kingofaces43, sometimes the words of an uninvolved editor have more impact when there is a controversy. I was hoping for more uninvolved editors to comment on the RFC, perhaps if that had happened it would have been withdrawn sooner. That a few people voted No to inclusion had me thinking perhaps I was correct that there was no consensus. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=633683151&oldid=633681044 I have withdrawn the RCF based on your post]. I did go looking for information on WPNOV, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#A_question_on_NPOV I asked the question in the wrong place.] AlbinoFerret 16:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - this is just too disruptive. AlbinoFerret thinks he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=633636559&oldid=633631367 did done nothing to warrant a topic ban]. Originally AlbinoFerret said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=633010002 I dont see a word about deleting anything in the RFC.] but later he misused the RFC to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=633191846 remove text he does not like] with edit summary "remove speculative statement added while RFC on topic is ongoing".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=633191846] He wrote in his edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=631831291&oldid=631830976 remove older study that newer ones find answers to]. It was not a study. It is a WP:MEDRS compliant review. He has a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=632949218&oldid=632926540 pattern of deleting well sourced text he does not like]. QuackGuru (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

::I dont believe adding speculative statements to the article has consensus, removing AlbinoFerret 08:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

• Comment. User:AlbinoFerret, please explain [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&diff=633886779&oldid=633731149 your accusation here]. My recent edit did not change any section name. I commented on the talk page the section name should be simple rather than long. QuackGuru (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

:{{ping|User:QuackGuru}} I had already [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&diff=633887534&oldid=633887033 apologised at the exact same moment] you were posting here. It was your pal Cloudjpk who reverted back to the inaccurate section name. After you did not change it, I changed it to one of the proposed names. The section name is inaccurate as it discusses 3 different particle sizes. Your wanting to keep the name and phrasing you have edited [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Ownership_Issues in is a ownership issue.] AlbinoFerret

::It was previously explained on the talk page that the text and sources describe the particles in the ultrafine range. User:Formerly 98 wrote: "I don't understand the OR tag on the Ultrafine particles section. The cited references clearly describe these particles as being in the nanometer size range, which is on the order of a couple of thousand molecules. Doesn't get much finer than that. What exactly is the OR being referred to here?"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=633374742]

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

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

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

:::::I am not arguing, but discussing. The word Vapor is common usage when discussing e-cigarettes. WP:MEDMOS tells us we should write for the common reader using normal terms when possible, not jargon. It was never agreed to change every instance of vapor to mist. There was a discussion in the lede about the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=633893783 constant swapping out of vapor to aerosol] by you, another ownership issue. An agreement was made for that sentence, excluding the whole article (see the last comment in the section I linked to), to change that sentence to mist. You have been busy changing vapor to mist, but forgot about aerosol. If it works for one word, it works for both. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=633893783 You have argued consistancy], if it works for one word , it should work for both words that were [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_11#Bold_compromise part of that discussion.] But this is not the place to discuss content issues. AlbinoFerret 03:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::Do you think your edit matched your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=633895079&oldid=633894642 edit summary]? Part of your edit included deleting the wikilink for no apparent reason and you changed the text that was in quotes. You should not change the quoted text. Changing the text that were quoted is original research. You previously wrote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=630507124 "...a wikilink to aerosol isnt that bad either."] QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::I think a large boomerang should hit you. You are quick to post content issues here in an attempt to get me topic banned. This is not the place for content problems, but you insist on bringing them here. But talk little on the articles talk page except to defend the problems you insert in the page (see long line diff's below). You revert things to how you added them no matter how the wording was changed or who changes it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=633905313 This wikilink was placed by you in order to get around the agreement you are trying to enforce.] You originally [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=630536961 added it here.] You want [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=633893783 things to be consistent]. Based on limited [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=633893783 agreements]. But only so far as it doesnt touch edits you have made or wording you have placed in[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=631721322], because the limited agreement was to chose "mist" over "vapor" or "aerosol" you did not change one instance of aerosol without wikilinking to it to cheat the agreement, and then only for a few, but there is no consensus for any widespread change as shown by the limited agreement. Regardless what guidelines like WP:MEDMOS say you wirt like a medical journal and not for the general reader always adding jargon. You have been banned for disruptive editing more times than anyone I have edited a page with. Yet you still continue to disrupt the editing of e-cigarette. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_13#The_Aerosol_section_is_a_subsection_of_the_Safety_section][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_10#POV_problems_are_more_and_more_sneaking_in...._Again.21], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_10#Continued_disruptive_editing_contrary_to_Talk_page_consensus], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_11#Vapor] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Ownership_Issues], and here where [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_11#Changing_order_of_sections you accused me of filing a fake 3rr report] You insist on inserting WP:OR [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Aerosol_the_second_hand_exposure_section][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#OR_template_needs_moving_and.2For_changing_to_.22section.22][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Ultrafine_Particles.2C_the_name_of_the_section_is_inaccurate]. You argue over small words that have the same meaning and dont pahaphrase[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_13#The_broad_claim_is_redundant_and_original_research][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_12#Wording_not_consistent_with_source][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_11#Exact_copying_from_sources]. You insert non MEDRS to make medical claims [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_12#American_Society_of_Heating.2C_Refrigerating_and_Air_Conditioning_Engineers]. You insist on placing one review out of order to serve your pov [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Endless_Reshuffling] and refuse any order but the one you want. After dating the citation names in the source to keep them in order[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=633268048&oldid=633267955][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=633268240] you changed them back to disguise your actions and edited the section to place your subjective order in place[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=633645348]. A forever boomerang should hit you because you have had banns (look at his talk page for a long list) but still continue disruptive editing. AlbinoFerret 12:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

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

:::::::I have started a new RFC, it is on the use of the word [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Vapor.2C_Mist.2C_.26_Aerosol_RFC Mist vs Vapor vs Aerosol] to see what the consensus is in using these words. There have been a lot of edit battles on the words as some want one thing other want something use used they are replaced with each other all the time by multiple editors. Quack Guru just made a statement that severely goes against WP:AGF [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=634045848 with what I consider very serious accusations with no proof]. These accusations include WP:ADVOCACY and to "carry on ideological WP:BATTLES". He is also suggesting we carry out WP:OR by using one source to correct others. I am trying to use the tools Wikipedia has to fix issues. These attacks are just sad. AlbinoFerret 08:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

:Mihaister is another SPA editing the e-cigarettes page according to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Mihaister&offset=&limit=500&target=Mihaister contributions]. QuackGuru (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

::Note. User:CheesyAppleFlake was indefinitely blocked from editing by User:Secret on 18 November 2014.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACheesyAppleFlake&diff=634396302&oldid=634393906]. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

:KimDabelsteinPetersen is another SPA editing the e-cigarettes page according to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/KimDabelsteinPetersen&offset=&limit=500&target=KimDabelsteinPetersen contributions]. QuackGuru (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

:::My recent contribution history might lead you to think so, especially if you are desperately looking for ways to shoot the messenger, but i'm not. I've been editing WP for the last 8+ years with close to 18,000 edits[https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?project=en.wikipedia&user=KimDabelsteinPetersen]. Please assume good faith instead of bad. --Kim D. Petersen 08:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

::Comment: I think you will find that most editors (on both 'sides') involved in the e-cig article have been guilty of some amount of WP:IDHT and partisan editing, where is the evidence that AlbinoFerret is substantially more guilty than everyone else? In fact AlbinoFerret has https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=633428652&oldid=633428118 made special efforts to try and diffuse all the feuding between 'sides'.

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

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

• Support topic ban - Albino has gone on a tear now, adding non-NPOV content about pharma companies lobbying to have e-cigs treated as medical devices in europe, to a bunch of articles: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=634976177 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnson_%26_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=634985676 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GlaxoSmithKline&diff=prev&oldid=634986157 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=635023111&oldid=635019805 here]. None of his edits mention lobbying efforts by the e-cig industry against treating them like medical devices. These efforts are named in the title of the NYTimes article he is using a source: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/world/europe/aided-by-army-of-vapers-e-cigarette-industry-woos-and-wins-europe.html?pagewanted=all "Aided by Army of ‘Vapers,’ E-Cigarette Industry Woos and Wins Europe"] and the e-cig industry lobbying is the focus of most articles about it. argh. Albino's WP:SPA POV-pushing related to a pro-e-cig POV is extending out beyond the e-cig article. In the GSK article, I've reverted the addition and asked why the content should be given any WP:WEIGHT and if so, how much, and the question is just going right over his head. (discussion is here) All he can see is e-cigs. Enough already. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

::Nice twisting of what happened. The orignal claim was based on this story, [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/big-pharma-not-tobacco-companies-wages-war-on-electronic-cigarettes/article/2539441 link] I added the claim on Electronic cigarette first with this edit.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=634976177&oldid=634951995 diff] Later Cloudjpk switched out the source saying it was based on the link he inserted. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=634993247&oldid=634990356 diff] I assumed good faith, perhaps I shouldn't have and just attributed it to the columnist. I changed it in other areas, and the Glaxo site was added by copying and making it only about Glaxo. This was all explained in the discussion here.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GlaxoSmithKline#Removal_of_well_sourced_COI_statement link] As for weight, there are 4 or 5 articles on the lobbying by Glaxo against a product it competes with, it had enough weight to have one line at the bottom of the article. AlbinoFerret 06:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per Jytdog and others. Given the diffs provided by Jytdog, this user seems unlikely to stop on their own without sanctions, and if anything seems to be stepping it up. A case of enough is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Update. Has User:AlbinoFerret been edit warring recently? Revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=635194221&oldid=635188707 1]: Restoring disputed text is a revert. Revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=635198466&oldid=635195952 2]: Removing a FV tag is a revert. Revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=635309859&oldid=635304630 3]" Replacing "unclear" with "premature" is a revert. Revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=635341691&oldid=635333798 4]. Removing the word "therefore" and changing the text is a revert. Revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=635344807&oldid=635342674 5]: Deleted text. While may or may not be violating the 3RR rule he is continuing to make a lot of reverts. An edit by AlbinoFerret claimed the pharmaceutical industry [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=635188707 have lead]. The text was a bit misleading. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=635275920&oldid=635272829 User:Cloudjpk fixed the mess]. User:AlbinoFerret added to the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page text that was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=635001582&oldid=634921357 not regulatory background] but he still [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=635023111&oldid=635019805 restored it] anyway. User:AlbinoFerret was initially arguing to use a blog despite knowing it is somewhat a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=635197714 commercial site]. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Phil_Busardo.27s_self-published_WordPress_blog_as_a_source. Is this yet [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=635023505&oldid=635023118 another example] of an unhelpful edit? His edit summary claims "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=635023505&oldid=635023118 rewrite again for readability and flow]" but that is not exactly what he did IMO. Did he rewrite the text because he didn't like what the MEDRS compliant sources said? See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Rephrasing of claims. QuackGuru (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

• Update. The text is sourced but User:AlbinoFerret added a verification tag to the first sentence of the article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=636383514&oldid=636383336] Please read "The electronic cigarette is a battery-powered electronic nicotine delivery system that looks very similar to a conventional cigarette and is capable of emulating smoking,..."[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22283580] This is a MEDRS review that verified the claim. This is not the first time he added a failed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=635309859&oldid=635308100 verification tag] when the text is sourced. He deleted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=636399824&oldid=636396306 sourced text] because he thinks the section is too long. He added the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=636399824 failed verification tag again] but the text is [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22283580 clearly sourced]. QuackGuru (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• Another interesting edit is this which removed a paragraph stating that e-cig companies recruit consumers to push their policy agenda via websites etc. For some reason the text did not mention using Wikipedia. However, nothing is going to happen because the frenetic pace of editing and commenting drives away editors without an agenda. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

• {{userblock|CheesyAppleFlake}}

This editor is a WP:SPA with fully 157 of his 164 edits regarding Electronic cigarette. For whatever reason this article has become extremely contentious, but Cheesy's contributions to the topic area serve purely to insult others and fan the flames. He had already received one civility warning from {{u|Doc James}} regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=632479552 this] comment of his; his responses were "By now everyone knows Quack is basically your meatpuppet" and "the incestuous relationship between Quack and Doc James is pretty common knowledge". Today he posted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=634331931 this] at the article Talk page, calling other editors {{tq|retarded chipmunks}}. I asked him to reconsider at his User Talk, his response was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CheesyAppleFlake&diff=prev&oldid=634333327 this], {{tq|the article is being destroyed by semi-literate idiots intent on forcing a medical agenda onto an article about a consumer product. And you can't seriously tell me that either Sieg Heilman or Quack has any significant mastery of the English language}}. Calling Doc James "Sieg Heilman" is beyond the pale. See current status of their User Talk [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CheesyAppleFlake&oldid=634333619 here]. I don't believe this is a candidate for a topic ban because I have no evidence they're here to do anything other than take potshots or fan the flames, I don't detect any kind of learning happening or even any desire to do better. I think this is a candidate for a block. Zad68 05:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

:His response [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=634331931 here looks to be] in response to the conflict currently going on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Removal_of_bullet_points_in_a_list_and_renaming_the_section in this section.] Where you, and you are an admin, are refusing to follow WP:NOCONSENSUS. AlbinoFerret 05:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

:::::There is never a reason for racial slurs, never, ever, ever, ever. The way you addressed a problem is wrong. But there is a problem. The reasons for the actions you see is because there is a larger group of editors acting as a group. I cant prove collusion, but if an issue pops up editors from the medical side amazingly pop up. Doc James has already been warned for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive260 edit warring and canvassing]. He knows that he has backup. A big issue on the article is a heightened standard of references for what should be non contentious claims and requiring every claim have a reference even in areas that are not medical in nature on a article about a consumer product. There is also a problem imho with completely silencing any criticism of the Grana article or the WHO. AlbinoFerret 16:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::::AF, re "As for Cheesy, bans are not ment to be punitive WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE" -- If you really believe BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE applies here, you are seriously misunderstanding what's going on. However per your own comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CheesyAppleFlake&diff=634342281&oldid=634334865 here] where you call out Cheesy's behavior as unacceptable and implore him not to continue doing it indicates that you know his behavior has been bad and is likely to continue--that is exactly what sanctions are designed for. Any sanction being considered for Cheesy will be preventative against future bad behavior, and so BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE does not apply here. Zad68 13:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

• This edit referring to Sieg Heilman (see James Heilman and User:Doc James) shows that a topic ban from Electronic cigarette is required for CheesyAppleFlake. There is no need to block if the user manages to edit constructively elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• There is really no response when someone starts making racial slurs. This is Godwin's law in action. Further less than helpful comments keep coming in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=634331931&oldid=634331913] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:*support block per original posting and subject's behavior in the discussion above. WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

:*Support block too as an uninvolved editor having reviewed the evidence. Jack Stamps (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

:*Block and indefinite topic ban from electronic cigarettes, as they clearly are too emotionally involved in the topic to contribute usefully to the topic. "Sieg Heilman"? Seriously? How are they not blocked already? Yobol (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

{{archivebottom}}

In a textbook case of WP:IDHT QuackGuru is being disruptive to the Electronic cigarette talk page. He is attempting to poison the RFC that is on the topic of what word to choose to describe what comes out of an e-cigarette, either [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Vapor.2C_Mist.2C_.26_Aerosol_RFC Vapor, Mist or Aerosol]

He started out trying to use a limited agreement on one sentence in the lede by placing comments to other commentator in two places at once. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=634022216&oldid=634021834 diff] Since he also tried to attribute motive for the RFC I replied to the comment and told him the previous consensus was limited to one sentence in the lede and that he had broken the agreement and that the RFC was to see where consensus lies. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=634024494 diff]

He created a subsection of the RFC called "Consensus" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=634493501&oldid=634489824 diff] He also placed the same comment trying to prove that a limited consensus, that he broke, was consensus on the topic of the RFC in that subsection. He had placed the comment before in the RFC already in the question C section. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=634196127&oldid=634193841 diff] and it was pointed out again in that section that the consensus was limited and that he had broken the agreement. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#C._Should_we_use_the_term_that_any_sources_use_when_writing_sentences_based_on_that_source_in_the_article.3F Link]

He then collapsed the comment in the original subsection he created and used bold to make a fake subsection with a {{OD}} and tag to place the comments in. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=634501908&oldid=634499665 diff] Another editor Kim D. Petersen commented on his WP:IDHT activities in two spots in the comments section.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=634506303 diff]. In a bit of irony QuackGuru is part of a DRN because he removed subsections and other organization items from the article saying they were there to attract attention. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Electronic_cigarette.23Removal_of_bullet_points_in_a_list_and_renaming_the_section link].