Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Long-term disruptive editing by editor with confirmed COI (User:John Foxe, article:Bob Jones University)

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

---

• Bob Jones University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:John Foxe has a COI with Bob Jones University as a professor there. (He disclosed this under his enwp username [no real name divulged] to a newspaper in Jan 2011 and confirmed this at WP:COIN in Dec 2014.) Here are my concerns:

Issues with article ownership. He has contributed 1105 of the 4077 total edits to the article, and has made 8X more edits than any other editor (per tool). He has been accused of exhibiting ownership by four different editors at three different points in time: in Feb 2007 by User:Emote (diff1 and diff2) and by User:Barang (diff3), in May 2014 by User:Abductive (diff4), and in Dec 2014 by me (diff5).

Usage of misleading edit summaries. Recently, he has made several edits either removing controversial info about the university or changing its meaning under edit summaries that are misleading. For instance, in diff6 he used the edit summary "the "crest" is different from the logo" to make a minor wording change about the uni's logo but also to remove info about how the uni president disparaged two religions using the official uni website. In diff7 he used the edit summary "put the "cult" statement in a more logical place" to not only move the info of the the same event but also to completely change its meaning.

Preventing change to POV statements. Two editors (diff8, diff9, diff10) removed a POV statement from the lead ("Though the conservative religious, cultural, and political stances taken by the university have often generated controversy, they have also resulted in greater institutional influence than might have been anticipated from a college of its size."), which he reverted each time stating that he "can provide a reference", which he never did until after the recent COIN investigation, and which failed to validate NPOV anyway.

Based on his contributions to this uni article, both recent and past, I am unconfident in his ability to contribute directly to the article without bias and feel action should be considered. I propose an article ban that excludes the talk page (that way he can still suggest edits). —Eustress 21:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm unembarrassed to say that, with perhaps the possible exception of one other person, I know more about the history of Bob Jones University than anyone living. I've just finished a scholarly book manuscript that covers its early years. It's hardly surprising that I've made more edits than anyone else—I'm simply more knowledgeable than anyone else.

I admit to having been sloppy about edit summaries on occasion, but the nature of the changes I've made in those circumstances is in the eye of the beholder. I'm more interested in correcting bad grammar, sloppy syntax, and disjointed paragraphs than in making ideological statements that would be reverted anyway.

The alleged POV statement in the lead had a proper citation until Eustress himself removed it here. I restored the footnote, then replaced it with a substitute that Eustress suggested.--John Foxe (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If Eustress believes I've edited the article in a biased way, he should prove that allegation by providing examples.--John Foxe (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be obfuscating the real issue, as the citation you're referencing pertained to a separate POV quote (as shown in the diff provided) you contributed to the lead. Had the same citation supported the POV statement in question, another ref tag should have been placed. (As an experienced editor, you're well aware of WP:PAIC "ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies".) The point is, two editors excluding myself tried to remove a separate POV statement, which you obstructed.

You say above that you are "more interested in correcting bad grammar, sloppy syntax, and disjointed paragraphs than in making ideological statements", but the myriad diffs above prove otherwise. I'm not proposing an action that would prevent your knowledge of BJU from being incorporated into enwp, as you would still be able to suggest edits to the talk page with an article-only ban. You're a professor at BJU and your actions have been very disruptive. —Eustress 00:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No comment on anything except the lead statement. Does anyone question this idea? Do we have any published sources that say otherwise? The school seems to attract far more attention than the typical 2800-student college (how many Americans have heard of Waynesburg University, for example?), and through things ranging from the publications of BJU Press (popular among Christian homeschoolers throughout the US) to its interracial dating stance (well documented and very unpopular among most people throughout the US), it definitely has a lot more influence, whether influencing people toward its positions or against them, than any other school of comparable size in the country. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend, yes, two editors (myself excluded) questioned this idea (see diffs above). The point is, John Foxe's editing behavior regarding this one line of text is further evidence of biased and misleading editing. —Eustress 00:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither in your diffs nor in the article history do I see any evidence of reasonable opposition to this statement on NPOV grounds. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

(sorry, I failed to include diff10 as evidence) —Eustress 00:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

As another but separate example, on Bob Jones III, John Foxe removed all reference (see diff11) to Jones' role in a sexual abuse scandal at BJU with the edit summary "I'd be happy to work with you on an appropriate summary statement." —Eustress 00:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Eustress, You say, "You're a professor at BJU and your actions have been very disruptive." (made a comma error, by the way). It makes no difference if I'm Bob Jones III, you need to prove my editing of Bob Jones University has been "very disruptive." You haven't even proved it that it's not NPOV.

Think about it this way: the person who knows the most about the history of Brigham Young University is probably a prof at BYU and certainly a Mormon. Would it be COI for that expert to edit the BYU article?--John Foxe (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is very clearly a conflict of interest for someone to be editing the article about their employer. There are few more definitive examples of a conflict of interest. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if the editor is an expert in the subject and has edited in a NPOV manner? (I'm presuming that in the hypothetical above, if the expert about BYU history were retired from BYU or just a Mormon, you believe there would be no COI).--John Foxe (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Your rebuttal here exhibits textbook COI -- per WP:COI, "People with a conflict often 'esteem too highly their own reliability', and fail to realize the extent to which the conflict has affected their judgment." —Eustress 18:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sort of like the Salem witch trials: if you say you're not a witch, that proves you're one.--John Foxe (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, even if the editor is posting in an NPOV manner - that would be merely showing dealing well with having a conflict. It doesn't eliminate the reality that the editor would have an obvious interest in serving the needs of his employer. Having a conflict of interest is different from exhibiting bias... which they seem to realize at Bob Jones University, as their appeals process for concerns over discrimination or harrassment has those two possibilities as different reasons to accept an appeal. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Do I understand correctly that John Foxe does not deny his conflict of interest (working for the University and writing a book about the subject)? If so, they had to post a notification about the COI on their user page long time ago and do not edit this University page, or at least never make reverts on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Some of the editor's edits do look helpful to the article and are not as obviously biased as might be expected in such a case. Overall, the article is pretty well written and illustrated, and the editor might be a large part of why that is so. I'm not saying there's no problem here, but ... —BarrelProof (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If they post a notification on their user page about their COI and stop edit warring on pages related to their COI, that might be just fine? My very best wishes (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• If an editor has a clear cut COI issue, then there is every reason for that editor to adhere to COI principles. Both being an employee of the subject university and having written an (apparently?) yet to be published book on the subject would both constitute very good reaasons for suspecting COI, as both at least potentially relate to the possibility of the editor having some sort of monetary conflict of interest. Obviously, if the book to be published were to be perhaps found significantly inconsistent with other reliable sources, or perhaps misrepresentative of the subject in some significant way, admittedly unlikely as that seems, that would be a reasonable grounds for COI questions on the basis that demonstable questionable reliability of the book might impact any proceeds to the author from it. There is no reason for the editor in question not to adhere to general COI guidelines and suggest significant changes to the article on the talk page, and receive positive feedback on the proposals, before making them. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Eustress only knows that I told a reporter in 2011 that I was a BJU faculty member. He doesn't know that I'm one now. He needs to present credible evidence that I've edited the BJU article in a non-NPOV way.--John Foxe (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd like to state that I've never edited at Wikipedia or written a book for pay. (I wish I could say otherwise for the books.)--John Foxe (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that you have a conflict of interest and promise not revert any other editors on pages related to BJU? My very best wishes (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No. It's my position that I've edited the BJU article in a consistently non-NPOV manner and that it's your responsibility to present credible evidence to the contrary. I've made more than a thousand edits. There should be plenty of evidence. Set forth your case.--John Foxe (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Too bad. If you refuse to adhere to COI guidelines, that can be a reason for a topic ban or worse. My very best wishes (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

He didn't "refuse to adhere to COI guidelines"; he refused your suggestion of a self-imposed zero revert limit; there's no policy requiring that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• From what I can gather, John has provided a source for the statement in the lead but it was later removed? You can't state that an editor is violating NPOV after you remove the sources supporting the statement. Whether the statement in the lead represents a synthesis of the source is another matter entirely though. Edit summaries aside, I am not seeing serious issues that require sanctions although the editor should pay more attention to COI issues - the proper process for editors with COI is to suggest edits on the talk page, rather than to implement them directly. The removal at Bob Jones III is justified, given the original form violated WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP, although the current form seems to be adequate. —Dark 00:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is irrelevant here. Everyone suppose to follow WP:NPOV on the project. WP:COI is a different official guideline. Here is the problem: John Foxe is in state of conflict with other contributors (as obvious from his reverts) in the subject where he evidently has a COI. Moreover, he refuses to acknowledge his COI and comply. Given the fact that he is prone to edit warring [1], that means he is probably going to continue reverts. That does not look good. Indeed, this user seem to be under an 1RR restriction which he has violated two days ago [2], [3], in a page were he has a conflict of interest. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding that 1RR restriction referred to above, is that something imposed after the apparent lifting of such a restriction in August 2013? (Regarding the removed source citation, I think that citation was attached to a different sentence than the sentence being discussed.) —BarrelProof (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of the 1RR restriction. is it still in place? I will let another admin review whether a sanction for that is necessary. Also note that COI is a policy formulated to ensure policy compliance in terms of NPOV and verifiability so I have no idea why you say that it is irrelevant. I should also note that he seems to be edit warring with an SPA, which I have since blocked for disruption. Seems evident that it was an account created solely to edit war/harass the editor. —Dark 02:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Having looked at the lifting of the 1RR restriction and your participation within it, I will say that I do not appreciate being misled and it does nothing to help your case. —Dark 02:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, 1RR was lifted. I forget about this previous ANI discussion and only looked at his block record (I have a lot of other things to do besides editing here). I withdraw from this discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• I would like to set this record straight. I interacted with this user on one occasion more than a year ago (and almost forget, sorry!). That was unpleasant [4]. I therefore argued that his 1RR restriction, which he received before, should not be lifted. The restriction was lifted, and it was said that "it should go without saying that any resumption of the previous problems would lead to more admin action". And here we are again, because John Foxe reverted multiple users, including an administrator, on a page where he has a conflict of interest [5],[6], [7],[8],[9], [10], [11] vs. [12], [13], [14], [15] [16] [17] [18], [19],[20]. If that does not justifies some kind of administrative action, then I do not know what does. My very best wishes (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And he said he will continue the same [21]. No wonder, because he effectively receives an endorsement on this noticeboard so far. That's fine with me. I do not edit these subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I tend to agree with DarkFalls here. Obviously the guy has a COI but he seems to be willing to put forward an effort to color inside the lines. @John Foxe:, I recommend that you avoid editing in a way that could even appear to be disingenuous, such as using edit summaries of, shall we say, fuzzy accuracy. That's just not playing fair, as your edits are numerous enough that other edits are going to rely on your edit summaries to see what you're doing. I also recommend that everyone on the page practice WP:BRD as a matter of habit. As a side note, anyone want to own up to Subterreynean? That was a particularly disgusting outing attempt. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize about those edit summaries. I edit a lot of non-controversial articles and get used to writing summaries like "stylistic tweaks." That doesn't (and shouldn't) cut it at an article as potentially radioactive as Bob Jones University.--John Foxe (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is the question. Should an editor, who evidently has COI, officially acknowledge that they have COI and do not revert other editors on a page where they have COI (as required by the official guideline), or they can edit just as any other contributor by claiming to adhere to WP:NPOV? If the latter, then we do not need this guideline. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether a college prof bears the same relation to his employer as say, the Chief of Information at Megacorp, it is incumbent upon Eustress to prove that my editing at Bob Jones University has been (as he has claimed) "very disruptive." He correctly stated that in 2011 I told a reporter—who was writing an article on edit wars between Mormons and non-Mormon at Wikipedia—that I was a teacher at BJU; but he can not say, without revealing my identity, that that's true today. The only way to prove that I have a COI is to demonstrate that my editing here has been non-NPOV—or, I suppose, by having a buddy at the Deseret News call me again.--John Foxe (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

JF, please assume good faith ("buddy" comment?) and stop taunting editors to out you. I was concerned by your behavior at BJU and was troubled to learn about your employment at the university. Since you have been editing surreptitiously on enwp, I thought it appropriate to pursue COIN/ANI to air out the issue. (WP:COI, "If you have a financial connection to a topic – including, but not limited to, as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles directly.") I outlined the disruptive editing from the beginning: you've contributed 1105 of the 4077 total edits to the article, and 8X more edits than any other editor; there are 5 diffs pointing to ownership issues, 2 diffs regarding misleading usage of edit summaries, and 4 diffs signaling POV pushing. I still think an article ban with exclusion of the talk page would be the best way to incorporate your suggestions into the encyclopedia while adhering to our COI guideline. —Eustress 22:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

My interest has been to underline your responsibility to prove that I've been editing in a non-NPOV fashion without revealing my identity. Eleven diffs from 1100 edits seems pretty small potatoes to me. As I've said above, I probably know more about the history of Bob Jones University than anyone living. I've just finished a scholarly book manuscript that covers its early years. It's hardly surprising that I've made more edits than anyone else—I'm simply more knowledgeable than anyone else. While I'd prefer to assume you're acting in good faith, you've edited this article since February 2012 but only pursued the COI after I noted on the talk page that you'd "reintroduced errors of fact" in your extensive reworking of the history section.

Again, are you willing to ban all faculty members at Brigham Young University from editing the BYU article? Would it make a difference if those BYU faculty members were retired? Don't all Mormons in good standing have a "financial connection" to BYU?--John Foxe (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have looked at the article and it comes across as quite neutral to me, representing controversial aspects of the University detachedly. There are much bigger POV problems out there. I see no evidence that John Foxe is engaged in advocacy, I also see no evidence that he is more engaged in promoting outside interests than in improving the encyclopedia and following our rules (which is the definition of COI). It also seems clear that whatever John Foxes relation to BJU is it is not in a marketing capacity (since he is writing academic manuscripts) but as a faculty member and historian working with the school. I dont see a major problem in the presented evidence, but would encourage John Foxe to not edit war and to give space so that other editors may also participate fully in the writing of the article - being more knowledgeable also carries the responsibility of using the knowledge gracefully, using it to educate others and not to exclude them. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Userspace for fans of keeping track of oldest people

There is a group of users who seem to be insistent on creating their own versions of "Lists of oldest whoever" as their main contributions here. So far, I've found User:Bensonfood (see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Bensonfood), User:Deaths in 2013(Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Deaths_in_2013/My_OR_stuff), and now User_talk:Pascar, User:Tanough/SC_Portal, User:Tanough/SC_Portal/Table_B, User:Tanough/SC Portal/Oldest people/Spain (blanked by anonymous users), User:Tanough/Top_10 and I'm sure there's more. There is a small amount of editing in mainspace for these individuals but I'd like to see if someone here can beat a cluestick into all of them about forking before I just block them all under WP:NOTHERE (although any other admin is welcome to do so). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Deaths in 2013, I'm just gonna leave this here. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is curious how widespread this is, check out the fun I'm creating at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#December_18.2C_2014. Already found four more users. Let's see how far this rabbit hole goes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This is probably the Yahoo World's Oldest People group and/or the 110 Club fanboys again. The area of human longevity ended up at arbitration about 4 years ago, and while some of the nastiness is gone from the area there's still a strong undercurrent of people who view longevity-related material as their own private fiefdom. Accordingly, they treat Wikipedia as the Gerontology Research Group's official output and insist on keeping massive walled gardens of content. See the history of User:NickOrnstein for an old example, just to show how longstanding this problem is. This sort of thing should be met with swift warnings and blocks, because if not immediately stopped the cleanup gets to be overwhelmingly large. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like it, there's at least a half dozen others out there. Note that I just deleted User:Deaths_in_2013/Sandbox as a copy-paste recreation of the one from the MFD. I hope that's not a concern. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I joined Wikipedia around a year ago. I don't who was the first to create these kind of user pages but I imagine that like myself, many other people with an interest in longevity saw other people keep longevity-related lists in their userspace, and so presumed that this was okay. I now understand that the guidelines do not allow for such things so am attempting to merge some of the content on my user page to existing articles.

But you know what, I see the comments that you lot have made above and I think: "Sod it, why should I bother?". Ricky, did you not bother to read the recent discussions on my talk page about this? If you had, then you would realise that I am trying to work towards a positive solution. But instead, you say that you'd "like to see if someone here can beat a cluestick into all of them about forking before I just block them all". Brilliant.

Maybe one of the reasons that others do not make more contributions to the main Wikipedia is because they do not wish to collaborate with "bullies". That is, people who show no appreciation of the fact that newer users are less experienced and do not seem to take in to account the intentions of the users.

Oh, and the Yahoo World's Oldest People Group is not for "fanboys". It's a place to post news/research about longevity claimants and is used by a number of experts in the field.

Ollie231213 23:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the members of the 110 club as fanboys, although in my experience the label does fit many of the participants at the Yahoo group as well. he What in the world is the utility of lists like those linked above? Setting aside the horrific formatting and blatant WP:FLAGBIO violations, which was one of the more bizarre and rancorous disputes I had to help force a solution to in the topic area, there is no possible way that anyone besides those referred to above would seriously want these as Wikipedia articles. Allowing them to indefinitely languish in peoples' userspace is therefore an obvious violation of WP:UPNOT, and encourages more such violations, so they should be deleted. Some of them, such as User:Tanough/SC Portal/Table B, are also blatant attempts to keep a preferred format (one that contravenes WP:FLAGBIO) and should accordingly be deleted on those grounds. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have another idea -- perhaps an editor concerned about other editors failure to follow policy could follow the recommendation at the top of the page:

• Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.

As Ollie points out, the most likely explanation for the behavior is observing it going unchecked on other editor's pages; I understand it's a hassle to post the same message to multiple folks -- if there's not a standard twinkle message perhaps one could be added. NE Ent 23:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Having visited (in one fashion or another) a few of these accounts I can tell you that they are resistant to sugestion... sometimes downright hostile. This is not a matter of a few slightly errant editors that just need a friendly little twinkle message to nudge in the right direction. This is an entrenched dysfunction that requires the very real threat of deletion to even get a serious acknowledgement. And even then there is perpetual resistance. In the end, the wall surrounding this group has to come down and either they participate constructively... or they don't. – JBarta (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at [22] and [23], I'm not seeing any evidence there was any attempt to engage that particular editor. Although the page is obviously not compliant, it's unclear what possible harm it's doing? It's not affecting mainspace, it's not affecting any other editor... why the rush? Of course we're going to get resistance if our first engagement is hostile WP:FAKEARTICLE wiki-ese. (It's also not following policy -- WP:AGF is a code of conduct, not a probability assessment. NE Ent 00:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Many of the experts/correspondents on the WOP Group are also members of the 110 Club. The latter was in fact created with the intention of making a forum to have semi-formal discussions about the topic of longevity. It has a wide range of members, from those involved in research to those who just have an interest. So, let's not start some petty name-calling.

Why do these kind of pages exist? They were probably created because Wikipedia has an auto-update function, so all ages change automatically. The tables are also neat, so user pages were considered to be a good place to keep these informal lists which were designed to be looked at by only the user and other users with an interest in longevity.

Now I'm not saying that this is okay. Clearly, these violate guidelines. Fine. I know that now, but I did not before, and I imagine that many others did not either. What I object to, however, is the way that this issue is being dealt with. We have a load of experienced users (who know the guidelines inside out) who just come along, like a stampede of rhinoceros, and accuse the lesser-experienced users of this that and the other (such as not wanting to help contribute to the main Wikipedia) and threaten to delete their pages outright.

These accusations may or may not be valid for individual users, but don't paint everyone with the same brush. I'm sure most people will be happy to cooperate with the administrators if they are polite and and explain why they are in the wrong.

However, when you see some say: "check out the fun I'm creating at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#December_18.2C_2014", it sounds as if they are getting a rush from having power over others. People are NOT going to be willing to cooperate with people like that.

Ollie231213 23:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yea, sorry about that. Unfortunately Wikipedia has very few administrators for the amount of work to be done, so sometimes they can get a bit cranky. Might I suggest using one of the Wiki hosting services? Some are free (advertising supported), and should support most of the same functionality. Once you've got your stuff copied over, we'd appreciate if you'd place a {{Db-userreq}} on your user page so a passing administrator can clean up the page. NE Ent 23:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for your helpful suggestion, NE Ent. I appreciate it.

Ollie231213 23:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

One thing that needs to be borne in mind is that some of these lists are entirely unsourced, and accordingly violation of WP:BLP policy - they make specific claims regarding longevity, which is obviously potentially contentious, and clearly should be sourced. They also give precise dates of birth, which may possibly violate WP:BLPPRIVACY. If there was any evidence that these lists were actually intended for article content, there might be scope for some leeway, but given the pointless duplication, the clear unwillingness to comply with sourcing requirements, and the disregard for multiple other policies, I can't think of a good reason why we shouldn't give them say a week to copy the lists elsewhere, and then summarily delete the lot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Another is that to these people, keeping track of the world's oldest people seems so obviously encyclopedic - as in the most appropriate data anyone could have in an encyclopedia, ever - that all the admins trying to get rid of it seem like irrational meanies. The prominence of the world's oldest person records in the Guinness books likely exacerbates that. --NellieBly (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia doesn't normally have multiple incomplete versions of similar content scattered all over the place - and per established Wikipedia policy, we require sources for content referring to living persons. If the contributors responsible for these lists wish to contribute sourced content to articles, there is nothing stopping them. That doesn't appear to be their objective however. AndyTheGrump (talk)

I found this to be a fairly accurate summary of the problem (for the now-removed section being linked to, see this and the associated edit summary). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:NE Ent, you seem to acting like I'm WP:BITEing these editors because I won't simply let them continue with their userspace lists that they've created and used for years. In partiuclar, User:Tanough hasn't edited since 2012 but the history at User:Tanough/SC Portal is continuous until today. I came here following the close of Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Bensonfood. The editor has been here for six months, and when told it's inappropriate, copy the contents to two other places for me to hunt down for deletion. User:Deaths_in_2013 has a similar AFD, I deleted that page, the sandbox page he copied the contents to and yet there's still this and this movement which shows little intent to actually deal with these issues. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when told at places like Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#List_of_supercentenarians_who_died_in_2014 is not going anywhere fast. Besides, under hte BLP policy, they should all be deleted immediately and the editors can try at deletion review or wherever to get them restored. Listing them for AFD is being extra-ordinarily nice in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I just follow the evidence. Bensonfood may have been here for six months, but the first talk page message I'm seeing indicating anything is amiss with his edits is this correct but less than warm and fuzzy message two days ago [24], followed 11 minutes later by a notification of this ANI thread [25], and I've already addressed the Ollie situation. Of course BLP violating content must be deleted expeditiously but it should be addressed in a manner consistent with the rest of Wikipedia policies. The first step should be a polite user talk page explaining why it's inappropriate, and a request for them to copy the material off-wiki and then CSD U1 it. Way less fuss than Mfd's and ANI threads.

I think the key word in Ricky's post is "these editors." They are individuals, and unless there is evidence they are sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or part of an intentional conspiracy, should be treated as such. I understand the frustration -- when I volunteered at WP:WQA there are days when I wanted to scream when the N + 1th new editor complained that an established editor had "rudely" just removed a message left on the veteran editors talk page -- but I forced myself to remember than the one was a different potential new editor than the N who came before. And when I just couldn't stand it anymore I logged off for a month ... or two ... NE Ent 23:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

My experience in the longevity articles is that most of these people are meatpuppets in all but name, and frequently in name as well (see WP:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts (2nd nomination) for a demonstrative example). Certainly not all, but most. There's little point in trying the approach above (an approach I highly endorse in most cases) because their presence results in things like what I linked to above being spread across literally hundreds of pages, and getting it down to a more reasonable size gets resistance at every turn. It's much easier and more efficient to head it off at the pass. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"MOST of these people are meatpuppets"? And how exactly did you come to that conclusion?

Ollie231213 12:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I was looking at random "List of supercentarian" articles and the selection of articles I looked at appear to rely heavily on Gerontology Research Group, a non-reliable an essentially primary source, to determine information and age about these people. There are also a significant number of non-sourced entries in the articles. Am I right in thinking that these are BLP violations, at least for the recently deceased and/or still living? If so, what is the best course of action for dealing with them? Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The GRG is a useful source for this sort of thing, it's about the best you're going to get in most cases, so that's not so much of a problem. Basically, the best way to deal with these is through AfD; if the only non-trivial coverage is in GRG records, they're not notable enough for articles here. As to how I came to the conclusion above, look through the two Jan Goossenaerts AfDs and the discussion here for demonstrative, but by no means exhaustive, examples. I am expressly not saying that everyone in the area is a meatpuppet, there are several editors who do excellent work in the area, but there are a disproportionate number of one-off and longer-term editors who habitually display the traits of the participants in these discussions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to hear why you think the GRG is a non-reliable source, James. Ollie231213 21:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ollie231213, please indent your replies by adding one more ":" than the previous reply to the beginning of each paragraph. I thought that the GRG wasn't a reliable source because the Wikipedia:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Databases says that No article should be based solely or primarily on any of these databases, and no article should rely on any one of them alone in order to make assertions about subjects' history of records broken, rank-order placement in longevity-related lists, or current status as alive or dead. I see now that this isn't exactly the same thing as not reliable - it's more like it's a primary source. I've struck out and changed my text above. Thanks for pointing this out. Ca2james (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

With regards to User_talk:Pascar, WP:FAKEARTICLE states that articles under construction are allowed if they include : "Short-term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template can be added to the top of the page to identify these)". The page even states that it is intended to become a full article. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

SiameseTurtle, it's a user talk page. It's not for creating drafts. I just blanked it, the history is still there. If someone actually wants to create the article, any editor can move the page. As annoying as it is, I'm willing to split up the talk page contents with the drafting editing and move it to Draftspace as long as all the unsourced names are removed (and kept out). Just ask me. The actual articles here have no sources and these ridiculous userspace drafts are what everyone is working on instead. There must be almost 30 pages listed all over MFD right now. The WikiProject was advised of this almost three years ago. Frankly the WikiProject people should be the ones wanting everything centralized so that they can create more robust articles rather than supporting this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Userpages are most definitely allowed to include draft articles, which you can learn more about at WP:UP. A constructive change would have been for you to suggest moving it to a more suitable page than the talk page - not taking actions against WP:POINT by deleting an article under construction. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Can't it just be moved to a sandbox? Afterall, it is a work in progress. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem; almost none of these are intended to become actual articles, they're here to languish in userspace. It'd be the equivalent of people keeping detailed track of baseball/hockey/[insert your sport here] stats throughout their userpages, those sorts of stats pages are regularly deleted through MfD. These present an even larger problem because many of them aren't sourced at all or have dubious sourcing, and given that we're talking about mostly private individuals it's a serious BLP violation to have these floating all over the place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That's simply not true though - many of the drafts have been moved to create articles. In fact, the page in question even explicitly states "It is a work in progress! In the future we could create a Wikipage article." , and was still being edited a matter of days before the deletion nomination. It seems to me that what is being enforced here is the deletion of all userspace draft articles - which goes against WP:SUB which states that userspace subpages can be used to develop articles. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why they can't. Equally, I also think we should add a notice at the top of these subpages to denote that they are not articles. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Even though this might be unrelated, I know this "Deaths in 2013" person. Under a different username, he was a (Personal attack removed) over on wikiHow. (He is currently blocked for six months.) --Biblioworm 16:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It is unrelated, and without English Wikipedia diffs supporting the accusation, it's an unwarranted personal attack. NE Ent 15:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

break

Humans learn intrinsically from imitation -- no kid ever read a How to walk or How to talk manual. That, along with bold, means that the WP:AGF explanation for these inappropriate user pages is new editors finding existing pages and therefore inferring it must be okay. Rather than repeatedly trying to deal with it ad hoc (which may lead to bitey behavior out of frustration), let's address the problem systematically.

• Clarify The reasons for deletion are not crisp; they're varying back and forth between WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:BLP. Although both are valid reasons for removal, the urgency and process involved differs. We should come to some consensus as to where they fall (scope). Personally, I don't seem them as a huge BLP issue, but obviously will support whatever the community consensus turns out to be.
• Identify To address the problem once, efficiently, we should enlist the technically adroit Wikipedia community -- I'm thinking either WP:VPT or WP:BOTREQ to scan userspace finding the problematic pages. Presumably there are certain keyword / names that could be used to flag these. The number of pages found -- 10? 100? 1000? will inform the next steps (extent).
• Engage As a first step, polite engagement of the creators should be undertaken. Depending on the extent (~10) manually copy pasting a message to each is reasonable; if it's larger someone could do a User:MediaWiki_message_delivery. Editors can be informed of why the content isn't appropriate, possible alternatives (e.g. wikia, et. al.) and asked to revert edits or CSD separate pages.
• Follow up After an appropriate period of time, content that hasn't been removed by the editors can be dealt with. Again the scope and extent will inform how to execute this step.
• Monitor Once the immediate issue is dealt with, we should monitor userspace for future pages to nip the problem in the bud. Perhaps a bot could make a list once a week or something of pages to evaluate.NE Ent 15:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I'd only add two things. One, given the length of time this has been an issue, the follow-up is going to be over a very extended period of time and in some instances will almost certainly require very firm handling. Secondly, reorganize the World's Oldest People project so it has a more coherent structure so people familiar with the area can handle these problems going forward (might require a name change, the discussion for which which would definitely need some extra monitoring). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a systematic approach would be best given the breadth of these pages. I think there's a broader issue here that isn't just confined to pages in userspace since there are issues in the mainspace articles, too. If the wikiproject is being examined, it might be good to add some kind of guideline and subsequent monitoring for what is and isn't acceptable for a mainspace or userspace page. As well, I think some guidelines and mentoring to help editors understand WP guidelines and policies is needed. I'm thinking not just of the sourcing and BLP issues but of Accessibility issues as well, since often only colour is used to determine whether an entry is pending or verified (see this article, for example). Should Wikipedia even be listing pending or unverified entries from the GRG tables when there are no other sources for those entries? Ca2james (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cig editors

See earlier ANI thread. SandyGeorgien (Talk) 16:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:TheNorlo

This user has referred to me as an Idiot here and a moron here. And than refers to me as a troll here. This makes it clear that he and User:FergusM1970 are referring to me [26].

This user is a WP:SPA who only edits material regarding electronic cigarettes [27]. They were previously warned about edit warring here and were at ANI for incivility here [28] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As for the WP:SPA I can assure you that I am not affiliated with the industry. As for the idiot and moron accusation. I'm sorry Doc, please accept my apologies. I still think that you might be a troll though has your action seems to suggest. TheNorlo (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Its not just these two episodes, its the general "anyone who disagrees with me is a moron" attitude and incivility that characterizes TheNorlo's interactions with editors he disagrees with. And there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue in not addressing sources, but simply engaging in debate that consisists of merely repeating statements of unsupported opinion as if they were uncontestable fact and telling other editors that their opinion doesn't matter.

• "Right now, the bottom line is that we need to remove the statement that says that there is no evidence.... Which is false, period.TheNorlo (talk) 6:01 pm, 17 December 2014, last Wednesday (5 days ago) (UTC−8)

It is false! The studies did find some evidence... Not strong evidence, but evidence nonetheless. See hereTheNorlo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• "The new RfC is WP:DISRUPT and I suspect that his is intentional. Doc James opens up the conversation by saying that a Google search shows that health articles comprises the vast majority of articles, this is an outright lie. This entire RfC is based on a lie."

These are my basis to say that Doc James is lying, now I agree that it isn't very scientific but on the other hand, Doc James claims about google results showing that " If one does a google search one finds that by far the large majority of the articles discuss the potential health implications primarily were not more scientific. I have posted this in the appropriate section of the talk page.

I just did a quick google search in the news section using "Electronic cigarette" in the search fiels, and then complied the numbers of articles of the first 9 pages of google and I divided them in 3 main categories (Health, Regulation and Usage) plus one category (other), this is what I found:

• Health: 23 Articles
• Regulations: 22 Articles
• Usage: 10 Articles
• Other: 25 ArticlesTheNorlo (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• In a discussion, mischaracterizing my position with a straw man argument: "Let me get this straight.... Formerly 98 oppose the proposal because he dislikes the title of this talk section? If that's the case, we have to disregard his opposition."
• "You did not provide any other reason for opposing the proposition other than the fact that you were offended that I called the Grana review "nonsense" (I should of said garbage) how exactly did I mis-characterized your position? Opposing substance because you don't like the form shows a blatant lack of arguments and makes your opinion irrelevant."

Formerly 98 (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, Why have you never countered my "straw man argument"? because it wasn't one. My arguments were valid as you guys can see here.TheNorlo (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

More content disagreements. AlbinoFerret 19:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No. This is not about a content disagreement. You are being disingenuous. This could result in a WP:BOOMERANG block/ban for supporting disruption. I think admins want to cut down on this kind of behavior. User:AlbinoFerret is one of the problem e-cig editors. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:AlbinoFerret. QuackGuru (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we know QuackGuru, anyone who does not hate e-cigs with a passion, is a problem editor.TheNorlo (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru No, this section against TheNorlo is over a content dispute QG. If you have some proof that it isnt, provide it. Secondly, that section you keep linking to was closed long ago with a finding of no consensus, and you forget there is a long section on your disruptive edits to go along with the dozens of others you have been blocked/banned over time. There was no finding of a problem with my edits even after a month, but if you continue to bring it up, I will start a section here about your slanderous comments against me. AlbinoFerret 08:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Response to User:AlbinoFerret.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&curid=42877829&diff=637458479&oldid=637418234 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "remove pure health related claims from a page on regulation". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=637569001&oldid=637568901 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "the specific adverse effects are medical claims and not legal in nature". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=637681446&oldid=637668408 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638529647&oldid=638526634 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=next&oldid=638536969 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=next&oldid=638606344 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638827743&oldid=638815324 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638907061&oldid=638608587 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=prev&oldid=639381769 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? Most of the paragraph is not found in any other article. So why is it being deleted when the text has nothing to do with legal status; it's just shoehorning in health claims.? Isn't the Safety of electronic cigarettes page about health claims? This is what User:AlbinoFerret deleted from another page where he stated the text does not belong.[29][30] If User:AlbinoFerret believed the text he deleted the Safety of electronic cigarettes page belongs in another article then why is he not moving it to another article? These are the facts. User:TheNorlo is a saint compared to User:AlbinoFerret. User:AlbinoFerret wrote "There was no finding of a problem with my edits even after a month." How about now? QuackGuru (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Why are you posting the details of your content dispute with AlbinoFerret at ANI? In a section about the conduct of TheNorlo?Levelledout (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC) This is a behavior problem claiming the text is not relevant to the Safety of electronic cigarettes page when it was deleted the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page. User:AlbinoFerret claimed in his post above "There was no finding of a problem with my edits even after a month." I was responding to his comment. I provided evidence his edits are a problem. QuackGuru (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC) An editor deleting text from an article because for instance they didn't think it was relevant and you disagreeing with them is definitely not a behaviour problem, it is the definition of a content dispute.Levelledout (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC) User:AlbinoFerret claimed it was not relevant for the Safety of electronic cigarettes page but then he deleted a lot of the same text from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page. The text is relevant but he claims it should go in another article. But he did not add the text to another article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks for proving all of this is a content dispute. You have taken summaries from other daughter pages of Electronic cigarette and placed them on Safety of electronic cigarette. Thats the process of creating a WP:POVFORK. If the information is relevant, it should be on the daughter page with its topic. You just dont seem to get it. The material is off topic for that page. AlbinoFerret 11:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC) You deleted this. The emerging phenomenon of e-cigarettes has raised concerns among the health community, pharmaceutical industry, health regulators and state governments.[17] A 2014 review stated that e-cigarette regulation should be given consideration because of the "reported" adverse health effects.[27] For example, they found that "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that e-cigarettes contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals, such as nitrosamines and diethylene glycol, which have potentially harmful effects on humans."[27] Additionally, a WHO report in 2009 cautioned that the "safety of e-cigarettes is not confirmed, and e-cigarettes are not an appropriate tool for smoking cessation therapy."[27] "In a nutshell, the WHO report shows that e-cigarettes and similar devices pose threats to public health," said Douglas Bettcher, director of WHO's prevention of noncommunicable diseases.[41] In several countries advertising for e-cigarettes has been monetarily restricted until safety and efficacy clinical trials are conclusive.[35] Almost all of the text is specifically about safety. You have not made a reasonable argument to delete the text about safety. Rather than delete it you could of tweaked the text. QuackGuru (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret claims it was a WP:POVFORK to include health claims in an article about safety but the WP:POVFORK was adding it to the Legal status of electronic cigarettes because the paragraph has nothing to do with legal status. The material is off topic for the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page but on topic for the Safety of electronic cigarettes page. QuackGuru (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

More content disputes, keep posting them QG, it only proves my point that this is all about content. AlbinoFerret 14:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for TheNorlo

TheNorlo, the problem is exactly illustrated both in my comments above and in your comments here.

• You refer to a WP:RS as "Garbage" because you do not like the contents.
• You mischaracterize the basis of my opposition to your proposal and suggest that my opinion as an editor can be disregarded
• You attack the character of other editors and call them Idiots, morons and "liars" , thus violating the talk page rules calling for an assumption of good faith.
• You use unnecessarily opinionated and provocative language that seems intended to galvanize your allies and provoke your opponents rather than support consensus building

On the basis of the Above, I propose a 6 month Topic Ban for Electronic Cigarettes be applied to TheNorlo. His behavior is combative and consistently fails to conform to either the letter or spirit of WP:CONSENSUS and the rules described at WP:TALK. His edit history consists of a total of 576 edits, of which 474 are are E-cigarette related articles or talk pages, and the vast majority of the remainder are on the talk pages of other editors focused nearly exclusively on these articles. He is clearly here to WP:ADVOCATE and not to build an encyclopedia, as shown by a consistent failure to seek consensus, by his incivility to those he disagrees with, and by his laser-like focus on a single article and topic. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Just to be sure it gets counted, I'll make the obvious statement that I support my own proposal. Formerly 98 (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You guys are really on a seek and destroy mission to get rid of every editor that you disagree with it's incredible, is AlbinoFerret next? I never referred to WP:RS as garbage, I referred the study of Grana/Glantz as garbage 2 completely different things, a study that is frustratingly over cited by the article, +- 25 citations, that is almost twice as the other WP:RS source that we have there.

Please explain to me how this conversation here for example, shows me not trying to reach consensus? I could give you more examples but why would I? Just make your case and let's see how it unfolds. TheNorlo (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Circulation is one of the top medical journals. Hardly a "garbage" source. Lots of issues with incivility. Has been warned about them in the past. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Again I referred to the grana glantz review as nonsense, not circulation and not WPRS policies.TheNorlo (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This comment you made on Dec 22nd at 13:49 is inappropriate [31]. You were encouraging the harassment of another editor. And this was after your apology here on Dec 22nd at 07:39. Also to that "apology" you later added the comment "I still think that you might be a troll". So not really an apology. This was also not appropriate [32]. You appear to be too personally invested in e-cigs and I think it would be best for both you and Wikipedia to edit in another topic area for a while. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Temporary 6 months topic ban on EC. Noteswork (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I am new to all this wiki bureaucratic procedures . Dont you get to say why you support or oppose, or is this only a matter of how many votes are pro\con? TheNorlo (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You have confirmed that you should not have insulted Doc James, yet you have also confirmed that you should have still insulted his comments. That's not even an apology. Noteswork (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I believe that insulting Doc James was an unacceptable behavior on my part, but attacking his comment as being stupid is justified. I still think that his argument is stupid. Doc James is a certified physician, stupid people do not become physicians, so I admit that the personal insult was out of line. TheNorlo (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Behaviour problems and non-neutral editing is well-evidenced above; the EC article is a fraught mess as it is, so this temporary ban would likely be a positive step in helping to improve that situation. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, what non-neutral editing are you talking about? The article has been locked since the Big Bang. I am actually trying to improve this article, I am not the one engaged in edit warring, I am not the one that got this article locked. Whatever, ban me for six month and let's see how better and neutral this article becomes. TheNorlo (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• OpposeThis is a content dispute where one side is in disagreement with the other. Nothing pointed out rises to meriting a topic ban. This is an attempt to remove an active editor from a page that has a lot of disagreement over content. AlbinoFerret 11:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Note. User:TheNorlo informed User:AlbinoFerret on 07:28, 24 December 2014 about this before he commented here. This appears to be canvassing by User:TheNorlo. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I am not familiar with this whole procedure but I see that every editors that I disagree with are here supporting the ban, so I asked the other active editors of the article to drop their 2 cents here as well, If you dig deeper Quack, you will find that I notified more editors. If that's against the rules then I didn't know.... But something tells me its not really canvassing. TheNorlo (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru I have been involved in this discussion since December 22nd. diff I did not take what TheNorlo said on my talk page as asking me to comment here. I would have posted in this section regardless of his post on my talk page, because once I post on a topic I come back to it until the discussion is done. AlbinoFerret 13:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for what its worth. Some here claim that I edit in a POV manner but no one has presented any evidence of this. show me an actual edit that I have made on the article that shows a clear bias on my part. I dare you. I am the only one here that have admitted to be biased on the subject but I edit consciously so that I am as neutral as possible in the edit that matters I.e. the edits that ends up in the article. Again, show me where my bias as transpired on the article. As for the insults Doc James, I should not have done that, I should of said that your arguments were stupid, I should not have said that you were stupid, that was a mistake. You were saying that an ecig is only an ecig when its full of liquid and that it seased to be an ecig when its empty and therefor ecigs are drugs, that my friend is a stupid argument, espescially for a man as educated as yourself, as others have pointed out. TheNorlo (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. When User:TheNorlo was not logged in back in May he wrote "This is (Redacted) ridiculous! And they have the balls to keep removing the POV sign! There is no (Redacted) concensus!"[33] Rather than stopping this kind about behavior he has continued with similar behavior problems based on the evidence given by User:Formerly 98. He can't edit from a neutral point of view. For example, he wants to propose to drastically shorten the lede for the e-cigs article. The lede isn't especially long to begin with and the lede is readability for the general reader. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Come on Quack, This version, is number one, a work in progress, number 2 neutral, number three I am not the o ly one that thinks that the status quo is hard to read. If you think that it is to POV, you should comment in the discussion section so it can be fixed. This is clearly a content disagreement. TheNorlo (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - Presumably its going to be said that I'm only commenting here after being notified but I have already contributed to this discussion and was going to make this comment anyway. I accept that TheNorlo has engaged in personal attacks which is unacceptable. However I'm not sure about any of the other evidence of conduct issues. I would support a warning for personal attacks which would give them a chance to correct their behaviour.Levelledout (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing again. User:AlbinoFerret was previously canvassed by User:TheNorlo. User:Levelledout was canvassed on 01:02, 25 December 2014 by User:TheNorlo. User:SPACKlick was canvassed on 01:05, 25 December 2014 by User:TheNorlo. User:KimDabelsteinPetersen was canvassed on 01:09, 25 December 2014 by User:TheNorlo. QuackGuru (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I just told you that. Read above. As I said, Every single active editor on the article that I disagree with is here trying to ban me. So I have asked the other active editor to pitch in their 2cents on this ban proposal. Is this vanvassing? I don't think so but again, I am not familiar with the inner workings of wikipedia policies. I am learning as I go here, give me a break. TheNorlo (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Not too wrong because you have notified involved editors. Noteswork (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:TheNorlo notified the editors who mostly agree with him and almost always disagree with me. QuackGuru (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh! I'm sorry Quack, I didn't realize that all this was about you. TheNorlo (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said, every editor that I have profound disagrement with are here already. The editors that I have reached out to are the other involved editors. I do not believe that these other editors are particularly partial to me, I have had some content disagreement in the past with some of them but we were able to work them out (I think) TheNorlo (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC).

This is not true. The following editors have participated significantly on the Talk page and in editing the article itself

• Zad68
• Wnt
• CFCF
• Cloudpk
• Yobol

But none of these editors was canvassed. Only his closest allies. Formerly 98 (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this list Ill notify them later in the day. No body seems to care that I am new at this and didn't know that I could notify people..

And it is weird that all of you guys are here, every editor that I deeply disagree with are conveniently right here to ban, just like that, magically, without any canvassing. TheNorlo (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes the efforts at canvassing are unfortunate. Another reason that I support a topic ban. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, this is against WP:CANVASS. Your notice is barely neutral and you admit that it's only to get the votes you want. If you want to be taken seriously, you would notify all the relevant editors and argue on the merits here. I'm sure the closing admin will consider this not a vote and the fact that the only editors who opposed it were those you specifically sought out is clear vote-stacking and not helping you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never admitted such a thing, please don't put words in my mouth, thank you. I will not notify anybody else... I get it.... TheNorlo (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• @QuackGuru, how can it be canvassing again when TheNorlo has not canvassed before? I was already involved in this discussion, on December 22 I made a comment above. diff. This is a subsection, the whole topic is one big section. SPACKlick has also made a comment in the discussion of these two editors so was aware of the section here. diff. While he may have canvassed the remaining two editors, its impossible to know all of wikipedias rules. TheNorlo is a newer editor, his first edit was in May of this year. He is taking this section seriously, as it should be, and looks to inadvertently broken a rule by informing two uninvolved editors. With the comments on the Electronic cigarette about this case with a link to it, I am almost positive all of the notified editors, SPACKlick, Levelledout and KimDabelsteinPetersen would have looked at this section and most likely would have commented, and SPACKlick and myself were already involved in this section on AN/I. AlbinoFerret 14:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Above User:AlbinoFerret opposes the ban and wrote in part: "Nothing pointed out rises to meriting a topic ban." User:AlbinoFerret wrote "But he appears to have outed you as one of his meatpuppet friends."diff I am debating on filing a statement on this on the sockpuppet board."[34] User:AlbinoFerret also wrote "Why did you and your secret friends do this?"[35] It appears User:AlbinoFerret has some issues with commenting on the talk page. That may be why he thinks it does not rise to the level of a ban. User:Ricky81682 warned User:TheNorlo for bias canvassing. User:AlbinoFerret, that is your opinion it was not canvassing. User:AlbinoFerret, don't be surprised if you get banned. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only one here that didn't understood a word of what Quack just said? TheNorlo (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

All I see is that QuackGuru just presented evidence that he himself and other editors were conspiring to edit (meatpuppets). If he isnt blocked for this, he should be permanently topic banned from all Electronic cigarette articles. TheNorlo was not involved in that so I question why he outed himself. I asked him for an explanation on his talk page, which he deleted and did not respond. I was thinking about coming here about it. I was also looking for another post where one of the named editors in a post replied with "We".

I never said it wasnt canvassing, but that it looks to be the inadvertent breaking of a rule by a newer editor. That the canvassing was really limited to two editiors because the other two named were already involved so cant be said to be canvassed. That the two who were would have most likely seen a mention of this section on the Electronic cigarette articles talk page and come here and commented anyway. AlbinoFerret 13:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to correct you, my first edit was the 26 of October 2013, a little more than a year ago. But as I said many times, I am still new at this wikilawering stuff. But I get it now... I will not notify any body ever again about anything. I just find it weird that every editor that disagree with me are here. I'm sick of this anyways.... Let them have their ways, Merry Christmas, I'll be back in 6 months. TheNorlo (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose And yes, it might look as if i've been canvassed to lend my support here to TheNorlo, but in fact i have/had read everything on this thread earlier. I am supportive of the ban below, but there was already a pile-up, and i couldn't see any reason to add more to that conversation. But in this case, i can't really see any reason to ban (topic or otherwise), because i can't see any real wrong doing or misbehaviour. We all as editors have views, and if we can't express these, such as saying that we (along with some rather eminent scientists[36]) find the Grana et al. review to be rather crappy, then you might as well ban me along with TheNorlo... There is some incivil language pointed out above, but really considering that almost every person who disagrees with QG, Doc James and Alexbrn etc. have been called socks, SPA's, unwitting industry shills, fringe supporters etc... then there should be a rather big ban-hammer going around - and maybe there should. But this isn't one of the cases. --Kim D. Petersen 20:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen "can't see any real wrong doing or misbehaviour." That is a problem when one of his closest allies supports the continued behaviour problems. I would recommend to the closing admin to consider banning the editors who continue to support the behaviour problems. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. TheNorlo (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: if you really want to discuss WP:BOOMERANG.. then we should discuss your behaviour as well - shouldn't we? But you can be relieved by the fact that i personally find this "lets try to eliminate editors who disagree with us on AN/I" behaviour to be rather dispicable and low. Please do not throw stones when you yourself are living in a glasshouse :) --Kim D. Petersen 17:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Per Doc James and Noteswork. Civility issues seem to be the main issue here coupled with potentially some competence issues on what constitutes a reliable source and blatant self-described advocacy issues a section below this. Since the user appears to only primarily edit E-cig articles and appears to be an WP:SPA at my quick glance, the best choice here seems to be giving them a break from the article either voluntarily or otherwise. Better for them to start out in less contentious topics to figure out how to approach things civilly.

I'll also point out that aside from Noteswork and myself, we're left with involved editors in varying degrees. I'd ask the closing admin to be mindful of that. The drama from E-cig articles appears to have the community wanting to avoid it as much as possible. After following the conversations through boards for awhile, it does seem like there are pervasive advocacy problems among some editors, some of which are amongst the current opposes. That's not to say there haven't been some issues on the "other side". However, my read of all this over time has been that there's a group of editors who are very passionate about the topic and some appear to reach the point of defending E-cigs who dedicate a large chunk of time to the topic to say the least. This has resulted in other less involved editors having to dig their feet in to try to combat the amount of passion and time these editors spend on the article (sometimes over 18 hours a day). This is a hallmark of why WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI (in terms of passion, not for being paid) like behavior are so tough to deal with on Wikipedia. No idea how to actually fix that, but that's just the view I'm left with as an outside observer. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 One thing I will agree with you is that the community is avoiding e-cig topics. Not just here but on other notice boards. This makes asking questions impossible. I have started or been involved on sections on the OR, RS, and NPOV noticeboards that have gone unanswered by uninvolved editors. How are editors supposed to find out if what they are doing or thinking is correct if no one answers them? I also disagree with the idea that some are involved in advocay. There are checks and balances in having editors who disagree on edits. This imho keeps the edits conforming to WP policy and guidelines. AlbinoFerret 17:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a little bit more of a user talk page discussion, but maybe it'll do some good for other folks to see it. The main issue I see at RSN, etc. is that you folks basically take over the board and continue the argument there when the board should be a place for outside opinion. Someone should post a question, and other involved editors are welcome to clarify or state additional info, but the primary goal should be to let other editors comment. Instead, the thread is swamped with the same back and forth between involved editors from the article talk page, and that essentially shuts down the ability for an outside editor to make an effective comment. In your case, I would say you are one of those editors that stands out sometimes. That's not me saying it's due to malice or anything like that, but simply that you comment a lot at those boards and need to learn to step back a bit. If folks follow that approach, that will open up the atmosphere for more outside comments, but some of the damage has already been done for the time being too. As for advocacy, I'm just saying that's what the behavior I'm seeing is indicative of. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 Here is a perfect example of what I pointed out above. link There are only two posts, both on the same day and the second only clarified my question. It went unanswered until it was archived. TheNorlo was the other party to post. All that was asked is if it was a reliable source, no back and forth. I for one had doubts if it were but to prove it to myself I asked the question. TheNorlo wasnt sure, and I posted the question and linked to it to show him that there are places to go and ask questions without arguing. I also agree that it would be better if this were on a talk page, but its an issue that needs more eyes on it imho. AlbinoFerret 18:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I recall those threads pretty clearly. There had already been other threads previous where the issues I described were more clear. That was a point where I decided it wasn't worth it to comment as an outside party as I'm sure many others probably did to looking at the lack of response. It was actually threads like those that my damage is done comment was based on. I don't have a solution for that specific problem now other than hopefully time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, in the short term this creates more of a problem than it solves. On a contentious article like e-cig where there are editors who have not been exposed to such articles, it gives them no opportunity to learn outside of the articles talk page. Since the talk page moves so fast because of the total number of editors, there is no time. It makes arguments more likely to happen on the talk page, because no one answers the questions, the editor who asks questions is left to what they think is right. Outside editors answering questions can and does stop this. AlbinoFerret 19:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 WP:ADVOCACY is specifically directed at editors who disregard reliable sources, and the overall gist of the literature in favor of their personal opinion - not editors who know something about the topic, have the time, or who are passionate about it. If we only measured editors more positive on how disinterested or how little time they put into a topic, then Wikipedia is lost. Or in other words: Since when has "passion and time" been a Wikipedia no-no in and of itself? It is the disruptive behavior, and/or the disregard of the literature in favour of personal opinions that is a problem - not time and passion. --Kim D. Petersen 18:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I was still talking about advocacy with the passion and time comment, namely when it reaches the level of being tendentious. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong group of editors when you say it contains a tendentious editor(s). I dont see one section of any of that page that fits TheNorlo or any editor that questions what the medical group is doing (that being 90% one editor). AlbinoFerret 19:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about the "other group" I highly suggest reading this [37] if you're up for tongue-in-cheek humor by replacing version with editor or group. I like to do that to give myself a bonk on the head when I'm tempted towards fingerpointing in a dispute anyways.

Tendentiousness is a broad behavior issue, so it can be easy to overlook since it's at a more general level than just an isolated comment that can be diff-linked to. Disruptive editing, IDHT behavior coupled with competence issues, and others that can arise within content disputes are problematic and can give the appearance of POV-pushing. Those are some of the hardest behaviors to address here at ANI too. I'm seeing more of those issues stemming not from the med group (though one does have a history of really digging their feet in on some fringe topics) but from the other side of the court more often. That's been brought up to individual editors and at these boards, but it doesn't seem like the point has gotten across as there are combined editor behavior issues that are snowballing together to form the drama here. Either way, this is all my 2 cents at this point, so after reading this, I'd hope all involved editors take a moment to reflect on things they potentially didn't hear some time ago. Otherwise, I've given my thoughts on it all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I woukd like to say that I have learned a lot from this little episode and that regardless of the outcome it's been very informative and will probably make me a better editor. That being said, I believe that the only thing that should warrant me to get banned is the insults that I have targeted toward Doc James, I accept that they were unacceptable and unproductive. I do not accept however the advocacy accusations. I believe that an advocacy accusation would require more proof than simply me saying that I am passionate about the topic. I would like to know which edit I've made on the article that leads to this accusation. I also do not accept the accusation that I disregard WP:RS. I am not the only one that thinks that a certain review article is being given to much weight in the article, even experts in the field says that this review is rather iffy. Calling it garbage might of been a little to strong but should not warrant a ban. Anyhow, I will tone down my language (as much as I can) in the future. TheNorlo (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite community and/or topic ban, per evidence presented by Formerly 98. ElectricBurst^{(Is there anything you need of me?)} 00:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of at least six months from all e-cigarette articles, broadly construed. The editor's "passion" seems to have clouded their judgment. The insults and canvassing seal the deal for me. Perhaps some time spent working on topics where they can be dispassionate, and observing the destructive effects of the unbridled passions of others, will enable them to mature into a productive editor. Perhaps not. Time will tell. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

If you guys think I'm going to waste my time editing articles I'm not interested in, you are out of your minds. I'm out, see ya. Congratulation to Quack, Doc and Formerly. Enjoy. TheNorlo (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970

This editor is more concerning with evidence of 1) incivility 2) meat puppetry

1. Here they link to one of their freinds twitter feeds outing themselves. Another one of their friends also tweeted the entire thing to me.
   1. Here he refers to those who do not support e-cigs (known as ANTS as "illiterate fucks")
   2. He also says "I've modified my clock to sound more like Wikiproject Medicine. Now it goes "dick doc, dick doc, dick doc..."" and much more
2. He also has used his twitter feed to direct people to edit the e-cig article with some success. User:Entropy72 join after being invited. Among a few others. There is an active group that is trying to change Wikipedia's content on e-cigs to be much more favorable of the products. With a number of the other WP:SPA currently editing likely also related.

They have a long block log [38] and have had previous unblock request declined due to incivility [39]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry what? Outing myself? As what, me?

This is a Wikipedia noticeboard, Doc. It is not the Internet Police. What I say on Twitter is nothing to do with AN/I and very definitely nothing to do with you. And as for what VapeMeStoopid writes, take it up with her. I wish you luck.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc do you have any Diffs of specific incivility on wiki from this user? SPACKlick (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Twitter can't provide diffs.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I have not, to the best of my recollection, posted a link to my Twitter account on Wikipedia and I would much prefer it if other editors did not do so.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• FergusM1970, without actually putting myself fully into this I will have to play somewhat devil's advocate here. I don't like doxing or really bringing in one's personal social media accounts- I actually try to keep my personal social media accounts private myself. However at the same time I have to say that if you make comments on a social media account about an incident that you're currently involved in, odds are high that it will be discovered and posted on here- especially if it is particularly incendiary or comes across as you trying to rally others to come on to Wikipedia to help argue a case or a viewpoint. This may not have been your intent, but that's why you do have to be careful about posting on social media outlets and what you post. It's why I try to never mention anything on my personal social media accounts, because I know that these things can and will be brought up on here. This doesn't mean that I particularly like the idea that I have to censor myself off Wikipedia in any form or fashion, but if you do post anything off Wikipedia then you run the risk of it getting mentioned here if an editor thinks it may be applicable to an ANI case or incident. In this particular case you made a tweet on 4:05 PM - 20 Dec 2014 where you asked people to come to the talk page for an article you are editing and vote on a subject- something that is highly discouraged on Wikipedia because many of the incoming editors are often completely unaware of Wikipedia policies and their opinions may not fall within said policies- especially if you're asking them to vote a specific way. (It's also seen as WP:CANVASSING.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not objecting to him complaining about anything I said offsite, and I'm easy enough to find if anyone's interested enough to look, but I don't post links to my own accounts and I'd prefer it if others didn't either. I did ask current Wikipedia members to contribute, which I realize was suboptimal, but as the RfC has heavy undertones of WP:IDHT and WP:FILIBUSTER, being opened immediately after an identical one found no grounds for the layout Doc wants, I was somewhat frustrated. Doc has been very problematic at that article and has managed to get it locked twice in three days by starting edit wars.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• @FergusM1970: I am quite honestly disappointed that you allege that Doc "refuses to engage constructively" yet you are involved in such childish behaviour. Honestly? Grow the fuck up. And I suggest you and TheNorlo read the relevant policies before I sanction you for your problematic behaviour. —Dark 10:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of canvassing? Please explain how. And pkease explain how my behaviour is problematic, other than the fact that I laughed at a joke and that I inderctly called Doc James an idiot and a moron, to which I've apologized. TheNorlo (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

He's doing his best to prevent any changes being made to the article, which is in a dire condition. As of yesterday there were a number of discussions and attempts to find consensus, some of which were making progress, but Doc started edit-warring to restore his preferred version and got the article locked again. Now he's repeating an RfC that was closed a few days ago. He seems determined to bring the article under the scope of MED, even though there are no obvious grounds for doing so, and to prevent any improvements unless that happens.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

SO that excuses your behaviour? —Dark 10:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I shouldn't have posted that link to TheNorlo.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It was organized per WP:MEDMOS for a good 18 months [40]. Yes you managed to get a number of people to join this RfC through your hard recruitment. This user has since been blocked User:CheesyAppleFlake and it was closed as no consensus. Since than our WP:SPA pertaining to e-cigs have expanded in number. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

But the point is that it shouldn't have been organised per MEDMOS because it isn't a medical article. I know that you have some unconventional views on the subject but they are not supported by either general or medical sources, so the article shouldn't be organized according to them. Exactly one person joined that RfC at my suggestion and he made what looks like a moderate and reasonable comment.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPA expands not because of canvassing but because of passion. Vapers are passionate people because (get ready for this unsourced claim Doc) Vaping works and it as changes their lifes! And vapers go on wikipedia read whats being sais on vaping and realize that this article is preposterous and that they must do something about it. So spare me your theories on how we are responsible for this mess.TheNorlo (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt they do see what it says, because it's unreadable. Largely because Doc won't let any changes be made by anyone who's not coming from a MED position.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This sort of "the other side is wrong and unreasonable because they refuse to accept my point of view" is typical advocacy behavior, and is not productive debate. This is exactly why we should not have WP:SPAs taking over our articles and using them for WP:ADVOCACY. Many members of this group are on the page pretty much 18 hours a day. It is impossible for anyone who is not willing and able to dedicate their lives to this article to engage in a meaningful way with discussions held among hardcore advocates and "consensus" decisions being made within intervals smaller than that between visits to the page of most non-WP:ADVOCACY editors. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that WP:ADVOCACY is a strong accusation and needs to be backed up with proof. Its to easly tossed around when people disagree with the other side. That some editors find the subject interesting and want to devote time to the article is being twisted into some kind of negative thing. But that investment in time, is to them, to make the article better. Something that is also being twisted. The SPA accounts is something that has been disproven but seems to pop up as an excuse to silence active editors. If you find something important, spend time doing it. If not all this looks like is a stumbling block is being tossed in front of editors who are active and who some have disagreements over content. Both of these sections appear to be on silencing editors in a content dispute. The excuses for silencing them now appears to basically be I dont have time to discuss things. AlbinoFerret 16:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I would ask you to review WP:ADVOCACY, which is not the same as paid editing, but simply putting support for a POV above having as one's primary motivation the building of an encyclopedia. I think the evidence for this is pretty straightforward. While not an expert user of the tracking software here, I seen that Fergus has edited Electronic Cigarette related pages 1193 times, and there are an additional 193 edits on ANI and other dispute pages that are likely mostly associated with the same subject. This is out of a lifetime total of about 4500 edits, with the 1193 being mostly recent and many of the non-Electronic Cigarette edits apparently being for hire. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Paid advocacy by FergusM1970

Yesterday, when I followed the link in the talk page conversation where FergusM1970 was insulting User:Doc James, I was led to FergusM1970's twitter account where he advertises that he is a paid e-cig shill. To quote: "Veteran, vaper, writer and paid e-cigarette industry shill." And he links to where you can contact him to write. I followed the link and saw mention of Wikipedia work. I wrote to him by email to ask him about the situation and to give me a list of all of his Wikipedia accounts and all the articles that created or edited for hire. He gave me an initial list and then revised it a few times. FergusM1970 denied to me by email that he is paid to edit the e-cig article. And he changed the twitter profile to add "And yes, I know, some of you really ARE too fucking stupid to recognise sarcasm. Tough.Deal with it." after the bit that says he is a e-cig shill.

Since FergusM1970 is a tendentious editor on the topic of e-cigs, and I answered a RFC on that article talk page last month, I decided to pass the information to @ User:Nuclear Warfare (who has dealt with him in the past) for evaluation and further action. I've not heard back from him yet.

I woke up to see that this discussion was now on AN/I, and also I see that FergusM1970 is trying to remember all the articles that he wrote and list them on his user page. A good number of them were deleted for lack of notability which kind of shows the problem with doing this type of work. I regret to say that I don't think that FergusM1970 is the type of editor that fits in well on Wikipedia. He has been block numerous times for not understanding or following basic rules. Yet, he is soliciting work to edit Wikipedia articles. For that reason, I support a ban from editing Wikipedia entirely. And if is to return ever, I support a permanent ban from editing in all areas related to tobacco including e-cigs. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"I was led to FergusM1970's twitter account" No you weren't. You went poking around in my business just because you could, and oh my, I bet you were excited when you found something you could invoke Wikipedia's arcane and stupidly bureaucratic rules to deal with. Who the fuck do you people think you are, Interpol? How DARE you sit in judgement of my behavior, however vile, on a site that has damn all to do with you? How's the total number of active editors doing these days? Still going down because new editors are put off by the alphabet soup of rules and self-appointed guardians of the One True Way? It's people like Doc, with his wikilawyering bullshit and little clique of lackeys, that are driving editors away. Ban him and that illiterate cretin QuackGuru and you might get somewhere. Anyway I'm out of here. RationalWiki here I come.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason my profile says "Paid e-cig industry shill" is that I was accused of being exactly that after correcting Professor Martin McKee when he misrepresented some data. People who actually are paid advocates don't generally advertise it on their social media profiles, and certainly not using the word "shill." It's sarcasm.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

My antennae go up at anyone editing Derwick Associates. [41] As an editor quite familiar with Venezuelan politics and the entire suite of POV Venezuelan articles, it always appeared highly likely that something was amiss when a non-Spanish-speaking editor engages an obscure Venezuelan lawsuit affecting a couple of high-profile people. Why Fergus was editing that article never made sense to me, and he most certainly removed reliable sources, as I pointed out in the earlier e-cig thread.

On the e-cig articles, having read through some of the article talk (which reads pretty much like these ANIs), it seems that Fergus and several others there are unable to confine their comments to sources and content, and have disrupted the talk page with comments on contributors. I suggest a review of the e-cig talk page could lead to some topic bans. SandyGeorgien (Talk) 16:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As someone who has read the e-cig talk page and read that its a personal interest of FergusM1970 because he is a user of e-cigarettes. I doubt a topic ban is warranted, but look and see. This is a content dispute in which one side is trying to use editing on other articles to remove an editor they have a content disagreement with on e-cig. I see no evidence or any proof of paid editing for e-cig. AlbinoFerret 16:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Off and on wiki, FergusM1970 doesn't show signs that he wants to contribute in a collaborative way. It greatly concerns me when a Wikipedia user in good faith is trying to collaborate on a talk page, and has to put up with the level of vitriol that he is throwing on and off site. It runs off all of the sensible people who won't put up with the negative environment. It is especially worrying on a medical related article with high page views when is it really important that we follow the highest quality references and not let pov pushers take control. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

He didn't have to put up with it; he deliberately sought it out. As for POV pushing, I'd suggest you read the discussion I had with Doc a couple of nights ago on his talk page about why he insists e-cigs are a drug. He is making claims based on what I can only describe as sympathetic magic, such as that an e-cig only becomes one when filled with a specific type of liquid and, the rest of the time, is something else entirely. That's not just WP:POV; it's WP:FRINGE. As for the article it's not medical-related, and this is the entire source of the problem. It's about a consumer product that isn't licensed for medical use anywhere in the world.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As for what's running off the sensible people, Sandy has a great quote on her user page about that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Google is your friend; blog discussing paid editing on Wikipedia's Derwick Associates. SandyGeorgien (Talk) 17:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You got me. Hands up, I did it. Not that it matters, but I really wasn't paid for the e-cig stuff. Bye.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

But you have been paid by e-cig industry to write about e-cigs. So, your statements on twitter and on Wikipedia that you are not an e-cig shill are not truthful. you answered request and being awarded the work to write 8 SEO articles about electronic cigs. We have no way of knowing if someone was paying you to start these threads, too. Or if you just want to please your previous and future clients. It is not possible to have collaborative discussion with you since you are paid to have a pov. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been paid by mattress shops too. If I commented on beds would you call me a shill for Big Duvet? I'm a freelance writer. I've been paid to write about everything. I've even written web content for a male chastity device shop, and I now know far more about those things than I ever wanted to, believe me. Shill for Big Padlock? Urgh. However, it's how I pay my bills so I can keep on writing fiction and feeding the damn cat.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Full disclosure

I am a freelance writer. Like practically every freelance writer today I frequently get asked to edit Wikipedia; I would say this happens on more or less a daily basis. I turn down almost all of these requests because they're along the lines of "Can you create a site for my awesome new company?" or "We need 100 editors to tell the truth about what's happening in Gaza." I do not do promotional edits and I do not do paid advocacy. However if I feel an article is worthwhile and likely to pass WP:N then sometimes I will write it. Nevertheless I am not being paid to advocate for e-cigarettes. I am doing this of my own free will because the article, on a significant topic, is in a deplorable state on multiple levels. I have submitted information on all the paid edits I have made to FloNight for investigation; I have nothing to hide.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay so you add peoples CVs to Wikipedia for money such as Jerome_Katz and Tony Succar

And you adjust companies articles such as Derwick Associates removing content they may not like [42]

You appear to even be willing to edit war for pay [43], [44], [45] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You got one out of three. User:FloNight knows the articles I was paid to edit. I think that'll do for now.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That's nowhere near good enough. Wikipedia's Nutzungsbedingungen require you to publicly disclose any paid editing you have done on your user page or the relevant talk pages. You indicate that you continue to agree to the TOU with every edit you make. If you do not, I will block you. (In fact, I think there are grounds enough for an indef as is, but I will leave that up to the community to decide.) MER-C 12:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that; Wikipedia's rules are too extensive and convoluted for anyone to know them all. I'll get it fixed today.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Done.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that TOU demands disclosure of all paid editing, not some. —Dark 13:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep. I've erred on the generous side and included articles I edited while writing eBooks on the topic.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to play it your way, so be it. I know irrefutably of several articles that you engaged in paid work on, that are not listed on your userpage. I hope you understand the repercussions of partial disclosure. —Dark 13:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you want deleted ones as well?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@DarkFalls:, Care to share how you know this for a fact rather than making vague accusations? SPACKlick (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The evidence will be shared with the arbitration committee upon request, but no, I am not inclined to share here. —Dark 14:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970, you should fully disclose all contributions you were paid for. If User:DarkFalls knows for a fact that you did not do that, I suggest that you get blocked for indefinite time, i.e. at least until you disclose those contributions. Maybe your next edit should rectify this problem? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

DarkFalls appears to know more than I do, which is certainly not impossible. I've found and added a couple more. I'll have another look later. Right now I don't have the free screen space to do a line-by-line search of my records.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

A few other company pages you have written for pay are Cartell

And I assume you are paid to help people try to keep their articles [46]?

User:SandyGeorgia may wish to take another look at the Derwick Associates

Basically all your edits need to be scrutinized Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

She's welcome to take another look. As for Cartell I'm quite happy to tell FloNight why I created it. As I said, I have nothing to hide so you can scrutinize to your heart's content.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You could not pay me to care about Derwick Associates (and I already showed that Fergus removed reliably sourced info). There are much bigger POV problems in the Venezuelan suite of articles, and that is such an obscure topic that I've long wondered what would motivate a non-Spanish-speaking, uninvolved-with-Venezuela articles editor to find or even care about that article. Fergus, were you hired to deal with that lawsuit on Wikipedia? How did you come to be interested in an obscure Venezuelan lawsuit? Do you speak fluent Spanish? If not, how can you read the sources, the majority of which are in Spanish? I can assure everyone that editing-for-pay goes around in Venezuelan articles, because I've been approached several times (and refused, thank you very much). SandyGeorgien (Talk) 16:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I found it through "Random article". I do that sometimes when I'm bored. Usually I just have a read, correct some spelling or punctuation and move on (that's why I edit things like Orange is the new black, Archie McPherson oder Sudarium of Oviedo. I'm not interested in prison porn, retired football commentators or fake relics either). Derwick was in such a mess I saw it as a challenge. As I said, I used a machine translator and calls to my sister in law in Salamanca.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but it still stretches my imagination that considering all of the routine and rampant Corruption in Venezuela, someone who doesn't speak Spanish and can't read the sources would care about an obscure lawsuit affecting a couple of very powerful people in Venezuela. Going to the trouble to make calls and machine translate sources on an obscure lawsuit in a country where corruption is the new norm isn't something that makes sense to me. SandyGeorgien (Talk) 16:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Frankly it stretches mine too; I have no idea why I bothered. Then again I have no idea why I spent so much time on the shroud of Turin either; arguing with relic believers is utterly futile. All I can say is it seemed like a good idea at the time.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You thought it was a mess, so on your very first day of editing there, you first removed numerous reliable sources and next tried to have the article deleted. You then went on to use a government source to add original research and POV.[47] And then, only nine days after you "found it through 'random article'", you are expressing knowledge of a Venezuelan blogger and accusing another editor of socking. [48] Curious that. SandyGeorgien (Talk) 17:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• 'Comment Yet another section on AN/I to try and remove editors on the other side of a content dispute. While the actions of those accused are not the best this is purely on an article Doc James is invested in and is even willing to edit war to win edits. Doc James is the reason the page is currently protected for 3 months. See Electronic cigarette section in this dated archive. This is an attempt to remove very active editors from a talk page that has an RFC started by Doc James and many other proposed edit sections the editors are involved in. Its easier to remove others you disagree with to win rather than work with them. As for the comments made, Doc James is involved in those discussions arguing for the sake of arguing and pushing buttons. That doesnt excuse some of the comments but puts them in perspective. I for one think Doc James needs to walk away from the article for awhile. Evidence of why is the second RFC on the same topic that Doc James started before but didnt get consensus for his vision of the article. Its getting to be disruptive and calls for stopping the second RFC are strong. AlbinoFerret 12:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

What so the meat puppets and WP:SPAs can manage the article on this multi billion dollar product so that it matches their associations / industries point of view and not that of the World Health Organization, Center for Disease Control etc? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You're blinded by your loathing of THR. I am very far from an industry advocate. I know perfectly well that we don't know much yet about the long-term use of e-cigs. I know that there's very likely some residual risk. I don't want to see non-smoking teens take up vaping. Yes, I'm pro-vaping, but that's because a) I know exactly how effective they are for smoking cessation, and b) I keep up to date with all the science and not just one aging activist in San Fiasco who doesn't have a single medical qualification to his name. There is an emerging scientific consensus than they're two, possibly three, orders of magnitude safer than cigarettes; nobody is claiming they're anything like equivalent in risk. There's no evidence of a gateway effect, despite what's been claimed in borderline fraudulent "reviews" that claim to pull longitudinal data from a cross-sectional study. The exhaled vapour doesn't contain harmful levels of anything. But the Wikipedia article doesn't convey any of that. Instead it's full of stuff about particles, all based on one outlier of a review. One review says the particles are the same size as in cigarette smoke, at 100-200nm. THREE say they're from 250-600nm. Guess what one you want to use? Your preferred review also neglects to mention the fact that particle density in vapour ranges from 6 to 880 times lower than in smoke. There's a lot of stuff about metal particles, but not the fact that the levels of those particles are 10 to 50 times lower than the FDA permitted limit for an asthma inhaler. In short you are filibustering and edit-warring to preserve an article that is not only incredibly POV, but also so badly written that if my ten year old niece handed me it I would be embarrassed for her. People are not joining Wikipedia and editing there because I have recruited them to my international shill cabal. They are editing because they have found the article and recognised that it's crap. You don't have to worry about me any more, so take a step back and look at it again. Maybe read a few papers from someone that isn't Stan Glantz or Margaret Chan. Because if you don't, I guarantee the problems will continue until you finally step on your crank so badly that it cannot be overlooked.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Kommentar I have to agree with AlbinoFerret that is not helpful to the content dispute, this even approaches Wiki Hounding. Per WP:NPA Comment on content, not on the contributor.If you think you see a long term problem with FergusM1970 gather more evidence before coming back here (or go to arbcom) Avono (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In the past week I've reported Doc James twice for edit-warring that resulted in an article having to be locked. I suspect that's not entirely unrelated to this.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Also note this diff here where Doc warned me for edit warring when I'd made a single revert. This took place one minute after he'd made his own third revert[49][50][51], repeatedly restoring his preferred version in place of one resulting from an edit request while the article was locked; the article was locked again three minutes later. This looked like an attempt at intimidation.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I would say that I find it pretty remarkable that folks engaged in WP:ADVOCACY to the extent that >95% of their edits are on this one article, who have engaged in personal attacks against him, would accuse Doc James of edit warring. And suggesting that the article was locked because of Doc James is simply a mis-statement of the facts. I requested that the article be protected, and I did so because ADVOCATES began making massive POV edits the moment the previous protection expired. Doc James actually added a comment supporting the protection shortly after I requested it. It is very difficult for me to understand how the facts of this situation came to be so completely mis-stated here. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but that, frankly, is bollocks - just like your claim earlier that the last RfC was open for one day (it was eight weeks). The "advocate" started cleaning up the construction section after the protection was lifted; it was Doc who started making massive edits, and the renewed protection you asked for rather conveniently went on right after he'd used up his last revert. As for your "95% of edits" claim, meh. Whatever.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No that's not correct. The RFC ended up in deadlock. Then a second vote, based on the incorrect and disputed premise that there was a consensus for change, was held on how to reorder the content. It was closed within 24 hours, and an edit request made to the supervising Admin, with no one notifying those who, not being dedicated advocates, do not check the article talk page multiple times a day. It was a clear effort to stuff the ballot box. Another reason why we don't benefit from having advocates dominate our editing process. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98 That appears to be a twisting of WP:ADVOCACY, there is no question that FergusM1970 has edited other articles as a paid editor, which he has disclosed. But there is no proof that Electronic cigarette was anything but a personal interest. I also thing that you are completely wrong on the reason E-cig is currently locked for 3 months. Its clear that it was because Doc James reverted 3 different editors to win an edit war. The Electronic cigarette section in this dated archive clearly shows why it was protected. Your request for protection was on the 18th, the page was unprotected on the 20 and Doc started an edit war. The 3 month protection was because of a section in the 20th arcive detailing that edit warring. AlbinoFerret 16:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

After the page was locked Doc started to try and get his edits another way by an RFC. Two of the most vocal commenters against Doc's position in that RFC are now named in this section. Its a content dispute. AlbinoFerret 16:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Community ban discussion of FergusM1970

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

---

Per this and the evidence above,[52] a ban should be discussed. I suspect the rest of the isses at e-cig will take care of themselves if Fergus is removed from the picture. SandyGeorgien (Talk) 17:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind adding to your header, User:SandyGeorgia. I came across this request on Elance, where "Wade" is looking for "... Someone with knowledge of the E cigs industry to write content for us for SEO purposes. ...". An assignment awarded to Fergus Mason. Adding this as evidence for both the abovementioned case, and for the suggested ban. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Beetstra, add whatever needed to my header; I'm not following anymore. The e-cig situation was bad enough, but people make their own choices about smoking. Many people have died, and many more lives have been ruined, by corruption in Venezuela. I need to vomit. SandyGeorgien (Talk) 18:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Elance should start charging you fuckers rent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FergusM1970 (talk • contribs) 18:12, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Ah so Fergus is making edits for the e-cig industry on Wikipedia at 25$/hour. Thanks User:Beetstra that explains a lot. We should probably look at a few of the other WP:SPAs who are editing aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk about adding two and two and getting Avogadro's number. No they're not, you brain donor. Go read my work history; seems like every other bugger has, so why not you?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban. I spelled out above the reasons for a ban. Someone who either does not understand Wikipedia policy and guidelines, or does not care about them should not be accepting money to create or edit Wikipedia articles. And his tendentious editing of e-cigs and comments on twitter that he linked to himself makes it difficult to see how it is possible for him to work collaboratively on Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥

• Support - though a plain indef block for violating our wmf:Terms of use would be enough (why is that not a standard block reason?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Striking this per above added evidence for violation of the wmf:Terms of use and now being co-proposer of ban. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) While I can't comment on the ban given the evidence above I would say I highly doubt removing Fergus will resolve all the issues at e-cigarette. His edits only go back to the 3rd of December the problems go back way further than that. SPACKlick (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No his first edits were to Ruyan [53] a ecig manufacturer back in July 2013 followed by electronic cigarettes shortly there after.

His first edit to e-cigs involved removing a review article from a well respected journal [54] and it just went from there. He was actively working on other paid jobs when he started. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC

I've mentioned the concept of Idée fixe to you before; now you seem to have another one. Your current fixed point is that the problems at the article are caused by me being a paid advocate for "the e-cig industry". (There isn't really any such thing, but I wouldn't expect you to know that. It's actually quite complicated.) Your Idée is wrong; I am not, and never have been, paid for editing that article. The problem is that you cannot let go the idea of making it a medical article. You now have a medical article, under MED, called Safety of electronic cigarettes. You've barely touched it. Apart from Quack's initial slathering of word salad, which of course has resulted in an unreadable mess, about the only person who's done significant work on it is me. And weirdly enough nobody complained about my edits except Quack, and even he went away when I pointed out that the text he claimed I had deleted was in the first sentence after the lede. I don't know if this trouble-free editing, without adding or removing any significant information, suggests anything to you. But maybe it should.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This is clearly a content dispute and dredging up things from the past and outside WP to try and remove a very active editor from Electronic cigarette. If there is proof of problems on other topics perhaps a topic ban from those articles is possible.AlbinoFerret 17:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The problems go way, way beyond a single content dispute that is happening now on the e-cig page. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I do agree that this is a content dispute, but in violating the terms of use and our NPOV-pillar they, as a side effect, removed themselves from that dispute. I also don't think that the dispute will end here, nor that it started here, but that is is irrelevant for why a block and/or ban should be applied. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

He just supported his own block, Im out as I have nothing to say about other articles and will not support paid editing, especially without disclosure. That cant be defended and wont be defended by me. AlbinoFerret 18:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support community ban, and suggest a re-investigation of the old SPIs. SandyGeorgien (Talk) 17:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Not because of the e-cigarette dispute, but because FergusM1970 repeatedly stated above that he wasn't paid to edit the Derwick Associates article, only to finally admit that he was when presented with evidence. Clearly, a contributor who refuses to comply with requirements regarding disclosure of paid editing until obliged to by evidence cannot be trusted to have fully disclosed such paid advocacy now, and cannot be trusted to make such disclosures in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Highly problematic in a number of respects, and showing no sign of contrition. Has damaged the project and the signs are will continue to do so if allowed to. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support an indef block. Don't waste your time on the SPIs though. About the one thing I hate more than petty-minded tuppenny Hitlers who think they're it because they have admin rights is sock puppets. There are more urgent problems needing sorted out on Wikipedia than Phantom Pherguses that aren't even there.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Alexbrn and per the comments above by FergusM1970, who makes the case for his own ban more eloquently than anyone else possibly could. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Most of what I do is real writing and I am pretty good at it. Perhaps you could buy my chupacabra novella for a few young adult relatives this Christmas? It's on Amazon. You can find a link at my Elance profile, seeing as you all enjoy having a good poke around there.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support per ATG. Violating ToS in regards to paid editing (and then lying about it to boot) should always be an insta-ban. Any attempt to play the victim in the e-cig realm is just an irrelevant diversion (and bad faith at that, given it was being used to attempt to get someone else sanctioned while simultaneously engaged in own misbehavior). If we cannot trust what he says, how can we have good-faith discussions or accept at face value that given cites support content? DMacks (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef block/ban. User does not appear to be making edits in good faith. ElectricBurst^{(Is there anything you need of me?)} 18:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I'd have blocked me half an hour ago. The suspense is killing me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FergusM1970 (talk • contribs) 18:17, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

• Support bc of the lying, a misuse of community trust. Avono (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

God, this is painful. Or pitiful, one of the two. Someone just please pull the trigger FFS. It's not like it's controversial, is it? Even I don't disagree!--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

FergusM1970, what's being proposed here is a community ban, not just a block. It's a more serious matter because you will have to appeal to the entire community or ArbCom to be able to edit again. Normally the discussion will stay open for at least 24 hours so people have a chance to weigh in. If you're really eager to be blocked during the discussion I'll oblige, but maybe you'd like a chance to be part of the conversation. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban - In my opinion, there's no place at all on Wikipedia for paid editing, but even if one takes the position that paid editing is allowed as long as the editor is totally out front about the COI, this editor doesn't qualify for a pass. BMK (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support community ban from wikipedia and also from e-cig topic areas. In terms of the e-cig. I'm willing to accept that the twitter shill thing was probably sarcasm, it dooes seem like it was only added recently. So it's possible there's for once no paid editing (alhough the denials obviously don't mean much in themselves and it appears they have been paid to write in this area before for something). However the problems the editor has shown in this topic area combined with the fact it appears to be something they care strongly about and the poor history suggests they probably should be kept well away from it for a long time. As for the general ban, well the paid editing is bad enough. The initial denial was not only poor form and dumb (I mean the links on the blog still work, so it should be obvious even without the blog it won't be hard to work out), but suggests an extremely poor level of basic research or something equally bad.

  To explain, I found the wordpress blog about FergusM1970" & Derwick Associates a few hours ago by simply searching for the name "FergusM1970". I didn't mention it here because of our outing policy and figured someone else (e.g. DarkFalls) would likely bring it to arbcom. Also, although at the time FergusM1970 had added stuff to their username without mention of Derwick Associates, they hadn't explicitly denied (that I saw) that they edited that article for payment, this was before they claimed they came across it via the random article here. Since the wordpress blog is dated late 2013, I'm guessing it's been easily findable for most of this year just like I did. While searching for yourself may seem a little vain, if you're going to try hiding some of your paid editing, logic would suggest you should perhaps at least search for your name just to make sure there isn't something widely known if you haven't done it in a while. So either this wasn't done, which raises very serious WP:competence issues for a place like wikipedia where research is necessary. Or searching was done but FergusM1970 either thought no one else would find it, or they'd already decided to go out in a blaze of glory. None of these scenarios suggests FergusM1970 should be allowed back easily.

  Nil Einne (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree; in fact I shouldn't be allowed back at all. It would probably give me hypertension or ulcers or something. More desk splinters in my head, at least. Anyway, someone actually sent me a link to the blog last year, but I just shook my head ruefully and forgot about it; you'll appreciate that from a moderately talented writer's point of view it wasn't exactly the high point of my career to date. When Sandy posted the link I had a major WTF moment. Never mind. You're spot on about the "shill" thing. Any time we dare question The Word Of The Almighty Glantz about vaping we get labeled as paid advocates, shills etc. We're just people who don't want to smoke any more, have found a solution and aren't going to let it be taken away, so it's pretty bloody annoying.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The point is, if you're going to blatantly lie about your actions, it makes sense that you should know your lies are not discoverable within about 10 seconds by searching for your wikipedia name (i.e. the most basic research of all). And wikipedia does require some degree of basic research skills, beyond simple writing skills so whatever you skills in the later, the apparent lack of any in the former does cause grave concern. (Since you're a freelance writer, I would have thought it matters there too. But that's obviously between you and your employers and the nature of wikipedia disputes means this probably won't become something people are likely to find.) For that matter, forgetting that you were already caught out suggests an inability to remember important stuff. Important for the reasons I mentioned earlier (i.e. an area not to continue to lie about), not because the blog may have been a high or low point of your career. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I take your point. I generally am pretty good at research, although some of my skills are a bit specialized, but I certainly dropped a bollock on that one. As for it being important, it really wasn't; I've done a few hundred writing jobs by this point (mostly not on Wikipedia, by the way) and that was one of my earlier ones. Anyway I have a lot to do, and what was the point of making a big effort? I should have listed it, but it wouldn't have made any difference in the end. Oh well, I could always go to Conservapedia; they're positively allergic to fact-checking. And facts. Anyway, there's probably enough of a consensus to ban me now, don't you think?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I never said anything about a big effort. As mentioned, 10 seconds, i.e. probably less time than it took you to write the silly random article comment or any one of your replies on this page was all it took. I'm not saying the job itself was important. I am saying the issue itself was important because for whatever reason you apparently decided it was something to lie about. And there's a big difference between not listing it or mentioning it, and coming here to claim you found it from the random article link which is clearly untrue. As mentioned earlier, when I first came here and found that page, the only thing of note was you didn't list it, which seemed silly but not such a big deal. Oh and there were the insinuations by DarkFalls, the primary thing which made me search for your wikipedia name, and I would have thought you too. I come back to find you dug yourself in to a very big hole for whatever bizzare reason by saying you came across the page by the random article function. Unless you're now claiming you not only forgot about the blog, you forgot you were paid to edit the article, and then just made up some crap about "random articles" rather than going through your records to check, or at least just not saying anything if you didn't know, which is almost as silly. Presuming you are really editing e-cigs solely for personal and not professional reasons, you should by now appreciate it was incredibly silly. Paid editing is frequently look upon very poorly, and when you have that history, it best to not get involved in anything controversial you care about. It pays even more if you're not willing to be upfront about your paid editing when challenged (or at least run away rather than making up silly stuff). Frankly if I had the same feelings about you towards e-cig articles I would be majorly pissed, fortunately I don't really give a damn (or if anything lean more the other direction). Nil Einne (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I forgot the blog but I did remember editing the article, of course. As I said, not something I'm very proud of; I realized fairly quickly that Derwick were, if maybe not as bad as Batiz said, well on the way.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah but that's the point isn't it? Even if all it was is you were embarassed to admit you'd edited it perhaps because of what you found out about the company, it's a little bit silly to then forget someone had already noted your involvement. And so think it's okay to come up with this random article story which frankly is about as silly as those "my brother did it" that we get, generally from minors. (As said, even having forgotten someone had already noted your involvement, it's also a little silly to think no one would find out when the pages where you were awarded the jobs are public.) These comedy of errors all adds up to suggesting you're "not someone we want on wikipedia" even given the most generous spin. (And I've now spend probably an order of magnitude or two more time replying than I ever did searching & reading about your paid editing, so won't be replying further even if this does further illustrate my point.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As I say, I really didn't give it that much thought. After all what was the big deal?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

From my point of view obviously. I appreciate it was a major breach of TOS, although I didn't know about disclosure until today.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban for clear violations of our terms of service regarding paid editing. The editor has proven that they are not here to build a neutral, well-referenced encyclopedia. The massive chip on the shoulder seals the deal. I recommend that the paying clients ask for refunds, since a more honest and constructive attitude to editing may have helped to improve rather than disrupt the articles in question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban per above. Should Fergus be allowed to return it should be subject to an indefinite topic ban in eCigs at the very least, if not also all topic areas related to products, businesses, and medicine (given the paid editing concerns). I also suggest referring this to the Foundation for the type of TOS-level ban that we've started to see enforced lately. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban. Wow. About 10 years in the purgatory that is Conser-vape-pedia might be just deserts. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh god, I was joking! I actually got permabanned from Conservapedia about an hour after finishing The Greatest Show On Earth. User:Conservative created a whole blog about me. They're not as bureaucratic as here but damn, they get really excitable when you mention Richard Lenski. Nah, RatWiki's more my scene. It's OK to snark there, and if anyone launches personal attacks everyone else just breaks out the popcorn.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"I know I don't smoke. I don't inhale because it gives you cancer. But, I look so incredibly handsome with a cigarette in my hand ... that I can't not hold one." - "Woodbine" Allen. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a bit of a thing for steampunk, so I actually prefer big polished steel or brass devices. The whole "not dying in my 40s" thing is just a bonus.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

With so many people arguing to ban me I almost feel like I should put up a fight. It seems somehow rude not to. How about, as a compromise, you give me an indef topic ban from everything but let me fix spelling, punctuation and grammar? I'm not really fussed either way but you'd get to banhammer me and, seeing as I'll still be using Wikipedia for research every day, I won't boil my blood looking at all the errors. As I say, it's no biggie, but this way if anyone's really annoyed I've asked for something you can say no to. Just a thought. Obviously I won't take any money from advocates of the Oxford Comma; even I will only stoop so low.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment from a disinterested editor here (and not having read completely the volumes above), but instead of willfully accepting an indefinite topic ban, why don't you instead willfully make a concerted effort to absorb the criticisms given and indefinitely change the behavior that seems to have irked people so? Seems that might make everyone happy... quite possibly even you. – JBarta (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In principle I'd say yes, but I've thought about it and I'd rather just make a clean break. I've been at Wikipedia for more than seven years and there's no doubt the atmosphere has changed. While a lot of the hierarchy are admirably flexible and helpful, plenty more are the sort of people who, in another life, would have been traffic wardens or public sector customer service staff - always too eager to reach for a rule and apply it as narrowly as possible. My nemesis, Doc James, is a perfect example; he's forever gold-plating rules. There's another one below; certain types of paid editing are strongly discouraged, and others are a WP:N violation, but as long as you follow the rules (I didn't) there's no blanket ban. Gold-plating, either through applying rules he/she isn't familiar with or out of bloody-mindedness. No, it's just a less welcoming place now. That's why so many new editors don't stick around; some tinpot Stalin jumps on their first edit waving a fistful of acronyms and they just say "Bugger this, I'm off to watch cat videos." My heart isn't in it any more. Sorry; I do appreciate the thought.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact I'll expand on that. If a new editor turns up and starts editing on e-cigs Doc immediately decides they're either an SPA or a puppet of me. Except maybe they're just someone who saw the article about a fast-growing activity, realized how shit the writing is and wanted to improve it. They're not going to feel very welcome when they're greeted with that sort of suspicion and hostility.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, I've been here for going on TEN years and I find it to be much the same. Over time, immersion can create the illusion of things getting worse simply because negative experiences pile up in our memory... but the issues were always there... you're just noticing them more. I too have had a run-in with DocJames and found him a less than exemplar co-editor (at least in that encounter) but that could as easily be said about anyone by anyone else... and he may well feel the same about me. Such is the nature of the Wikipedia beast. A bunch of passionate, overly-blessed-with-intelligence editors, usually of differing views, different approaches and many with a combative streak all tossed into a pot and expected to get along. The reality is a dysfunctional bastard of the ideal... but in the end it does work. At any rate, it seems you have made up your mind. If you dive back in at some point, I hope this episode will result in future editing to go a little smoother for you. – JBarta (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You could have a point there. My experience is that organisations tend to ossify over time, and my assumption is that that's also happening here, but I'm certainly not going to bet my life's savings on it. But yes, I have made up my mind. I'll sort of miss it, and I do think I've made plenty of good-quality edits that have improved the encyclopaedia, but the topics that actually interest me are minefields and there's limited satisfaction in fixing the typos or grammar fuckups I find while I'm researching. It's especially frustrating that this has blown up just when we were starting to make real progress on the e-cig article, by concentrating on the bloody awful writing and leaving the content pretty much alone, but hey. You win some, you lose some. And now I'm off to finish an eBook on Louis Vuitton because, unlike the e-cig article, I get paid for that. Have a good one.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban Paid editing is prohibited by the TOS per here this isn't a Wikipedia English policy this is a Wikimedia foundation policy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, it isn't. Not as a blanket policy anyway.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban It is possible to argue that being a paid advocate can lead to improved articles, but there is no way to pretend that the encyclopedia is assisted by a paid advocate who bludgeons editors trying to oppose such advocacy, as seen with the provocative language in this section alone. Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah well, I've done exactly one paid advocacy job, a year and a half ago, and I was glad to be shot of it. I don't think it improves the articles at all.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not what your user-page says unless that "one job" was multiple articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between paid writing and paid advocacy, or more precisely one includes the other. I did one paid advocacy job, on Derwick Associates.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This is actually the most enjoyable night I've had on Wikipedia for a long time. I'm even swearing less because I don't have that frustrating feeling of banging my head into a flabby, amorphous mass of bureaucratic dough. So, in a weird kind of way, thanks guys.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban and refer to WMF Legal as per my threat above. MER-C 02:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - A warning will suffice. Most of FergusM1970's edits have been generally constructive. -A1candidate (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, don't bother. Even I'm not opposing it. I agree that a lot of my edits have been constructive, perhaps even most (and the vast majority were certainly unpaid, including all of them before 2013) but I'm not temperamentally suited to this sort of consensus-building process. I'm happy to leave; it's time. Everyone will be happier, and if anyone misses me they can come visit me at Twitter. Let it go.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter, the fact is that Fergus got paid for it which means someone benefited from having the information added, money talks big in the real world and sometimes WP:AGF can only go so far. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban - I almost don't want to !vote because it seems like piling on at this point - so perhaps it's time to close this. FergusM1970 is violating the Terms of Use and many policies and guidelines, e.g. WP:NOTADVOCATE, but he is also clearly violating an important part of WP:PAY

"Paid editors, especially those who are paid by the hour, or who submit "billable hours" to justify their salaries, must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. No editor should be subjected to long or repetitive discussions by someone who is being paid to argue with them. Any editor who refuses to accept a consensus against his or her position by arguing ad nauseam will likely be violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Disruptive editing, WP:WikiBullying, WP:Own or WP:Civility."

This is a key reason that it can be impossible to deal with paid editors - they never shut up. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Not that it's particularly important now, but I haven't accepted hourly-paid jobs for a long time, only fixed price ones. I did violate WP:PAY, however, because I didn't disclose that I was being paid.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I am also a self-employed freelancer, but the difference between FergusM1970 and me is that I have never accepted a penny as payment for editing Wikipedia and never will. I edit Wikipedia as a volunteer activity. In my off-Wikipedia work, sometimes I work on a fixed price basis, and sometimes on an hourly basis. I make that decision based entirely on whether or not I can accurately predict in advance, based on past experience, how long a given job will take. One approach to pricing is not morally superior to the other. In both cases, I am fully committed to the best interests of my paying customer, disclosing to them everything that I know as a professional in my field, that they may not be aware of. I have my doubts that this editor has informed his paying clients of the risks they face in doing business with such a sloppy editor. As a published freelance writer for decades, I am almost as unhappy for deceived clients as I am for this editor's disruption of the encyclopedia. I recommend the virtues of silence to this editor, who seems to enjoy spouting off in a most inappropriate way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Shrugs. I'm not making any moral claims. Hourly just doesn't work for me. Anyway my clients seem happy enough.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

At this point I feel a consensus is clear would anyone be willing to close this so we can move on to other things? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Suits me, although I wouldn't mind finishing my conversation with Doc. No biggie. Maybe I could ask him to ban me when we're done?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I reversed the closure as premature. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Given the contentious nature of the subject being discussed (debated/argued/lambasted/beleaguered), how can this result in anything but a gathering of those opposed to paid editing? Any vote to the contrary will simply be used in the future to call into question the neutrality of their edits. I'm not for or against the issue, but debating this issue should not require a scapegoat. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally I'm fine with getting banned, because Wikipedia eats up far too much time when I could be doing something constructive instead, but you have a very valid point. This is not a referendum on paid editing, because paid editing is not against the rules. I am not being banned for taking money to make edits. I am being banned for taking money to make edits without subsequently disclosing it, as I should have done.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

OPPOSE this vote - --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm bored. Can we talk about how Doc James claimed to be a clinical assistant professor on his user page despite the University of British Columbia faculty site not listing him as one?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Impressive. So here we have Fergus editing my user page [55]

Yes UBC is slow at updating their website.

Here is a link [56]

And here are the tweets that he cc me on [57] and sent to UBC about this suposed discrepancy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't CC you anything, Doc, and you cannot hold me responsible for what other people do.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry yes, you just sent them to UBC. It was your friends that cc'ed me Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it might spur them into updating the list a bit faster. I've asked people not to tweet you but I can't stop them, and the fact is a lot of vapers are angry with you.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Proposed topic ban of Martin Hogbin

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

---

Martin Hogbin has failed to get consensus that Scottish should not be considered a nation at Talk:James_Clerk_Maxwell. He has failed to change policy to force people not to use Scottish at a nationality at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Nationality_of_people_from_the_United_Kingdom. He was struck down when he proposed that, if people disagreed with him, then all references to nationality should be deleted at Talk:James_Clerk_Maxwell#We_must_remove_all_references_to_nationality. His latest section? Talk:James_Clerk_Maxwell#Maybe_it_is_time_for_Arbcom.

This editor is, quite simply, becoming a disruptive, one issue account, and it's time he stops. I propose he is banned from all discussions of the various British nationalities, broadly construed, for one year, as well as any edits to change them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Read through the discussions, and it is quite obvious that the behavior is not helpful. But does it warrant a one year topic ban? Maybe a shorter period to see if he can contribute to the project in other areas? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: If the ban is appropriately construed, I can't see how it would block any useful editing. It would stop him from changing nationalities in articles, and opening discussions seeking to change them or the policy surrounding them.It wouldn't stop him editing anything else, unless he violated his topic ban and was banned from all editing for a time over the issue. The only possible issue is with new articles he creates, but even then, it wouldn't limit him very much. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understood the scope. But isn't a year a bit too much? - Cwobeel (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I have done nothing whatever to warrant a topic ban except to disagree with one group of editors and agree with another in one article. Any admin who topic bans be because they disagree with me would be seriously abusing their position. I am proposing to take the case to Arbcom anyway. If they decide to topic ban me that is fine but to do so prematurely would be most improper. A topic ban cannot be used to push one POV.Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin: The reason is was brought here was to get community consensus for a topic ban - not for a single admin to implement one. Not sure it's "premature" at this point - might even be a bit late (read: I agree with a 3-month topic ban), and it's certainly not a case for ArbCom. You agreed to live by WP:CONSENSUS when you started editing - perhaps it's time to drop this battle (for now) and move onto something more useful and less painful? the panda ₯’ 23:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an outrageous attempt to suppress one (well sourced) POV in an article. I am not a lone editor with a crazy idea there are several editors who totally agree with me that the article is currently 'factually incorrect' as proved by several very reliable sources. There is a similar sized group who disagree with me. We are currently discussing the subject in a generally civil fashion to try to reach a consensus. I have now proposed a compromise solution that is fully in accordance with WP core policy, that we state no nationality until there is a consensus on what it should be. I have not edit warred that proposal but continue to argue that in the circumstances it is the right thing to do. What is wrong with that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

At present, regarding my compromise proposal, there would appear to be three editors supporting it and three against. Should we topic ban them all? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, Martin Hogbin hasn't been edit-warring or vandalizing pages. The timing of this report is troubling, as MH is currently considering the Arbcom route, concerning the situation surrounding WP:UKNAT. Let's be patient & let those discussions run their course. PS: Please note, there are editors who support his proposals. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a minority - he's been voted down every time he's brought it up. He's basically engaging in forum shopping, taking it everywhere. Threating Arbcom over a content issue is not laudable behaviour, that's part of the problem - he will not drop the subject when consensus goes against him, he his attempting to use every single process, from changing policy to forum shopping to threatening to take things to Arbcom in order to force consensus to overturn to how he wants it. That's not good. At all. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

For those of us new to this conflict, can you provide some representative diffs as examples of the alleged disruptive behavior? Gamaliel (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd echo Gamaliel's request. From what I could see (looking at this for the first time), there was some edit warring recently but the amount of discussion on the talk page (Talk:James Clerk Maxwell, in particular the nationality section) in relation to whether the infobox should list him as (1) nationality - British & citizenship - none, or (2) nationality - Scottish & citizenship - British, or (3) nationality - Scottish & British & citizenship - none, or (4) nationality - none & citizenship - none, is excessive and utterly disproportionate to the reliance placed on such information in the infobox. Can Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs) and FF-UK (talk · contribs) confirm whether they would be willing to take voluntary binding restrictions on this issue in relation to the article, and if so, the specific scope & duration of such restriction they would be prepared to accept? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there has been much discussion between myself and FF-UK on the question of whether the infobox nationality should be 'British' or 'Scottish'. This has mainly consisted of the presentation of sources and lines of argument. However, as neither of us has succeeded in persuading the other of anything, I would be happy to agree to cease this discusssion forthwith intil a suitable venue for achieving consensus is agreed.

Regarding my proposal to leave the infobox nationality empty until true consensus is reached, I firmly believe that this is the only option in line with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin:, thank you. Can you please also clarify that this would also extend to ceasing making any edits in relation to nationality/citizenship on the article itself? I also @FF-UK: to ask that he confirm if he is willing to accept a voluntary binding restriction on the same terms.

I did notice your proposal for the article when trudging through the overwhelming discussion on the talk page, but this was not agreed by others. As this is assessed as a GA, I don't think anyone here wants it becoming unstable over this disagreement, and policy does not always work immediately and absolutely in practice as everyone would have gathered by now. So as jarring as the latest version might appear to both of you, it was apparently made in an effort to compromise. Would you be prepared to accept that version until a properly constructed article RfC has concluded with a clear consensus? From both perspectives, the overall "harm" if any is fairly low in this version (bearing in mind the reason I specified above for characterising the relevant talk page discussion as disproportionate in size). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Any topic ban would be better aimed at those who, as ever, seem to see this issue as an opportunity to go into bat for their most favoured nation on an individual page (usually, funnily enough, their own and rarely anyone else's) rather than taking the broader view, looking with an open mind at how to present sometimes conflicting information and asking the simple question: "What would help provide consistency and clarity in a specific infobox field for readers across all pages?" And the opening claim in this thread is utterly misleading to the point of being deceptive: this debate is not about whether Scotland is a nation or any attempt to deny that. Yes, MH has zeroed in on this issue, but what precise evidence has been presented of actual disruption for the lynch mob to look at? It's this kind of agenda-driven, point-scoring behaviour, combined with the gang mentality, that makes so much WP content unreliable and/or meaningless and trying to edit here so pointless. N-HH talk/edits 12:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I should also say this to be clear; in asking both Martin Hogbin and FF-UK as to their willingness to accept voluntary binding restrictions on the issue in relation to this article, this is not an indication that both editors are not making any positive contributions towards the article or the project. It is just that both editors have been the main players editing/discussing this issue exhaustively to the point that anyone with fresh perspective does not want to go near it, and the quantity of discussion between them is very disproportionate. There is little they can add usefully now which has not already been said by them. Hopefully this will assist in attracting outside input. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I am happy not to edit the Nationality field to 'British' until there is a clear consensus on what to do next but what I have proposed is a compromise. One side, including me, want the nationality field to be 'British' and the other want it to be 'Scottish'. My proposed compromise is to have nothing at all in the nationality field. (Nationality - Scottish, Citizenship - British is how the article was when I came; there is no disagreement about citizenship). I would not object to removing both fields until the matter is resolved but to leave it as it is is not a compromise at all.

Surely leaving the two fields blank is the correct thing to do as neither has a source and editors cannot agree what to put. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There's also a "Citizenship" field set to British. So your "compromise" is to remove "Scottish", but leave "British" in the infobox. "Compromise" does not mean, "give me everything". Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! this is not a compromise - it's another means to achieve the same outcome; As I have said to Martin on the essay page, when a particular avenue is closed, he simply tries another one - and always with the single intent of removing "Scottish" in lieu of "British". This "compromise" is just another means to secure Martin's intended outcome. FDCWint (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Just an update - I have left the a message on both Martin Hogbin's talk page [58] to clarify and asked FF-UK on his talk page [59] to clarify. If both agree, we should be able to move forward.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I said just above, ' leaving the two fields blank'. I have no problem in blanking the Citizenship field if it helps. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, thank you for your constructive intervention. I am happy to agree to accept a voluntary binding restriction on the article itself, as Martin Hogbin has done, however I note that he has not extended that to talk pages and has continued to edit there. I will not be initiating any new talk activity, but there are two issues which should be recognized.

1: it is not just MH but also an IP editor who reflects and supports MH's opinions. This editor started editing on the nationality issue on 30th October (as far as I can tell) and from then till this edit all edits were exclusively on nationality. So far he/she has sequentially used nine different BT WiFi hot spots, each for a few days at a time with no overlap. These IPs are 109.152.250.125; 86.145.98.85; 109.152.249.9; 86.180.32.141; 109.152.248.204; 86.129.126.155; 86.180.33.175; 86.163.109.109 and 86.180.33.60. In total they account for 158 edits. Adding that to Martin Hogbins's 263 edits on nationality since his first edit at James Clerk Maxwell gives a total of 421 (compared to my 115 on nationality).

2: Both Martin Hogbin and the IP have a habit of mis-stating the points made by others, misquoting sources, mis-using sources, quoting invalid sources (eg a bootleg mirror of Wikipedia for Schools and an outdated (by 100 years) version of Encyclopedia Britannica which not only describes JCM as British, but gets his birth date wrong by 5 months!), denying sources, even deleting valid references in the article! (eg this deletion from the IP, a deletion which was subsequently repeated by Dave_souza!). Both Martin Hogbin and the IP have generally displayed a disregard for the truth. I will not allow any further dishonesty to pass without remark. Otherwise I will refrain. FF-UK (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Updated IP edit history. FF-UK (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support per WP:BATTLE. Martin Hogbin has a long history of going to war in places where he finds a grey area, such as the fact that Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom was never elevated beyond an essay, even though it exists to help the community understand, as others have noted, the "flexibility" involved. Martin is anything but "flexible", and stubbornly takes one extreme and threatens to fight anyone who attempts to move to the center. I'm not just talking about this topic, this has gone on everywhere Martin Hogbin shows up. So putting aside the offensive nature of his argument (as it insults Scottish people everywhere by denying them their identity), the problem is Martin's penchant for black and white thinking in every discussion, and putting a virtual sword to the throat of anyone who disagrees with him. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not confuse the issue with identity, I am referring only to the nationality field of the infobox, which I suggest we leave blank until we have a true consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Martin your position is well known. On your talk page you said, "The essay that you point me to is nothing but the opinion of a few editors, with all dissenting opinion ignored. There is no nationality of 'Scottish' and certainly no authoritative sources saying that Maxwell's nationality was Scottish." The community disagrees with you on those points. We will never have a "true consensus" (does there exist a Martin Hogbin argument that isn't fallacious?) and the existence of the essay is evidence for this lack of consensus, and this has been pointed out to you many times. Your behavior is disruptive, and insisting that we all drop what we are doing and discuss this all over again to reach the same outcome as before is tantamount to lunacy. Adam is correct in trying to put a stop to this. Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support per above. Incapability to follow consensus and few other issues including the forum shopping. Noteswork (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose He is simply trying to make the articles accurate Flagators (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Martin is simply trying to keep articles accurate and prevent them from being used by pressure groups to promote their political causes. 86.180.33.175 (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Martin certainly likes to edit controversial pages. He does this with care and thoroughness. Researches the sources, looks for consensus, follows wikipedia policy. We need more editors like him on wikipedia. Yes he looks for support when engaged in some controversy. Who doesn't? Richard Gill (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC) (Incidentally the problem in question is simply that the word "Nationality" has two quite distinct meanings, and both sides need to be more flexible, and admit the existence of an alternative meaning of the word. I see an equal rigidity of thought on both sides. The question needs to be discussed at a higher level eg through a RfC) Richard Gill (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It was. He proposed a policy change. It was voted down. There's looking for support, and forum shopping. Threatening arbcom because a vote goes against you goes beyond both of those. He's not threatening arbcom over behavioural issues, he's threatening it because people disagree with him. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I lost a vote on what I admit was a poorly worded and ill attended RfC on whether nationality should always refer to the legal jursdiction under which the subject falls. I think my poor wording was not understood by some respondents.

On the Maxwell article I have since proposed an obviously neutral compromise that, until there is a clear consensus, we should put nothing in the 'nationality' field of the infobox. That is what is given as the reason for my proposed topic ban at the top of this section.

I am not 'threatening' Arbcom I am going to put the case to them, because I think it is of vital importance to the integrity of WP. They will decide whether to take it or not.Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Martin is not the only editor arguing his side, there are others and therefore he cannot be considered an SPA, or a lone wikipedian fighting a loosing war. Oppose! KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I've been watching the relevant discussions for some time and have deliberately stayed away because it's a minefield and a time-drain. But I find it troubling that we're now looking at topic bans. I don't entirely agree with MH's point of view, but I have sympathy with it. However difficult it may be to debate with him, I see editors on the other side who are equally intransigent. I see no behavioural grounds for a topic ban. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support It is very easy to lose sight of the facts as they become lost in the huge amount of text generated by MH, myself, and others. Firstly, everyone should be aware that neither MH nor myself have added any new material to the article. The disagreement is solely about MH's insistence that material should be removed, or changed (delete Scottish, add British). My point is that the sources we have clearly identify him as Scottish, the infobox (added by Canadian editor Je at uwo in 2006) originally stated that he was Scottish, and has remained so for most of the time since. My editing of this page is limited to reverting errors, I observe the guidance provided at Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. I do this because I have a very strong interest in the subject, James Clerk Maxwell. I am actually a Trustee on the executive of the James Clerk Maxwell Foundation which owns and preserves his birthplace in Edinburgh as a museum. (However, my editing should not be taken as an official position of the Foundation.) Secondly, both MH and others who wish to change the infobox have, on many occasions, tried to suggest that the reasons for Maxwell's nationality being shown as Scottish lie with some sort of nationalist conspiracy. Analysis of Je at uwo's contributions to WP show an editor with a deep interest in science, and no obvious interest in Scotland, so it certainly seems unlikely that he had any political motivation to push a Scottish Nationalist viewpoint. I have declared myself to be proudly English, but living in Scotland. I am very pro-union and was an active campaign worker for the "Better Together" campaign opposing independence during the recent referendum. I have no interest whatsoever in promoting the nationalist cause. However, MH clearly has an inability to understand any motivation other than nationalism could lead one to support the maintenance of accurate Scottish history and respect for its culture. It is this cultural blindness that appears to lie at the heart of his campaign. FF-UK (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, again AFAIK, Martin Hogbin hasn't been edit-warring over or vandalizing any UK bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Noone ever said he was. The problem is that he's forumshopping, and will not accept consensus that doesn't go the way he wants. Particularly with a minefield topic such as nationalities in the UK (historically, somewhat oppressed), it's really stirring up hornets' nests to be threatening Arbcom - not over a behavioural issue, but in order to attempt force Scottish nationality to be listed as British - which is, of course, not a valid use of Arbcom, and to be suggesting it shows a complete lack of perspective on the issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Arbcom should be given the opportunity to accept or reject Hogbin's request. BTW, Martin Hogbin is not threatening Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Martin is most certainly threatening to go to Arbcom - I realise from your talk page message that you haven't seen that idiomatic construct before, so let's let this pass. Let's review. He started a thread on the talkpage, was outvoted. He went to Village Pump to change policy, was outvoted. He proposed a "compromise" that was no such thing - a previous compromise was "Citizenship: British; Nationality: Scottish"; he wants to remove the "Scottish" part, and only the "Scottish" part and is acting as if this is a compromise. He is now - without justification, threatening Arbcom on the heads of anyone who disagrees with him. (I trust I can use that idiom now?) Arbcom do not take content issues, but Martin has made it very clear in the threads linked that he will not accept any consensus that doesn't expunge Scottishness from the infobox; that's the problem: He will not accept consensus, and will not stop. He's forumshopping. He's presenting the same proposal in slightly different ways every few days, and he's attacking everyone that disagrees with him. In short, he's being massively disruptive. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Adam, please read what I wrote above. I am perfectly willing to blank both fields. Citizenship and nationality if it helps.

I am fully entitled to take a case to Arbcom. They will decide whether they wish to take it on and what the outcome will be. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You are also fully entitled to take the case to the police. But you would be wasting their time, as sorting out content issues on Wikipedia is not what they're for, and threatening to do so shows a gross lack of judgement on your part. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't share your concerns, Adam. We'll have to agree to disagree, about whether MH should be t-banned or not. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC) :)

• Support - Identity within the UK is a volatile subject; and one which is subject to clear divisions of opinion - for some (such as myself), the UK is a united kingdom of equal constituent nations, and in that view, people are primarily English, Welsh, Scottish.. and also part of the larger entity, and therefore British. For others, British is the sole identity, and the constituent parts either do not exist at all, or are subservient to this enough to be not only not worthy of comment, but "incorrect". Naturally, this is the view supported by the UK government, which represents the British state and establishment, and Martin has therefore found UK government documents to support his position. I believe that adopting a "British only" position on nationality does not recognise the ways in which people living in the UK actually interpret their identity, but instead seeks to impose a single political POV, as legally mandated by a government as "correct" with other views to be removed. This does not feel like a reasonable position for Wikipedia to take. FDCWint (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

FDCWint, you explain why your point of view differs from Martin Hogbin's, not why he should be banned. You are welcome to your own point of view, but not welcome to attempt to ban editors of Wikipedia with a different point of view. Richard Gill (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You are quite correct, and I did not extrapolate to my point cleanly - my fear was that Martin's desire to continue trying to pursue this topic by any means open to him would result in the eventual adoption of his position whether consensus was there or not, which I felt was bad for WP. I realise that the discussion has moved on, and this is largely irrelevant now, but wished to clarify my position; I agree completely with your statement, and would absolutely not wish to see an editor banned from a topic simply for holding an opposing POV to me. FDCWint (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose' There isn't really a strong case here for a topic ban. I could drop some long elegant response here but that really covers it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as follows. Some high-profile editors polarize and divide the community. Attempting to deal with them at WP:ANI has shown that attempting to deal with them at community noticeboards is not productive; it merely further polarizes and divides the community. Such editors should either be ignored or left to the ArbCom. Other lower-profile editors polarize and divide that segment of the community that pays attention to them. User:Martin Hogbin is such an editor. It appears that he polarizes and divides British editors or at least some British editors. WP:ANI should not try to deal with him unless he is editing not only against the MOS but against consensus established for an article by the RFC process, or unless he is violating WP:3RR. As it is, leave him alone, or publish an RFC on an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Perhaps but it is the community's responsibility to attempt to deal with our own issues when we can. This has been the way for some time. I agree with the thought for the most part but there does come a point when your can no longer ignore a problem. We cannot leave editor issues to Arb Com all the time. If this attempt to discourage bad behavior fails and after time it has been demonstrated that the editor is so contentious that the community is so polarized that a consensus cannot be formed....then we would have little choice but to use Arb Com. I just don't like shutting down an ANI discussion because the opinion is that it just won't work. At least let it try to demonstrate that you are correct (which you probably are).--Mark Miller (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – infoboxes are a blunt instrument, attempting to fit what can be complex situations into over-simplified boxes. The dispute is over such a case: the prime meaning of Nationality is the legal relationship between a person and a country. In English, the same word is used in the sense of an ethnic group. Maxwell was a British subject in the legal definition of the time. While we don't know his own opinion, other sources identify him with Scottish national identity. Given the complexities, the current infoboxes are misleading and it's reasonable for them be left blank until the community agrees on improvements to the infoboxes. The proposed topic ban would stop such progress towards clarity, and give support to those unable or unwilling to provide verification of contentious article content. . dave souza, talk 11:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Viriditas and this diff, which I encourage others to examine. This matter is way too important to Martin. His involvement in this area has been neither clueful nor helpful. Fight your battles elsewhere, this is an encyclopedia. --John (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Concur the removal of talk page comments was inappropriate, but need more evidence to support a ban. NE Ent 19:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Check the diff again. He did not remove any "talk page comments", he deleted a long standing, community consensus driven section from the essay, which is in reality, a supplementary guideline. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This was a perfectly legitimate edit. I boldly deleted a section because I saw no consensus for it on the talk pages and considered it irrelevant. My edit was reverted and I left it at that. That is how WP is supposed to work. Martin Hogbin (talk)

Oh, sorry, missed that -- then that's no evidence of a need for a ban. Like MH he just said, that's simply a bold edit, already reverted. Essays are essays, not supplementary guidelines. (e.g. compare WP:DTR, WP:TTR). Now if MH was doing something actually disruptive, like posting to ANI without signing his posts... NE Ent 15:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Too much talk, not enough diffs presented here. NE Ent 19:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed mutual voluntary binding restriction (result: withdrawn)

• I'd found that this month alone, there were about 17 reverts in relation to two words in the article's infobox - starting with an edit which I could at best label as a "bold edit" by Martin Hogbin [60] then reverted by an IP address user. This paved the way for the article becoming unstable with edit-warring: dave souza [61], FF [62], Martin Hogbin [63], Hertz [64], IP [65], FF-UK [66], CFindlay12 [67], IP [68], Martin Hogbin [69], IP [70], IP [71], FF-UK [72], Martin Hogbin [73], FF-UK [74], Martin Hogbin [75] followed by John [76]. Maybe it was luck that te GA assessment was not delisted after such instability. As for the talk page, the issue is not nastiness; the issue is (primarily) two editors debating 2 words in an article's infobox, and despite more than 27,000 words of discussion about it, disagreement between the editors remain. Unsurprisingly, no uninvolved editors want to go near the discussion which is so overwhelmingly long in size, and disproportionate to the content being challenged in the article. Both editors have said more than enough to make their views clear, and it's better left now to an article RfC where others can finally comment if they wish (without the risk of further exhaustion). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

One editor (FF-UK) was willing to accept the terms of this collapsed proposal if the other editor (Martin Hogbin) did. Unfortunately, since Martin Hogbin has indicated below that this is "not accepted" by him, this proposal is withdrawn. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd proposed a voluntary binding editing restriction for the sole purposes of deescalating the dispute, allowing fresh input, and so that the article talk page is not overwhelmed further about this infobox dispute. Both Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs) and FF-UK (talk · contribs) accepted a voluntary binding restriction whereby they shall: Not edit in relation to "nationality" or "citizenship" in the article James Clerk Maxwell (in particular, the infobox contained in the article); and Not discuss "nationality" or "citizenship" further in connection with the same article anywhere on Talk:James Clerk Maxwell. The restriction should be: broadly construed - so that it applies to concepts such as "national identity" in connection with the article; enforcible - which is why we call it binding; and for an indefinite duration. A more suitable venue or method of discussion (such as article RfC to be commenced on another page) is to be agreed towards coming to a clear consensus on the issue, and at the conclusion of the discussion, the restriction will be lifted again (but we don't know how long that will be). Even though parties (and others) may be frustrated from the number of times this has gone on, this will be a final effort to resolve this issue and should provide sufficient clarity for those not involved to come to a view on conduct issues which may arise thereafter. In order for this restriction to be binding, the community will need to formally endorse the restriction so there will be no hesitation by uninvolved administrators in enforcing this if there are breaches. Once we have that, it can be logged, both users notified, and this ANI can be closed for now. Can we please have input from the community, especially uninvolved users? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Endorse as proposer. This covers the parts both users accepted MH: "I would be happy to agree to cease this discusssion forthwith intil a suitable venue for achieving consensus is agreed." MH: "I am happy not to edit the Nationality field to 'British' until there is a clear consensus on what to do next...." FF: "I am happy to agree to accept a voluntary binding restriction on the article itself, as Martin Hogbin has done...I will not be initiating any new talk activity...." Of course, it should be understood that any other users (be it throw away IP addresses or established editors) who disrupt the talk page or the article over this infobox dispute are gambling with their site-wide editing privilleges. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Proposal withdrawn per comment in collapsed box. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Not accepted. I have made it clear that I am willing to volutarily refrain from editing the infobox nationality to 'British' until a concensus is reached on what the field should contain. I have already stopped editing that field entirely of my own volition and intend not to edit it again until significant progress is made on this topic. I do intend to continue pressing for the obviously neutral compromise of leaving both the Citizenship and Nationality fields in the infobox blank until the issue is finally resolved. This compromise is in accordance with the fundamental WP policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V and to even suggest sanctioning and editor for just arguing that we follow core WP policy is absurd. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please show me where this proposal has been fully accepted by FF-UK? I see no sign of it here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote above on the 24th (regarding the proposal from Ncmvocalist), with the tally of 'wandering IP' edits updated on the 27th:

"I am happy to agree to accept a voluntary binding restriction on the article itself, as Martin Hogbin has done, however I note that he has not extended that to talk pages and has continued to edit there. I will not be initiating any new talk activity, but there are two issues which should be recognized.

1: It is not just MH but also an IP editor who reflects and supports MH's opinions. This editor started editing on the nationality issue on 30th October (as far as I can tell) and from then till this edit all edits were exclusively on nationality. So far he/she has sequentially used nine different BT WiFi hot spots, each for a few days at a time with no overlap. These IPs are 109.152.250.125; 86.145.98.85; 109.152.249.9; 86.180.32.141; 109.152.248.204; 86.129.126.155; 86.180.33.175; 86.163.109.109 and 86.180.33.60. In total they account for 158 edits. Adding that to Martin Hogbins's 263 edits on nationality since his first edit at James Clerk Maxwell gives a total of 421 (compared to my 115 on nationality).

2: Both Martin Hogbin and the IP have a habit of mis-stating the points made by others, misquoting sources, mis-using sources, quoting invalid sources (eg a bootleg mirror of Wikipedia for Schools and an outdated (by 100 years) version of Encyclopedia Britannica which not only describes JCM as British, but gets his birth date wrong by 5 months!), denying sources, even deleting valid references in the article! (eg this deletion from the IP, a deletion which was subsequently repeated by Dave_souza!). Both Martin Hogbin and the IP have generally displayed a disregard for the truth. I will not allow any further dishonesty to pass without remark. Otherwise I will refrain."

I have, so far, adhered to this with the only edit which I have made on this subject being to demonstrate the falseness of the latest claim made by the 'wandering IP' on citizenship (which he still refuses to accept despite the clear source for disproving his claim). FF-UK (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed closure (result: declined)

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

---

Recommend an administrator close this report, as a majority has chosen to not topic-ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree to closing. Martin Hogbin has made clear above that he has not agreed to Ncmvocalists suggestion to: Not discuss "nationality" or "citizenship" further in connection with the same article anywhere on Talk:James Clerk Maxwell. In fact, both he and the "wandering IP" who closely supports him (now using the ninth successive BT Wi-Fi hotspot - see list above) have continued to edit that talk page today. Martin Hogbin has also continued to edit on the subject at Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. This issue remains unresolved. FF-UK (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• I'm afraid I agree with FF-UK here. Martin continues to obsess about this matter despite having his proposals kicked into touch at all of the many venues he has proposed them at. If he is unable to concede at some point, we will be back here again. I would rather nip this off now; a month of disruption is enough. --John (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• I agree. This thread should very definitely not be closed until it can be closed with the topic ban requested by the two editors above, who are are in a content dispute, funnily enough, with the person they want topic-banned. Natural justice demands it. FFS. N-HH talk/edits 00:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep discussion open. This is Wikipedia, not Martinpedia. He has to follow community consensus; we, however, do not have to follow him. Martin gleefully writes, "I do intend to continue pressing for the obviously neutral compromise of leaving both the Citizenship and Nationality fields in the infobox blank..." Stop right there. We are asking you to step away from this topic. Since you absolutely refuse, there's a pressing need for a topic ban and/or a block. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Topic ban on Jews and Judaism needed for AliAkar

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

---

• AliAkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User:AliAkar/Jewish Supremacism (My Awakening to the Jewish Question) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• See also David Duke and User_talk:Mike_Rosoft#Jewish_Supremacism_.28My_Awakening_to_the_Jewish_Question.29

AliAkar has tried more than once to create a draft for white supremacist conspiracy theorist David Duke's book "Jewish Supremacism." The first attempt to move it to article space was was deleted by User:Mike Rosoft under WP:G11. That draft presented the work as "meticulously research" sic. When we pointed out to AliAkar that Duke should be trusted about as far as things can be thrown at him, AliAkar accused both Mike and me of having "self interest with this book" and "a personal problem with this book and the idea of the author." When I finally pointed out that Duke is, according to our article on him, known as a "white nationalist, conspiracy theorist," and "advocate of antisemitic conspiracy theories," AliAkar replied that he was simply trying to introduce the book, not Duke's ideas.

Mike deleted the draft (because there is no way it was ever going to become an article in that state), and AliAkar recreated it pretty much the same, calling the book "influential," downplaying the fact that Duke is a notorious conspiracy theorist and white supremacist (also downplaying the hoax nature of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for this draft), and claiming "Jewish Supremacism must be authentic." It also cites David Duke 25 times, and contains

AliAkar has created drafts for other articles in the past that, despite requiring a lot of cleanup, are still here. However, it's clear that AliAkar has a blinding antisemitic bias and should not be allowed to edit articles relating to Jews or Judaism. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic, borderline WP:DFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If his edits had been against Muslims instead of Jews, he would have been banned immediately and all his edits would be oversighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.232.89.186 (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, because WP is part of the vast pro-Muslim conspiracy, except of course when it's part of the vast pro-Jewish conspiracy [77]. EEng (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Even pro-Jewish edits not criticizing Muslims are oversighted: [78], [79] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.40.216.222 (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC) I signed up to be part of the vast pro-Jesus conspiracy, am I in the wrong place?--v/r - TP 18:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Even if this were generally true, it would be because WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a religious battleground. I don't want edits to be "pro-Jewish" or "anti-Jewish"; I want them to be factual and useful. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now We need to tread carefully here. We do not sanction editors for their politics, religion, sex or sexual preferences etc even if/when their opinions are odious. Topic bans are the tactical nukes of WP sanctions and should only be employed when there is evidence of persistent, unrepentant disruptive editing in a given subject area, and after counseling and or the application of lesser correctives (i.e. temporary blocks) have been attempted without success. I am seeing very little of that here. Talk page discussion appears to have been limited to the issue of the book. If any other problematic edits were raised on the talk page, I missed it (always a possibility). I see no formal warnings. And I see no indication of any blocks. Yes,there are some rare and commonsense exceptions where you break out the heavy artillery right off. But this doesn't look like an unambiguous case of NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

AliAkar has made it clear that they intend to continue to introduce material promoting David Duke's "Jewish Supremacism" as factual, instead of the WP:FRINGE material it is. Blocks or site bans would be necessary for NOTHERE, but this is more of a WP:CIR issue: there is no reason whatsoever to believe that AliAkar is capable of engaging in subjects relating to Jews and Judaism neutrally (quite the opposite, in fact), but he can contribute positively in other areas.

At the very least, can we get a few more voices to explain to him (so he doesn't just think it's me and Mike) that the content of the page is unacceptably biased toward the book's claims? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that his article is not well written, and it is clearly biased with the intent to promote David Duke's nonsense. His books are not in any sense "influential", except perhaps among neo-Nazis. To read this article one would not get the impression that Duke is not an impartial authority on Judaism or Jewish culture but rather an extremist fringe voice and a crackpot (which, indeed, he is). Presenting fringe views as if they were mainstream (or, perhaps, even notable) is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. For example, we do not write about Fred Phelps as if he were an authority on LGBT rights. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree, to which end I have posted a level 2 warning on their talk page. When dealing with a problem editor, we don't start with bans. We try to work with them and then issue warnings if the problem persists. The next step would probably be a block of some kind. If future editing suggests we are dealing with an anti-Semite on a mission and who just can't be reasoned with then a topic ban becomes a legitimate option. Right now this sounds like an attempt to topic ban someone because we (quite understandably) find their views offensive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Based on what I have seen from a quick glance, I think this editor's future contributions should be the subject of some scrutiny. I would suggest we keep an eye on what they are doing for a while so we can address any potential problems quickly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support for topic ban and even indefinite block per WP:COMPETENCE, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLE, and WP:SOAPBOX. I find Ad Orientem's oppose up above to be so far off the mark, that I can only assume he responded without actually looking at the problem . AliAkar is not here to build an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose at the moment as well. I don't see any particular evidence on uncivil conduct or anything of that sort. I don't even understand the warning, did User:AliAkar even edit Jewish Supremacism or David Duke? Now the editor's versions of the article aren't remotely neutral and won't likely be posted as is but that's an issue for deletion of those drafts if you want. Move them to Draft space and have it reviewed before being created. It's not like it's impossible to create a neutral article on that topic. Mahdi Zein-eddin is pretty standard for a new user in my view. It's problematic and needs to be reviewed but nothing that's a red flag to me. I see that his uploads at Commons were all deleted but that again isn't something particularly unusual for a new user. Is there something I'm missing? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• It also cites David Duke 25 times, and contains Contains what, Ian.thomson? Looks like you hit "delete" one too many times :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't ban editors simply for holding political or religious views that we disagree with. The article in question looks like a good-faith effort at a well-sourced article describing Duke's book. While the article has some problems (mostly with the grammar, but also with its POV), this is nothing which can't be addressed via collaborative editing involving editors with different viewpoints. In the event that the user actually edit-wars to preserve their biases, or resumes copyright violations, then I'd be happy to consider a block or a topic-ban. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Nobody has proposed banning the editor for holding certain views. What was proposed was banning the editor for crossing the threshold you yourself established for bad behavior in your oppose. The OP made it clear that the user has restored the problematic material after having the community already discuss it with them. The user has therefore crossed the threshold for a topic ban that you support. Lastly, this is not a "good-faith effort" as you claim, but a giant soapbox. I take it you don't work with content very much. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please provide diffs for the edit warring, then, as well as diffs showing that the user had been previously warned about edit warring. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Query. Obviously this draft cannot be allowed to enter article space as is; the position the user takes on its fringe claims does not belong on Wikipedia. Are there other Judaism-related topics in which he has shown himself to be disruptive, or would it be enough to ban him from the topic of this book and/or Jewish conspiracy theories, broadly construed? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• I want to introduce this book in WP and don't want to introduce David Duke's idea about Jew. I try to edit my article about this book and correct my grammar mistake in the article. Thank you for your attention AliAkar (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• @AliAkar: as Ian thomson already said, you tried this before and you were given feedback which you have ignored. Will you be changing the article to accommodate and meet the criticism you've already been given? Until you do, I really don't think you should be working in this topic area. When someone has a strong bias like you do, it's best if you find something else to work on. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, since it is premature to impose a very wide ban on the basis of very narrow edits. The article AliAkar created was absurd and irretrievable without a complete rewrite—deleting it was the correct course of action—but that is not by itself a basis for a general "Jews and Judaism" ban. I propose a more limited ban on articles related to David Duke or "Jewish supremism", since it is clear that AliAkar is incapable of writing a rule-conformant article on those subjects. The ban can be widened later if necessary. Zero^talk 08:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:BLUD on Talk:Battle of Chawinda

• Battle of Chawinda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nawabmalhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yesterday Nawabmalhi edit warred until the page was protected. During the edit war, he continued to remove the maintenance templates and misrepresent sources.

In order to keep bludgeoning the process, he started to accuse me of personal attacks and copy pasted the same discussions two times in two different sections.[80][81]

One user hatted his conversation, and was told to whether change or remove the same copy pasted text. He has reverted that move at least three times.[82] [83][84] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• His bad understanding of English language(WP:CIR) as well as his avid nationalism probably prompts him to misrepresent the references and his decision to avoid the discussion and repeat same argument includes the misrepresentation of policies. He is incapable of understanding the matter. I would recommend a topic ban. Another option is a temporary block until RFC is finished. He fails to understand what others have written and pretends that he hasn't read anything. VandVictory (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Nawabmalhi has already been notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. In case there is any issue of nationalist editing, this should be kept in mind. It is a fact that we do tend to see disputes about the results of wars and battles, even on stuff like the War of 1812, because it may not be a simple matter of fact. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Yes, a few weeks ago he was reminded of DS. I agree with above comments that there is issue with nationalistic editing and competence with English. On Battle of Chawinda, he is trying to prove that the battle resulted in Pakistan victory, by labeling words such as "blood bath" as "victory".[85] On Talk:Siachen conflict, he had discarded a reliable source published by Stanford University as an "Indian source which may also be subject to bias".[86] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please donnnot Muckrake I did not make any edit on the Siachen Conflict nor did I revert an edit when you said the source was reliable I reexamined it and ended the discussion. I stand by what I said either way an Indian source(meaning from India) should not be used to indicate a victory or defeat in an India related conflict and that is why I donnot use Pakistani sources to back Pakistani Victory stance, only western in Chawinda article-- Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You have used WP:PRIMARY(statement of Pakistani commander) sources on Battle of Chawinda and misrepresented others. If the source is reliable you don't have to pinpoint the nationality of one author as a reason to reject. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

His discussions are uncalled for. His reply to my comment was indeed an attempt to joke or irritate. He was telling me about the same book that others had already checked and it seemed like he was supporting my comment, but if you see his few other comments you will find his misuse of this snippet for claiming problematic statements. That's how his discussions are becoming irritating for others. If he is blocked until the rfc closure, he will still come back to badger and continue same style of nationalistic POV on other articles just like he is doing now. Temporary topic ban on military subjects would be better as his ultimate aim is to derail discussions, not to gain consensus. నిజానికి (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if you got offended, but if you carefully read what I said that is not what I meant at all. Many people did not have the access to Fricker on Google Books due to copyright, through various searches on Google books I had a good portion of the page viewable. So when you said the conflict was largely affected by the cease fire I gave you a source which showed that the ceasefire was a result of the conflict and provided my new link so you could access Fricker and see for yourself. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Nawabmalhi

To be completely honest this to me seems like muckraking seems to be a trend developing in OcultZones tactics and can be seen at the AE Archives quite clearly. Here is my point of view:

• The only reason I copied and pasted into the other section because OccultZone was repeating the same argument from the section above on the the Talkpage and just created another section to do it. I specifically wrote that I was doing this as a formality and this was already discussed in detail above and did not want to indicate that I was ignoring him or that I felt that his maintenance template sugestions, in my view, were correct. It is just that I always thought it Wiki ettiquete to reply even though the points raised are repetitive assuming Good Faith but he seems to like to assume Bad Faith to anything or any user he is disagrees with.
• I did not edit war it was just that OccultZone did not discuss on the talk page and reach a consensus before adding the maintenance tags and I said lets discuss on the Talkpage first before we add these maintenance tags and if you must add them keep the source I added and keep the link to Fricker that I added and then re add the maintenance tags thankfully an Admin protected the page this is verifiable by the edit summaries on the page history.
• I did not even edit the talkpage for over 16 hours and nor did I plan too until VandVictory decided to hat what I wrote as Misrepresenting the Source which I thought was blatant vandalism and something an Administrator could only do since he was tampering and misrepresenting what I said, which I removed it and told VandVictory to stop tampering with what I wrote. OccultZone took advantage of that to bring me here and here I am.
• Also before coming to the ANI today I did not even know what 'hatting' was, and I was not notified remove or change the copy paste section by anyone as OccultZone says. Furthermore if you read what I wrote it was not unproductive and was relevant, plus it was only 60% the same. Moreover VandVictory Hatted what I wrote and marked it as Misrepresenting the Sources as the tempelate title/display and did it to both sections instead of one which would be different. All I knew at that point was that he was tampering with what I wrote and misrepresenting something I thought only Admins could do.
• Majority of the people who responded to DID the battle lead to Major Pakistani victory? agree with me that the sources indicate Pakistani Victory or Indian Defeat, I am not in the minority. I have provided my explanation for why the sources clearly indicate that Chawinda is a Pakistani Victory instead of responding by giving their point of View OccultZone and VandVictory instead talk about my Grammar, call me incompetent, say that I am a Nationalist(which others will testify I am not), blatantly say I am misrepresenting the source without substantiating any evidence etc.
• I have NO interest what so ever in delaying or bludgeoning but I due feel that a stalemate is completely contradictory and Pakistani Victory is much more fair and correct understanding of the sources so when OccultZone presents his arguement or attempts to pokeholes at my arguements I rightfully and responsibly as an active member of the discussion respond to him and give my point of view as it is discussion. If my actions are considered bludgeoning (which I think is absurd) then by the same criteria OccultZones edits are also examples of bludgeoning but with more force. Honestly it seems that they want to take the credibility of my arguments by having me topic banned.
• Before I got involved with the Chawinda debate (which I tried to resist to the best by ignoring numerous pings etc.) I was able to do my normal editing on pages and was thanked by numerous users. Infact, the week before I got involved in this mess, I was thanked for my edit by Users Sitush and Faizan on edits related to Jat people and IndoPak wars respectively. Now my edits on actual pages is going down and affecting my real life by chipping away at my real life by eating away MCAT study time.
• OccultZone might be in the heat of the moment, assuming Good Faith, but VandVictory, from what I have seen, seen carries around a Battleground mentality and has tried to instigate an edit war with me and others (from Dec 17) on the Battle of Chawinda page.
• Interestingly enough VandVictory has not even edited the page before Dec 17 while another నిజానికి has never edited the page at all and the talk page before Dec 19 which was during the RFC. Also both of these editors donnot even seem to have any substantial knowledge of the Battle or IndoPak war of 1965(based on the user contributions), they also seem to have edited similar pages so I think they might be Sockpuppets. (sorry in advance if I am wrong). I think there should be an investigation in case.
• My view:

My view copied from Article Talk Page

1. Fricker says: "After the Battle of Chawinda, which proved to be a blood bath for Chaudhuris Indian Army. India pleaded its case for an unconditional ceasefire..." Blood bath means massacre , disastrous loss or reversal according to dictionary.com as a note. This is important because it show that India suffered heavy losses, pakistan halts Indian Invasion and that the ceasefire was the result of the battle and helps justify the the term 'Major Pakistani Victory'. 2. Cohen, Dagupta call it a debacle which means a general breakup or dispersion or a complete collapse or failure according to dictionary.com as a note. They also compare the Major Indian Victory of Battle of Asal Uttar to Chawinda where India is on the receiving end. 3. Steven Zaloga calls the battle a defeat, and says specifically that the Indian 1st division(encompasses bassically all of the indian units) was defeated by the Pakistani 25th Cavalry which resulted in a UN mandated ceasefire. And also compares the Major Indian Victory of Battle of Asal Uttar to Chawinda where India is on the receiving end. 4. Canberra Times and The Australian both also say it is a Pakistani Victory.

I sincerely request you to end this Chawinda Discussion and pick whichever side you think is right as an administrator and close this case, it does not matter if they manage to get me topic banned or not, both sides are entrenched one saying Victory the other saying stalemate I think it is best, most fair, and efficient, if an administrator ends this. Whichever way a administrator goes everyone will listen, let go ,and move on.--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You have copied and pasted the same WP:SYNTH over and over, when each of my reply was differently written. You actually want "evidence" for your source misrepresentation? Here it is,[87] no where these sources[88][89] state that there was any "Major Pakistani victory" or even victory for that matter. Obviously you are not going to consider it at all, and continue to misrepresent sources, cast aspersions and edit war. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your replies are formatted a little differently but they are pretty much that exact samething. If you want the last word have it, I have learned my lesson I am not gonna repeat myself for you! I am more interested on Admin opinion after talk Page look. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

They must be same because they reject your WP:SYNTH and misrepresentation? Yet you are copying and pasting the same thing. You are still doing it and even here[90] now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

For admin so he knows where I stand, better than him having to search through the Talk Page and it is not meant for you, this is not the Talk Page discussion.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Nawabmalhi you are actually wrong because I have edited before RFC, see this from 2 December [91] VandVictory (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I was specifically talking about the article which you did not edit till Dec 17, but I did not know that you were on the talk page before that because you had not edited article and RFC had not begun.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think Nawabmalhi is emotionally attached to the subject, may not be now but later is surely going to disrupt a sensitive topic again leading into edit warring, eventhough an RFC was going on in talk page I feel the edits made were unwarranted, would support either topic ban or article edit ban Shrikanthv (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not emotionally that attached: I have never even lived in Pakistan, although I am part of the Pakistani Diaspora. I belong to the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam a heavily persecuted sect in Pakistan. I am more pan-South Asian and value my Religious affiliation, Ethnic origins, and Canadian Citizenship are far more than my Pakistani Citizenship. I just think that a stalemate does not make sense what so ever and is not supported by the sources.

If I am given a article or Topic ban(as a precautionary measure before I do anything wrong) ,OccultZone should get a Topic or Article Ban aswell since we are responding to each other, because otherwise it would wrongly discredit the support side plus I have already made my arguments and I only responded after 16 hours after VandVictory messed with what I wrote and I think it is best if an Administrator ends the RFC as both side are heavily entrenched this is creating pointless hostilities now. Administrator intervention and RFC closure would help people move on. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hello. OccultZone is guilty of same WP:BLUD look at talkpage. He also wants to close RFC early look at his talkpage. This is not WP:SNOW debate how can it be closed after 5 days. Please allow RFC for 30 days time. Maybe OccultZone can be topic ban other user requested to wait for neutral user comment. Nawabmalli reply are using reference just like OccultZone but OccultZone should stop replying more and more. He did too much BLUD with TopGun then get him topic ban. He had final warning on Arbitration enforcement page. He is doing it again now. Nawabmalli is reported first time he maybe told to stop replying to OccultZone verbally. VandVictory has done more than 17 revert in editwar! ---TheSawTooth (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Can you show where I had any warning from AE? I had none. I don't control AE that I got him topic banned, case was carefully judged by the admins, he was topic banned for misrepresenting sources, edit warring, same thing that you and Nawabmalhi are doing. Since none of the debates are based on votes(though majority supports exclusion), we are more supportive towards the correct representation of WP:RS, none of the sources support the statement in question, now that you have mentioned WP:SNOW, then exactly, it applies here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

TST, have you forgot that you were indefinitely blocked for pretending to be an admin on this page? I can't understand what you have written, care to speak in English? VandVictory (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It was misunderstanding. I was talking about real admin Nyttend. It is removed. Your revision was on purpose 17 time. -TheSawTooth (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Still can't understand what you have written. VandVictory (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Read AE result discussion of admins. References by Nawabmalli are correct. Do not give summary of RFC yourself you are involve in dispute. RFC will show who is right it is purpose of RFC do not try to close it early like you say on your talkpage many users are disagreed. Let neutral users comment more for regular 30 days time. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"Discussion" is not equivalent to "warning", you have made another unfounded claim and now arguing over it. None of the sources provided by Nawabmalhi are correct and by labeling them to be "correct" you are also misrepresenting the sources. Do any of them mention "victory" or regard Pakistan as the winner of Battle of Chawinda? None do. None of your arguments are policy based and they are only repetition of what you have already said before. Same with Nawabmalhi. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

So when Zaloga says Indian 1st division was defeated by Pakistani 25th calvalry which also resulted in a UN ceasefire it is a stalemate?When Fricker calls it a blood bath which made the Indians go to UN he meant it was inconclusive?...... I am misrepresenting the sources? --Nawabmalhi (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

25 Cavalry is just a cavalry regiment that fought another regiment, but that is not about the whole battle or both nations. "Blood bath" does not mean victory or defeat either, neither he says that it made "Indians go to UN". Obviously you are misrepresenting sources. I didn't referred results as stalemate, and some other editors did [92][93] as globalsecurity[94] states that. "Inconclusive"[95] is supported by a reliable source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is a perfect example of your bias, the Pakistani 25th Cavalry led the Pakistani BlitzKrieg like attack against the Indian 1st Division took them by suprise which led to Indias defeat at Chawinda.....Defeat is the word Zaloga specifically used
• Here is the Fricker Quote again: "After the Battle of Chawinda, which proved to be a blood bath for Chaudhuris Indian Army. India pleaded its case for an unconditional ceasefire..." and you could view it in more detail through my link if you donnot own the book
• When other sources are saying it is a defeat, blood bath, Indian debacle, and an Indian Asal Uttar you should realize that your sources mean it is specifically inconclusive in the sense there was no significant change in territory--Nawabmalhi (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Major problem is with your WP:SYNTHESIS, that you insert your own flawed definitions and claim "Major Pakistani victory". You are still bludgeoning the process and spamming on this thread with your source misrepresentation. None of the sources claim any victory or defeat, I know that you will never hear, that's why topic ban seems to be the only solution. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Ye they do! Did you even read what I said? To be honest I think you might be misrepresenting the sources, not me. Either way read what I said above as I am not repeating myself. This is not the discussion thread I only respond when you misrepresent my view and raise allegations and frankly if I am Bludgeoning (again absurd)than you are too with TheSawTooth.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Because they don't, repeating doesn't make it true. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Let consensus decide my friend. 25th and anti tank infantry was fighting India in this battle. Reference is saying defeated. Neutral users can read this reference and understand it. Why you respond every time to explain reference? I move that every one stop commenting on RFC let neutral users debate now. -TheSawTooth (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Performance of smaller forces doesn't count as results until the reference itself state that there were no other forces in the war. Consensus is different than what you are thinking, it doesn't means that 2 users with horrible English are allowed to misjudge sources and make unnecessary arguments without even understanding that what others have written. I don't know what you actually meant from 'Neutral users'. If you think yourself as a 'non-neutral user', I would agree. VandVictory (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read the Steven Zaloga reference from the article, it specifically says the Pakistani 25th Cavalry defeated Indian 1st division, not just that a smaller force faced off a larger force. Also please read WP:CIV and note most people who have responded to the RFC support some sort of Pakistani Victory. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to give up misjudging these references and learn English. A cavalry is not a country. 8 people opposed and 7 people supported the misjudgement of references, is that what you call 'most people' supporting your nonsense? Or you don't know how to count either. VandVictory (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The cavalry was Pakistani and the 1st division was India you are mixing the two and this is why Zaloga compares it to Asal Uttar

Actually only 7 people wrote opposed and one of them opposed a major Pakistani victory and wanted a local or tactical Victory. So 8 in suppport of some sort of Pakistani Victory and 6 opposed. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You are mixing up the things because you don't know how to speak in English and then you have also got a nationalistic POV that is making you look even worse. A cavalry is not a country. One of the user wrote 're-word' and his comment was against your nonsense. Don't count the IP that has made no edits outside. So we are back to where we were, 7 support and 8 oppose for your opinion. VandVictory (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not my opinion it is a fact, it seems you used control F I have counted the results twice and you should review it on the talkpage instead of making a fool out of yourself, only 14 people commented and TheBanner wrote opposed but said it was a tactical or local Victory; which means I am right: 8 in support of some sort of Pakistani Victory and 6 opposed.. And your comment about the cavalry shows that you donnot know much about this battle and I have already tried to help you understand above. --Thank You for continuing your False Personal Attacks Nawabmalhi (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is just what you think. The Banner said that it is just his opinion and it requires better references, he also said that the battle actually stopped after the ceasefire. You can see that because of your misunderstanding of English you are incapable to understand the meaning. VandVictory (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban on Nawabmalhi and TheSawTooth

They cannot understand English,(WP:CIR) they have rapidly removed the issue tags[96][97][98][99][100] from the article without ever replacing with a reliable reference or solving the issue. Repetitive and repulsive argument as seen above can be seen in these diffs where Nawabmalhi makes counter allegations.[101] TheSawTooth has made an emotional response with some false accusations and incorrect acknowledgement of arbitration enforcement proceedings, he seeks for a topic ban on other user,[102] while forgetting that he was blocked 2 days ago for pretending to be an admin on the same page.[103] Their continued misjudgement of these references[104] [105][106] for promoting a 'Major' victory of Pakistan, is nationalistic and disruptive. An indefinite topic ban from the military pages about India and Pakistan would be the best choice. VandVictory (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I already explained this before you never discussed adding the maintenance tags and I already discussed this above in detail. Here is my edit summuray:

Reverted to revision 639089574 by Nawabmalhi: Please dont edit war, most people donnot agree that these need verification, I added link to Fricker and name pg.# for Zaloga it is best to wait till discussion is over to brand the sources. I also said on the talkpage if you must add them, re-add them seperatly but thankfully an administrator interfered, I only reverted it twice and had no plan on doing it again and I appealed an end.

You are combining edits of two different users to say I edit warred, or are you trying to prove that you edit warred since you reverted the edits?--Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. VandVictory (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support The fact that ThSawTooth and Nawabmalhi engage in edit warring and then tell to world not do so, it is rather childish. Honestly, grow up! --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Agree with @Shrikanthv:. This seems like an unstoppable campaign for posting same wall of text on every message. నిజానికి (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not post wall of text on chawinda. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose You have already topic banned TopGun. It is not fair to ban every one who disagrees. It is WP:BATTLEGROUND thinking. VandVictory revised the page 17 times deleting tags he should not talk of others editwar. I have not broken any rule. I do not wish to discuss or edit this page more due to these users they are acting so aggressive. Admin should read my argument and close discussion after 30days time. It does not need topic ban. Same users who give statement on TopGun case [107] have come here to ban us. Involved users can not ban other users. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• My note I was misunderstood when I was blocked. I did not misrepresent to be admin every one knows I am not admin. I was talking of admin action of Nyttend. I have not edited chawinda after I got unblock because I know this topic is under disruption. I should not be ban without breaking any rule. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose:
  • I have not made any edits to Chawinda for two days now seems like an attempt o discredit support side
  • I have already shown that I have not editwarred in any form and have given a detailed explanation above. Nor have I attempted bludgeoning the process but infact VandVictory and OccultZone have by stating nonsensical statements such as 'A calvary does not represent a country' not understanding that it was the small Pakistani 25th Cavalry that stopped the Indian 1st division(Bassically all the Indian Units) etc.
  • The proposer, VandVictory, is the only one on the page who has been blatantly edit warring from Dec 17 along with an IP address see page history he seems to be either a sock Puppet or POV pusher contacted by OccultZone as he has no association with the Battle of Chawinda and Indo-Pak 1965 war.
  • The only time I minutely came close to edit warring was when VandVictory kept adding a Collapse with the title: Misrepresenting the source which was blatantly misrepresenting with what I was saying and was tampering with what I wrote. And I thought, that editor at best could only do such thing and did not even know was before I came to the ANI.
  • Although these editor accuse me of repetitive arguements, they do it themselves, I had already answered all their allegations above and for a while they kept silent but now they have after a little while they raise same allegations again. All they're doing muckraking and doing personal attacks(OccultZone has stopped) but VandVictory is on a role
  • I am not even making any edits on the talkpage recently, and realistically neither will these 3, I think, they want a topic ban for me and now for TheSawTooth as well as, so they can discount the support side and freely Bludgeon article and successfully and wrongfully force the RFC to a Stalemate viewpoint.
  • This is a clear case of muckraking(see above) and canvassing (OccultZone was even advise not to go to the ANI) by them atlease 3 random Users ,who for some reason happen to be Indian and POV pushers with no prior conection to article, show up to the article Talk page. I just cannot see this as coincidental, through any form of logic.
  • If anything is still unclear please refer to the Nawabmalhi section where I answered these False allegations with more detail and is more comprehensive in general--Thank YouNawabmalhi (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Evident that they are unable to restrain themselves. After reading the statement of NawabMalhi and Thesawtooth, I would say that they are blaming others to hide their disruptive behavior. They are desperate to oppose own topic ban, while making the situation worse for the rest of the editors. Problematic language skills that are combined with POV-pushing and edit warring is still going to discourage editors from contributing on as many pages where they are contributing. Noteswork (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just unarchived this thread for a formal closure.[108] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)re-signed

• Support disruption after IPA DS notification given to both: TheSawTooth [109], Nawabmalhi [110] Widefox; talk 14:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced edits on the Nagorno-Karabakh article

• Zimmarod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hablabar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Zimmarod is both constantly removing my sourced additions on the Nagorno-Karabakh article despite that they're completely sourced with reliable sources. He/she is using arguments such as "rv anon; dubious sources" to disregard entire large edits, or, now even more interestingly putting in his edit description "Rv per WP:BATTLEGROUND, in reference to "This is insane" remark"., because I told that removing entire sourced additions easily like that, is insane. He/she is obviously reverting and acting here with an agenda per WP:JDL, as it's quite a politically active topic. He also switches between his presumably two accounts (Zimmarod and Hablabar) who edit on the exact same articles, write the exact same edit summaries [[111]], [[112]], and have the exact same usage of language.[[113]][[114]]

You can't just disregard sourced edits like that I think. Especially if you happen to use two accounts to hide behind this. I brought it here to have this problem solved asap instead of turning it into an edit war. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The interaction analyzer is pretty clear something is going on. The interaction timing goes back over a year for editors who intersect like this and it extends to Georgian scripts and more importantly the talk page which shows both editors interacting and not using edit summaries at all.[115]. Though Roses&guns also appears connected. The only question is meatpuppetry or socking? All editors with 500 or less being involved and supporting each other in a very unusual way over such a strange addition in the previous case.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Today I received a report that my name was mentioned. I would run a full sock search for 94.210.203.230 among the recently banned authors or those with a record of sanctions who were active on that page. Something indeed is going on and we need to figure out who is 94.210.203.230 and why she/he displays POV demeanor. All kinds of "info" is often "sourced" from unreliable and dubious sources and that "info" should be removed. You should go and explain why you think your "info" is worth keeping. Hablabar (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: As an uninvolved non-Admin editor I've looked into the disputed additions and deletions on Nagorno-Karabakh, including the sourcing. In my estimation 94.210.203.230 work is well sourced and good additions while Zimmarod and Hablabar are reverting without reasonable cause = edit warring. A minor issue against 94.210.203.230 is the use of Mesrob Mashtots over Mesrop Mashtots with Mesrop being the preferred English spelling (though I suspect that the b is used in some other languages including Spanish.) Legacypac (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. This is just ridiculous. Not only the fact that he/she constantly removes my good and well sourced additions without any reasonable cause, but also that he/she hides under presumably two accounts in order to continue with his/her "this is my neighborhood and only I own it" activities. Both these facts already are clearly violating numerous Wiki policies. Anyhow, I hope this can be fixed asap and I can restore my well made, and well sourced additions to the article. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible threat to kill?

Hello everyone

I came across this diff in my watchlist a few minutes ago. I've rev del'd the diff as it basically seemed to be a possible threat to kill someone.

My understanding of policy is that we can't be the judge as to whether or not this is a serious threat so I'm also going to raise this to the emergency team to be on the safe side. However, this is a long term abuse case, details can be found at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Malusia22, this says that all future abuse needs to be raised at AIV/ANI. Raising it here to see if any further action is needed--5 albert square (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I had something similar come up recently here. User Mdann52 helped me with it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. @Mdann52:, like I say the LTA case states that if there is abuse from this editor then something needs to be raised here or AIV. I'm raising it here firstly because of the seriousness of the threat and secondly because I'm wondering if there's any type of further sanctions or action from Wikipedia that then needs to be taken. Can you advise please? --5 albert square (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@5 albert square and Scalhotrod: revdelling and reporting it to LCA is the appropriate action. If there is a history of this sort of thing, then indeffing is a good idea IMO as well. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism in my page

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

---

I have a problem with the user Taichi, has recently been vandalizing my page German Guatemalan placing another false data of cobaners of German ancestry, the exact data its 150,000. I am not of Guatemala, but I have my residence in Guatemala, and it was easier to refer to the German club Guatemala, and was informed that German Guatemalans varies from 300,000 to 500,000 but coban are 150,000 but Taichi arbitrarily placed 50,000, and the worst is that my page was protected from staying with false number without change, I was create this page when I was use the account Halias 23, but i lost my password, and now I use my IP, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.149.125.162 (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

re: "my page", please see WP:OWN — Ched :  ?  03:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

If the IP is Halias 23/ELreydeEspana, he/she is block evading. [116] And see this earlier ANI thread: [117] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Restoring the edits of User:Arthur Rubin/IP list

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

---

I'm concerned about what has been going on, for years and years, involving User:Arthur Rubin/IP list. In short, apparently a very long time ago an IP user in Grand Rapids, Michigan vandalized some article, was blocked, and came back on a new IP address with the same behavior. Ever since, User:Arthur Rubin, User:Vsmith, and perhaps other administrators have been listing the new suspected IPs of whom they presume to be the same editor, reverting them, and blocking their IP addresses because they are from the same geographic locale, or have been editing very roughly similar articles, or exhibiting vaguely similar behaviors such as creating to-do lists. After reviewing User talk:Arthur Rubin/IP list, it seems like the original IP and events are not even available from Arthur when he is asked for them. I suspect that the evidence connecting the editor(s) being reverted today to the original offender would be tenuous at best, if it was even forthcoming.

The worst part is that most if not all of the edits being so meticulously reverted are clearly good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Not only that, but they have been markedly improving both in quality of content and sourcing through the years. Yet they are still utterly discarded with the same uncaring template messages as are reserved for the worst vandals. The admins participating in this endlessly repeating pattern are meticulously following the letter of the WP:BANREVERT policy. I can not imagine any more heartless way to prevent what have clearly amounted to thousands of good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia, or any less caring way to force the community to turn our backs on a persistent volunteer who has reformed and wishes nothing more than to contribute, but is still unwilling to communicate, having learned that the community is severely deficient in empathy.

Do I have the right to restore any number of the reverted edits which I am willing to personally approve and take responsibility for? Would anyone object if I did so? EllenCT (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never seen evidence of "good faith", and there is nothing vague about the similarities. (Per WP:BEANS, I decline to list them in public.) But, at least as far as I'm concerned, you may restore any edit you wish to take credit for, keeping in mind WP:OVERLINK, the actual WP:REDLINK (not at all similar to the one he uses), WP:EGG, WP:SEAOFBLUE, and other guidelines or "best practices". Back in 2012, I used to check all the edits, and found that (1) it took me longer to check the edits than it took the vandal to make them, and (2) most were inappropriate. I often do a cursory check to see if I've reintroduced a questionable statement, but when the batch has over 100, there isn't really time and I risk crashing my computer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• To clarify, an editor is welcome to make an edit. If that edit happens to duplicate what a banned user did, fine. However, making a habit of tracking activity around a banned user and reversing reverts of the banned user would be very unhelpful. WP:DENY is our only defense, and a habit of supporting a banned user would encourage them to re-double their efforts. If two admins think reverting the banned user is worthwhile, they are very likely correct. It is very hard to make sense of long term abusers—I recall one who made hundreds of good edits, some of which were a bit peculiar, but they were generally supportable. After several weeks of being left largely alone they started getting more and more bizarre. One thing they did was to move all the references from each paragraph to the end of the paragraph, and we are talking reasonably scientific topics where a para might be ten sentences with a dozen refs. Articles looked really weird when all the refs were at the end of the para! At that point, a couple of us started challenging the edits, and that's when it turned out that the user was not your average kind of editor. Fortunately, an admin swept past a few days later (coincidentally) and indeffed the user as a sock of an abusive LTA, and reverted the hundreds of edits the user had made to many articles. The watchers were very grateful. Repeating the moral of that story, the user looked 100% good for a month while they made many edits, and it was only later that they started getting slowly but definitely weird and obdurate. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thank you; the reasons that you state are exactly why I raised the questions. Have you looked at this particular series of edits? For example, are you able to identify any hint of bad faith or incompetence in Special:Contributions/99.112.212.84? Do any of those edits with more than a handful of characters added constitute anything that you wouldn't call improvements? I haven't seen anything that I would call peculiar or bizarre, but I admit I have only looked at a tiny fraction, and mostly the recent edits on the list. I am concerned that while the statement "if two admins think reverting the banned user is worthwhile, they are very likely correct" is most always true in general, holding it as an absolute standard is an easy way to fall prey to groupthink. From our studies of systematic biases, I think it would be wise for us to allow that edits should always be open to review, even when any two administrators agree that they are bad. Do you think that might even be wiser when one of the administrators in question has been repeatedly sanctioned for bias? EllenCT (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please review WP:Block evasion as that is the reason the ip edits were reverted. This has been going on since the original blocks by another admin back in 2011/2012 and has been discussed here a number of times. The person behind those ip edits is simply thumbing his nose at Wikipedia policies by jumping ips to make numerous rapid edits. The person has been told the proper procedures for requesting the block be lifted and chooses to ignore that advice. As always, you are perfectly able and allowed to make any of those reverted edits yours. Coming here and implying that "one of the administrators" involved is bad just doesn't wash and that should be retracted. Vsmith (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Vsmith: thank you for your response. I have reviewed the policies involved. As my description above shows, I agree with your characterization of the initial events. But I do not feel like the IP editor is thumbing his nose, and I don't think it can be productive or healthy for the community to make such a characterization. It seems to me that the effort and care involved is representative of taking a persistent and principled stand to draw attention to the callousness with which the community treats editors who put literally thousands of edits of effort in to trying to reform. Have you been able to detect any hint of bad faith, incompetence, or lack of a clear effort to improve the encyclopedia in the IP editor's work over the past year or two? I appreciate and am grateful that you don't object to my attempt to bring his work into the encyclopedia. I hope that such outreach may some day encourage both sides to set their animosity aside and work together productively. As for the implication that you want me to retract, I'm not sure what you want me to write. There is a group of editors who have been stalking my contributions for almost two years now, and of that group, Rubin is the only administrator. If I hadn't decided to study the group's history to perform a statistical analysis of how unlikely our contributions' page overlaps had been given the typical subjects that they edit, then I never would have learned about the IP editor in question, or that Rubin has been repeatedly sanctioned for issues pertaining to bias, which is an incontrovertible fact, is it not? EllenCT (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT: So this isn't really about the ip, rather it is about your dispute/perceived problems with User:Arthur Rubin, that's quite odd. Anyway, if you are interested in the ip, here are a couple links for you to read [118] and [119] to gain further insight into the situation. Vsmith (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by NAEG

A. Ellen, before filing this ANI what resolution-seeking steps did you take?

B. On the substance
B1. I've followed this for 3 years and this IP was seriously in the way of my gameplay. See User:NewsAndEventsGuy/Mich-IP
B2. Where you see better edits I see a wikilawyer making a superficial attempt to get around complaints (by me, among others) of external link spamming.
B3. If you get inspired to study any of the sources posted and then take the time and care to fold them carefully into our articles then bless you, dear Ellen and more power to ya. The IP just sticks in a bit here, or spams the talk page there. But they don't invest sweat to develop any of these ideas. They spam the link and move on, with or without just enough text to make the claim they're trying to improve things.
B4. I notice you take a dig at AR, describing him saying "one of the administrators in question has been repeatedly sanctioned for bias?". Is it possible you resonate with the types of sources the IP tries to add to articles in your watchlist? If you do, then we have that common. It might interest you, or not, that my politics appear to be very opposite Arthurs and I rather identify with the IP's apparent POV. But fact I like the type of external link spam coming from this IP doesn't change its nature from disruption into project improvement, and it doesn't negate block-evasion's "serious breach of community trust" as described in WP:BLOCKEVASION. NPOV means it should not matter what POV is behind the IP's external link spam, and superficial edits. Spam is spam, and block evasion remains a "serious breach of community trust". Speaking of trust, next time please start your resolution efforts with polite inquiries at user talk pages, and very slowly work your way up the dispute resolution ladder. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: A. My purpose for posting here was not to file a complaint, but to ask the questions that I asked above, and which have been answered. I was originally going to ask on WP:AN but the instructions which appear when posting there clearly indicate to post here instead, because the questions pertain to an ongoing incident. B1. Have you been able to detect any hint of bad faith, incompetence, or lack of a clear effort to improve the encyclopedia in the IP editor's work over the past year or two? B2. I can't believe that you want to call a bona fide improvement in editing behavior and contribution quality as "a wikilawyer making a superficial attempt to get around complaints." Doesn't calling someone a wikilawyer imply that they cite rules? Has the IP editor ever done that? B3. What do you mean by "invest sweat"? All of the paraphrases I've seen have not been close paraphrases, and don't we prefer a closer adherence to existing sources than further work which is more likely to breach WP:SYN or WP:OR? B4. Again, if Rubin had not decided to go out of his way to stalk my contributions, then I would never have learned of the IP editor or Rubin's repeated sanctions. EllenCT (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by IP editor

IP Editor 46.22.133.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making legal threats and removing sourced content at Saburō Sakai. [120] "(→‎Back to civilian life: You contine to allow this unsubstansiated slander about Mr. Sakia to be continually published on your website. I have filed a deformation suit with the 9th California District Court against your allowance of this continued slan)" ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone asked the IP what he thinks a "deformation suit" is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Corset and bow tie. NebY (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that various IP's have tried that same revert. The better option might be to ask for WP:RFPP semi-protection for a reasonable length of time. (Unless someone here does it first.) It would also be good to check the text in question and ensure that it's properly sourced. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps he just has a bad tailor :-)

Yes, this has been ongoing for several months, only recently has the issue of legal threats come up. The original sources for the material are in Japanese, and I have had numerous discussions with the editor who provided the material. Personally, I was against its inclusion, but what I want doesn't matter. It seems reasonably sourced, but I don't read or speak Japanese. ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have asked a user, who I think knows Japanese, to come here and evaluate the validity of the sources in question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Just passing through, but it seems like the claims are entirely based on a single source, this book. Seeing as the claims deal with controversial issues such as his reputability, being involved in a pyramid scheme, spreading rumors, etc., might it be better to remove it for now unless other reliable sources that support these claims can be advanced? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing and campaigning, aspersion, POV pushing, editing in edits and editing to shame by User:P-123

• P-123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly P123ct1

Canvassing and campaigning P-123 is quite conscious of the issue of canvassing as indicated by edits of:

• 15:09, 29 September 2014 "then realised it could be seen as canvassing an edit and there are strict rules about this!"
• 22:19, 24 October 2014 "I have amended my comment ... so if there are any spies watching it's hardly a canvassed edit!"

Instances of canvassing and campaigning include:

• 12:07, 2 December 2014 to Felino123 "Your contributions are valuable"
• 12:46, 17 November 2014 Gazkthul reverts P-123's deletion of text at User talk:Gazkthul that read, "What about "diktat"? In history-writing this is a neutral term, but to me for a heading in "Governance" it is a POV, loaded word"
• 13:06, 6 December 2014 to Wheels of steel0 "The editor was banned. "... for his manipulations" is a WP:PA". The editor mentioned is Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I was not pinged I have not been personally asked to account for my earlier edit.
• 11:38, 21 December 2014 to Gazkthul "I hope you can knock some sense into them. Good luck; you will need it." (typo - s/b GraniteSand Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC))
• 09:54, 26 December 2014 repositioning and emboldening talk page announcement with content "I can no longer copy-edit this article as it is moving in a direction I disagree with too much."

Aspersion, POV pushing and editing in edits
Can I also cite P-123's earlier content here, where it was stated: "All this must be very galling for you, given your peaceable stance on things (I have read your userpage). WP can be a bearpit and it has nearly stopped me editing in the past (before you arrived on the ISIS page). Just hang on in there. :):) 08:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)" and here where the view was stated, "You and a couple of other editors have the best manners on the TP, IMO. ... 20:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)".

All the same I receive comments such as this, in this case "I have been very concerned about your conduct on the Talk page with regard to some of the editing in the article for a very long time."

I think that issues on this regard are well covered in the thread Pro-ISIL and anti-ISIL as started by P-123 in which I believe that P-123 is well demonstrated as being the editor with the POV issues.

I think that it is also demonstrated in the thread: RFC: Lists of countries and territories, List of sovereign states, List of active rebel groups and ISIL. P-123 made this edit which I have regarded to break WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:INDCRIT. It was made on an important thread intended to reach a consensus as to whether entries on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant should be barred from being entered into article pages and listings otherwise reserved for countries, nations and states yet, without any substantiation, P-123's content asserted, "Any lawyer can weasel out of it, but these are all hard facts, and they have to be dealt with as such in this article. These facts should not be twisted or denied with sophistries". With intention to save public discord or personal embarrassment I privately broached the subject and then challenged what I considered to be argumentative talk page content on a User talk page thread with final version here. (A reference that I saw but did not file in researching this AN/I relates to a comment by P-123 now in the archive of my talk page to the effect of P-123 stating that s/he would like editors to be more ~direct with him/her). None-the-less, I went too far in subsequent edits of this content to on one occasion say that "you continue to argue dirty" which, after thread deletion and reinstatement, I edited to say, "(add: in my view) you continue to argue dirty (add: unfairly)".

At this point, in contrast to all my efforts to present dealings with P-123, in with private approaches, my mail was hacked in this form so as to, I believe, present maximum personal embarrassment. I retrieved my text to original form with amendments made as here. P-123 has taken the view presented here saying "Have some respect for another editor's Talk page" to which I replied here saying "Have some respect for edits and threads". None-the-less, one of my article talk page texts was edited into here with the intruding text being removed by me here, which was followed by P-123 collapsing the content which I view to have been misrepresented as a "refactoring muddle" (the texts were only moved) here and with further additions to my text being added here which again claimed that the comments were refactored.

Just in the run up to Christmas I have had a number of threads started asserting criticising me in various ways on the talk pages of two separate admins: Lor and PBS. I have repeatedly asked and pleaded P-123 to desist from making unsubstantiated accusations and this can be confirmed by searching through any related content for terms such as "BEGGING" and "ASPERSIONS". Just for the sake of clarifying issues I even initiated a thread for the sake of clarification entitled My admission of wrong. Nothing seems to work. I have no problem with criticism but criticisms need to be substantiated. I really feel at my wits end with this and have no idea what will happen next.

Shaming
I have continually sought to raise issues privately with P-123 as this editor has repeatedly indicated a concern for reputation as indicated here with "I have a reputation to protect" and here with "What does that do for my reputation?"

However, when dealing with another editor P-123, despite having been in situations in which showed other ways of working, chose to headline a user name here on an article talk page which I reedited here.

Please see current Talk:ISIL threads: Ham fisted lead, The group's original aim, any other threads of your choosing and content on my talk page and recent archive for further information. Nothing except for items that P-123 has with drawn or, I think, one thing that I have immediately deleted is missing.

Please can something can be done in the current situations. If nothing else can be agreed I suggest a topic ban in relation to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. From my perspective issues here are wasting too much time.

GregKaye ✍♪ 15:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments (1):
I have put in a lot of time (nearly three weeks) into attempts to stop this dispute escalating (see our Talk page discussions, mainly on the editor's, some is archived now). I can provide evidence of this if needed. (I had prepared an IBAN request but this pre-empts that now). I am concerned about misrepresentation here, which has been one of my main criticisms of this editor in our dealings. Please refer to discussion on the Talk pages of admins PBS and Lor here and here for this. P-123 (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• item 3 - this was intended to encourage an editor. Please read the whole paragraph.
• item 4 - this is my edit, not Gazkthul's. How is this canvassing? I was asking Gazkhtul's opinion.
• item 5 - has to be read in context (my comment was on Gregkaye)
• item 6 - please read in full context here. (wrong editor named, btw) P-123 (talk)
• "Aspersion ...", para 2 - this is disingenuous. Gregkaye has known since at least the beginning of October that I have had concerns about his editing, i.e. what I saw as POV-pushing. I have never made any secret of it, either in our exchanges or on the main Talk page. Until recently this was an amicable disagreement that did not interfere with our good working relationship. Please read the quote in its context in the link given, and note the missing "As you know" at the beginning. There is spin here. (added later)
• "Aspersion ...", para 5 - I have explained before how that "hacking" came about, as Gregkaye knows. I had wanted to annotate that passage for my own records in preparation for the IBAN mentioned above but went about it in the wrong way (for further explanation please see PSB's Talk page here and search "annotated").
• "Aspersions ...", para 6 - I went to Lor and PBS in desperation asking for advice and help on how to deal with this escalating dispute that we could not resolve peaceably. (See the links to their Talk pages above, additionally here and here.) More selection, more spin.
• Shaming, para 2 - I own up to that. It was done in the heat of the moment and I readily agreed to Gregkaye's refactoring of the heading when he pointed out my error.

I am glad Gregkaye brought this to AN/I; I even suggested he do this myself, to clear the air. I am not sure of the best solution. I had thought a longish IBAN on both. (I have tried to self-impose one, but it does not work!) A sanction that would enforce us both to be civil to one other would probably work, but I haven't seen anything like this in WP. I am not against a topic ban, as I have already said on my Talk page that I no longer wish to copy-edit or edit the ISIS page. P-123 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments (2):
I formally request the imposition of an interaction ban on Gregkaye and myself for as long a period as possible. P-123 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

End of P-123's Comments section

• P-123 Please qualify how any of your efforts have made any contribution "to stop this dispute escalating". The fact is that I have spent inordinate amounts of time with you on a variety of topics but which have included what I consider to have been attempts to diplomatically get past what I consider to be your wrong preconceptions of POV, to present other views and to present issues related to the application of other points in guidelines. I have often got responses that I view as IDNHT. For me personally the issues became very difficult on the issue of aspersion. You say of course it won't happen and then it just happens again and again and again. In the past, as you know, I have gone way out of my way to protect you but your last three week onslaught has broken me. I am no longer willing to collude with and otherwise tolerate your departures from otherwise standard Wikipedia behaviours.

At this point I will give you the same advice that you are familiar that I give to other alleged guideline departing editors. Choose. Either decide to try to prove why all the various accusations don't apply or admit to relevant wrongdoings and give assurances as to why they will not apply in the future. I honestly think that the issues mentioned are clear and that you will not be helped by taking the first route. Everyone has to follow the same set of guidelines. All the guidelines There are no exceptions. GregKaye ✍♪ 21:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Grekaye: It is a shame that I have only just deleted my reference here to WP:ASPERSIONS. This has been one of my main objections to Gregkaye's dealings with this dispute on our Talk pages, on the Talk pages of PBS and Lor (I have already provided links to their Talk pages which spell this out clearly), and lately even on the main ISIS Talk page. I have been particularly upset about this. I will let whoever adjudicates this make their own judgment from what they see there. I would add that this has happened only recently, since the dispute escalated.
  

Secondly, I have told Gregkaye repeatedly how this dispute has driven me to distraction and how I will not be pushed any more by the relentless questioning. One of the most trying aspects of attempting to settle this dispute has been Gregkaye's interminable requests for citations to back up every word I say. I have said to him repeatedly: that all the answers he seeks are in our Talk page discussions, that I have repeated them often, that he only has to read them again, that I am always straightforward (Gregkaye used to say he liked my directness) so he cannot miss them. It is unreasonable to expect someone to trawl through those endless discussions and extract the answers he seeks to place them before him when he can read them for himself. Even when I have attempted to answer them, the answers are unsatisfactory (see latest threads on his Talk page) so nothing is gained.

Thirdly, it is my opinion that Gregkaye is too sensitive to editorial criticism and too ready to criticise those who depart from WP guidelines and policy and give out advice to them. I will not comment on his customary hectoring tone as here other than to remark on it. There is a lot of rough and tumble in ISIS editing and editors need to be robust enough to take the knocks. Other editors do not have a problem with this. P-123 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 You can't just make accusation without providing reference as this in many cases eliminates or at least reduces opportunity for resolution. I have regularly asked for justification for your on going accusation and get none. In the recent thread you cite misrepresentation at User talk:Lor#Some information while citing nothing specific. This leaves me to do all the work to attempt any resolution. I'm sick of it. Please understand.

Your second point has no relation to current issues and yet can be easily addressed. The majority of our communication has been conducted at your initiation on my talk page. The archives are open. I have previously cited that there should be ~"no censorship" but now view that topics of discussion should conform to the clear guidelines presented at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages. What answers have you repeated? What you have often done is repeat accusation without reference or citation. What I perceive to be the spin in your edits to my talk page I find to be "unsatisfactory" as referenced to your edit here and my reply here. I still do not agree with your uncited and, I think, unjustified and continuing assertions. Again ask, plead, beg, for to end your use of uncited accusations that hamper any chance or reply or resolution.

You suggest "Gregkaye is too sensitive to editorial criticism" and pots and kettles immediately come to mind. I am totally fine with criticism if it is based on the fair application of the WP:guidelines that are meant to apply to all. This I believe is well demonstrated in this talk page comment. This followed a general criticism made elsewhere regarding edits that were made out of sequence and I took the unrequired move to make the noted public confession of this infringement activity which I have endeavoured not to repeat. I think that all editors should (ideally) be equally open to guidance as to how to better meet Wikipedia's standards. GregKaye ✍♪ 10:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I have already outlined above and below my reasons for not acceding to your innumerable requests for explanation. I am never sensitive to genuine editorial criticism. No good editor would be. I am sensitive to ad hominem criticism, though. P-123 (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I have also replied to your comment below, "Make your charges properly, or not at all". Please follow your own standards in this. You mention above ad hominem criticism. If you believe this then you are perfectly entitled to start your own AN/I. You have gone privately to one admin and one, presumably, suspected admin so as to start multiple threads regarding supposed issues and, as far as I have seen, you have cited nothing. I have cited the one bit of criticism above that, I think may have been most relevant to this argument. Again your lack of reference leaves me with all the work to do. GregKaye ✍♪ 15:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

In my "Comments" above I gave links to their pages which show I was seeking help on how to resolve this dispute, as I said. They had already been involved and knew the situation. There was another request to PBS for help on "Refactoring" with full citations. What is privately? I went to their Talk pages. I have no wish to pursue any sanction after this AN/I and have already let Gregkaye know this. P-123 (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You say, "What I perceive to be the spin in your edits to my talk page I find to be "unsatisfactory" as referenced to your edit here and my reply here." How can an opinion be "spin"? You have called one of my editing views "spin" as well. That does not make sense. You seem determined to take nothing I say at face value. I have found this very trying. P-123 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment:
I've been disappointed to see P-123, an editor I used to really respect, become argumentative and combative, seemingly for the sake of picking arguments, because when pushed there is no substance or objective to the point. P-123 fails to grasp NPOV focussing only on the neutral part to the exclusion of the balanced part. The encouragement of disruptive editors on article talk and personal talk to continue disruptive behavior is quite annoying. It appears to me they have been hounding Gregeye across various pages including my talk page [[121]] and [[122]] I've tried to stay out of this fight, but now that we are here, decided to comment. Seems to me P-123 could benefit from stepping back for a bit to get some useful perspective. Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Legacypac is on the same side of the divide, as it were, over WP:NPOV as Gregkaye; they interpret it one way, I interpret it another. For my sin of raising this very important issue and pursuing it relentlessly, I am considered a nuisance and troublemaker by them. No other editor has engaged in this debate on the Talk page recently, although the editor in item 6 has similar views to my own as can be seen in that link. There are a few others, but it would wrong to name them here. Legacypac's "encouragement of disruptive editors on article talk and personal talk to continue disruptive behaviour" is a judgment for the AN/I arbitrator to make on the evidence presented, of course, but "they have been hounding" is inaccurate; that was strictly between Gregkaye and myself. I warn now that any misrepresentation of facts in this AN/I will continue to be exposed. P-123 (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 The other serious issues mentioned include: Canvassing and campaigning, aspersion, editing in edits and editing to shame. There should be no divide. Wikipedia has clear guidelines and indictions as to whether they are being followed are demonstrated in the quotes above as well as at Talk:ISIL#Pro-ISIL and anti-ISIL. GregKaye ✍♪ 21:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Digression

Digression collapsed and some content deleted struck out as unnecessarily combative. P-123 (talk) I was away from discussion but agree with P-123's collapse was an appropriate move. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Gregkaye I would leave it to whoever adjudicates this to act as judge and policeman in this matter. I know you like these roles, but it is not appropriate for you to undertake them at AN/I. P-123 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC) P-123 What exactly are you saying this time? As you have more often taken the punitive, legislative, "nipping in the bud" approach to editors I find your suggestion of roles to be particularly insulting. How have I overstepped my role in the AN/I? Any editor can reply to any other editor so as to highlight perceived issues such as WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:INDCRIT or any other guideline based issue. As I have repeatedly stated, in many cases I have even tried to avoid direct article talk page confrontation by raising issues privately. As you know my first attempt has always been to try to approach an editor personally with attempts to reason a matter through. GregKaye ✍♪ 11:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC) GregKaye: No, you are not having that. I took one editor to SPI for fairly obvious sock-puppeting, which action you agreed with and supported. I have never taken action against another editor. I do not take editors to task for infringing WP policy and guidance either (although I have supported you and Legacpac when you have taken editors to noticeboards). I do not feel it is my place to do that. P-123 (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC) I had forgotten about the RfC/U that I and another editor took out on one editor, although technically the first editor took it out and I joined in. P-123 (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC) P-123 And this was the same editor that you got me to take to AN/I despite my reluctance to do so. How many times have you (add: have) privately canvassed editors towards the taking of action with other editors, otherwise advocated such action or highlighted infringement publicly for instance on article talk pages oder (add: and there is evidence suggestive that you have) arranged such action on the phone e-mail?. GregKaye ✍♪ 12:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC) GregKaye That is scurrilous and dangerous talk. It is defamation of an editor's character by insinuation. Again. Make your charges properly, or not at all. P-123 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC) P-123 All I was trying in indicate in response to your policeman and judge comment is that, from my perception of things, you have a more "the punitive, legislative, "nipping in the bud" approach" than I. I did not think that this content was relevant to the AN/I as presented. I can search through and find the references if you wish. I would ask that you please hold to the sentiment, "Make your charges properly, or not at all". It is very representative of a point of contention that I have also various made on a great many occasions. GregKaye ✍♪ 14:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC) We both know what you meant by email contact and that you know the full story there. That was a deliberate smear tactic. P-123 (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC) [above comments added out of chronological sequence]

Correct - relentless pursuit of an issue to the point of being a nuisance and troublemaker. It's very wrong to try to make an article about a terrorist organization - one that even al-Qaida rejects as too extreme - neutral. We need to have balance to all claims they make given the worldwide rejection of their claims and actions. To be clear, since I've been misinterpreted, I mean above that P-123 has been hounding Gregkaye, in my observation, for weeks. The editor in Item 6 that P-123 is encouraging to "knock some sense into them" was 3 month ISIL topic banned for being disruptive (recently lifted), which proves the point about "encouraging disruptive editors". And why has P-123 pushed my first comment out of order? Makes things hard to follow and confusing. Legacypac (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: Technical problem. I intended my "Comments" section to end where in fact it says 21:05. I had been accumulating them, broke off to respond to your comment, returned to adding to them and added signature at the end of it, at 21.05. Then I went on to answer Gregkaye's responses. I did not mean to push your comment to one side. My apologies. P-123 (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: To repeat, I view the WP:NPOV issue as crucial to the editing of this article. You do not, hence your view that pursuit of it was disruptive. You disagree with an editor over what NPOV is in this article, hence you regard them as a nuisance and a troublemaker. That type of attitude to editors who disagree with you both suggests something I do not intend to broach here. I did not agree with the editor in item 6 on his stance on an editing point that led to his ban, btw, though I did think the ban was too harsh; I told him so in a very brief exchange about that subsequently. I had no idea what his views were about NPOV or anything else (they were not voiced on the Talk page) until I saw his response to my comment, as you will see if you read those exchanges carefully. So the canvassing charge there does not hold water. On the "hounding" point I misinterpreted "they", which I now see you meant in the Wikipedian sense of "s/he", sorry. The hounding was mutual, btw, but I would not expect you to be objective about this given all I said ealier, though to be fair, it would be unreasonable to expect you to know this, as you probably have not followed the labyrinthine twists and turns of this dispute. (I defy any sane person to attempt it, unless really necessary, as there are screeds and screeds of it on our Talk pages.) P-123 (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I DO view NPOV as important which is why I oppose all efforts to present highly disputed fictional positions taken by terrorists as factual in WP. My view of NPOV on this topic is pretty mainstream as seen here and here as a couple examples of efforts to keep WP NPOV. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac I am very sorry, I misrepresented you there. I have struck out the comment. But who is right and wrong on this is not the issue at hand in this AN/I. The charge is of POV-pushing, which I hope I have answered. P-123 (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Lor is not an admin

Sorry, I just want to point out that User:Lor is not an admin, although he definitely looks like one. Asking Lor for help isn't going to solve anything. 172.56.16.152 (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Pinging admin @PBS:. 172.56.16.152 (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

172.56.16.152 Thanks. Both have already been pinged, out of courtesy only, as the admin and editor involved in looking at the dispute before AN/I. P-123 (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hold on, admin PBS hasn't been active a few days. Ping admin Bishonen instead. 172.56.16.152 (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I had the impression PBS was away. It is not like him not to respond to posts, and he hasn't been doing for some days now. Not sure Bishonen can help, as s/he has not been involved in this at all. No other admin has. Unless you are suggesting Bishonen should adjudicate this; as a comparative newbie I don't know how these things work. P-123 (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen or Dougweller should be able to help. 172.56.16.152 (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

172.56.16.152 May I ask who you are? You seem quite knowledgeable for an IP. P-123 (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by GraniteSand

I'll comment on the section in which comments directed at me on my talk page are characterzed as "canvassing". A cursory look by a reasonable outside person show that the comments provided are not canvassing. As a matter of fact, the body of "evidence" in that section in general is rather fevered. The blood between Gregkaye and P-123 has really gone bad over the past few weeks, with no small part being played by Legacypac, seen above, as well. The entire root of this conflict is the incredibly pugnacious climate over at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Both this dispute and the article need outside intervention, preferably not by PBS, as he is both ill-equipped and, by this point, involved. GraniteSand (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. The article is in serious trouble. P-123 (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to steer clear of conflict between these two, even told them to calm down at one point. I've commented here because it got really out of hand and landed here. My advice (as I said above) is that P-123 take a break from the topic because it is evidently getting the best of the editor (based on the editor's various comments). Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

1. GraniteSand Please see WP:OWNTALK, "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." The concept is that, if you see an issue with regard to a user's edits, you go directly to that user so as to raise issues directly. P-123's comments went well beyond these bounds and into canvassing.
2. Please strike your comment, "with no small part being played by Legacypac" or justify. Again see WP:ASPERSIONS. As far as I can remember the only time that Legacypac has made comment on our interaction was in the context of my previous attempt to clear up understandings with P-123 in my thread User talk:GregKaye/Archive 3#My admission of wrong. In that thread Legacypac added comment which I moved to subsection: Respectful interjection, and the comment read: "Respectfully in my opinion both of you have been taking a perfectionist "challenge everything" and eliminate anything that could be read as POV by anyone. Remember this is WP and anyone can edit." I know of no other interjection placed by Legacypac and give you opportunity to elucidate.
3. I agree that the blood has gone bad even to the point of actions being initiated against me here first thing on Christmas Day. This was all in response to P-123's newly acquired habit of editing my edits. We used to have a good relationship as perhaps evidenced by the 379 reverences to P123ct1 in my User talk:GregKaye/Archive 2 alone. In all this time I had tolerated what I have increasingly come to recognise as policy infringement and at this point I saw no reason not to take up the suggestion of initiate the AN/I. There is nothing fevered in the AN/I although the anger on both sides is there. The "entire root of this" AN/I is P-123's manner of behaviour in relation to his/her editing of this and related articles. You cite "the incredibly pugnacious climate over at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". I will in turn cite P-123's recent comment here stating, amongst other things, that "You and a couple of other editors have the best manners on the TP, IMO". The whole point of coming to AN/I is to get "outside intervention" which I think has been long overdue. I have no objection to the involvement of another admin but I am very far from an opinion that PBS may have taken any side. Your slurs against this administrator of being "ill-equipped" and "involved" should be substantiated. I suspect that your intervention here is only as a result of the selective canvassing by an editor that, I think, habitually refuses to get the point. If uninvolved people are meant to make contribution, why are you here? GregKaye ✍♪ 08:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In response to Legacypac's comment, I would say it is getting the better of Gregkaye, based on the editor's latest comments on his Talk page. I believe all this has happened because for the very first time I have taken an uncharacteristcally strong line on editing in this article on the main Talk page. These two editors have never been seriously challenged. An editor who did challenge the status quo in the article I believe was driven from the page for his outspoken views. I do not think is right that I should name this editor. I have not met any serious opposition from editors apart from these two. I have always managed to work in harmony with other editors, with no exception, even when our views have been different.. I have even managed to persuade editors to come to consensus after long debate that was getting nowhere, on at least three occasions, and have never been criticised for that. P-123 (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

GregKaye: You say, "The "entire root of this" AN/I is P-123's manner of behaviour in relation to his/her editing of this and related articles." Which related articles? This is a very good example of the type of slurs on my editing that Gregkaye has been making recently, in five different venues. In my view, this is defamatory, and if it were not for this AN/I I would probably do something about it. This kind of talk would not be permitted in real life. P-123 (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I need to amend what I said in my last comment. I said that the two editors had never been seriously challenged. In fact, Gregkaye was challenged over an editing matter at AN/I in October, but the result of the AN/I was inconclusive and he received no sanction. I said that I had managed to work well with all editors. There was an exception in August when there was trouble between myself and another editor who no longer edits in ISIS along with many others. At that time I was less vociferous and forceful than now. I do not think it right to name the editor, but can provide details to whoever arbitrates this AN/I if needed. P-123 (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:DefconBot is down

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

---

Can someone fix this? I don't know python and the userpage told me to go here and A930913 Hasn't been online in 2 weeks. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 16:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've manually updated it for now. --Biblioworm 16:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Biblioworm! TF ^{{ Contribs }} 17:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Sumit naithani SD

Howdy, Sumit naithani SD appears to need some administrative guidance. Though prolific, they seem not to regard Wikipedia's copyright concerns, as they keep uploading images without providing proper attribution of the source, or copyright clearance. (Please note the litany of notices on the user's talk page.) The majority of articles created by the user seem to be unsourced (Sonik Omi, Woh Main Nahin, Ab Hoga Dharna Unlimited, M3 - Midsummer Midnight Mumbai, Main Aur Charles, Meeruthiya Gangsters, Harmesh Malhotra, Teen Chehre, Aapas Ki Baat, Sherni, to name a few), which is additionally problematic, because it is very difficult to establish notability if there are no sources, and because lack of sources runs afoul of WP:V. Looks to me that they're just flinging content at the wall to see what sticks, instead of making thoughtful edits with the community in mind. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Although the articles aren't sourced, they are also poorly written. I don't think they're "flinging content". I think they're just another in a long line of problematic Indian users who want to add content about Indian people and their films and who do so without regard for our policies or guidelines. As if we don't already have enough of them. By the way, you neglected to notify the user of this discussion; I've done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist with the ANI notification. Rookie mistake. :( Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It is really easy to establish no notability if there are no sources. There is none. Legacypac (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Repeat vandalism on Marissa Mayer

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

---

[123]

There has been constant vandalism and require an admin to protect the page pleaseAdlhgeo1990 (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Responsible users:

1. U:2601:B:9E00:E950:3039:5F9A:637F:F63F
2. U:76.111.172.54 (blocked already) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlhgeo1990 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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

I have been reported for vandalism

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

---

By Returnnew here: User talk:Jtmorgan#JohnBlackburne is a vandal (Concord Production Inc.). Probably the wrong venue so I thought I'd better bring it to the attention of admins at a more appropriate venue. This is perhaps related to the SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Charliewolf79 but of course I'm not trying to jump the queue and get that seen to early.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Igor the facetious xmas bunny - NOT HERE

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

---

Tagging my new article (seemly randomly picked) for speedy deletion apparently to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point - as seen in this thread on Jimbo Wales user talk. [124] New acct, created to disrupt by self admission and self name, now disrupting as promised, WP:NOTHERE. Please eject the "threatening and inappropriate" Xmas bunny from the zoo. Legacypac (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It certainly seems that way. The bunny complains at length on Jimbo's page about inappropriate rejections, and then tags an article that cites The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph for deletion. And then hats my question regarding this contradictory behaviour as "Unrelated discussion". [125]. And then restores the inappropriate hatting after I removed it. [126]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"NOT HERE"? I'm here. How does that make sense?

The tagging was entirely unrelated to the discussion on Jimbo's talk; I saw it on newpages.

Can't see any admin action needed here. Let me know if you need any more info. Happy holidays, Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That's WP:NOTHERE - not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia. As in tagging an article on a man who died in 1844 for deletion as an unreferenced biography of a living person. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor, I see that you linked Draft:Igor Janev from your user page. Am I to take it you wrote this? If so it seems you are here to contribute and that your comments on Jimbo's page are the sincere result of your experience trying to contribute as a new user. That being said you are acting a bit pushy, putting archives on other peoples comments for one thing. You don't seem to be using the CSD templates right. I think you need to slow down and perhaps start by editing an existing article instead of trying to create or delete one.

Please look through the links I welcomed you with on your talk page. Specifically the 5 pillars. There is a bit of a learning curve here when it comes to what is for keeping and what is for deleting. - Given this post on my talk page it has become clear this is not a new user. Chillum 03:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This guy knows his way around better then me, but just joined? [[127] should be deleted by an admin, along with the acct of the editor posted on ??? Just listed another article for deletion inappropriately [128] Time for Rabbit Stew tonight. Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

So I should be banned because I know my way around? My God.

Re [129] - If you can see the deleted contribs, I think my response is reasonable and considered. No?

Re Horace H. Hayden - I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for refs on this version of the page. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record the deleted contributions of AtrollSoYano consist entirely of racist nonsense. The posting was still not appropriate, we try not to feed the trolls. With that in mind I am going to step away and let others deal with this. Chillum 03:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Tagging an article on someone who's been dead since 1844 as an unreferenced biography of a living person is entirely unreasonable. And you only needed to click on the external link below to see that a reference was available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello AndyTheGrump. Welcome to ANI.

What admin action are you requesting?

If nothing, please close this section. Thanks. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

How about an indefinite block for trolling? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, anyone wanna block Mr. Grumpy?

I am just trying to discuss the entire process for new articles on Jim's talk.

Andy tried to side-track that with a specific discussion, so I hatted it. He reverted, and yada yada, here we are at ANI. The usual pointless crap.

I've no interest in the specifics; I just wanted to open discussion (on Jim's talk) about the way new users making new articles are treated differently in 'drafts' compared to making live articles.

Is all.

The rest is the usual argumets-for-the-sake-of-arguments, which I tried to head off by hatting that bit.

Is all

Happy xmas, Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Here the bunny admits he is "very familiar with wikipedia policy" and has edited under another account. Clearly WP:NOTHERE so I'm asking for an Indef Ban. Legacypac (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Wikipedia does not issue 'indef ban' because someone knows how to edit wikipedia.

If they did, it'd be a bit silly, really. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This thread evinces a lot of quacking. I don't know if a CU can be initiated without knowing who is cowering behind this account but I'd like to see admins fix the problem without using the bureaucratic tape. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor, I'm quite sure you know all about Wikipedia banning/blocking policy. Would you care to tell us the name of the account you were last blocked/banned under? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef block - I've seen enough to convince me. Jusdafax 04:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 04:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion Block was appealed and denied. Thanks everyone this thread is done :) Legacypac (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• This user has requested another unblock request. Chillum 05:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Back to the original point - the editor is only here to disrupt Wikipedia. It's right in their username. Nearly everything they have done under this account has been reversed by a wide range of editors. Legacypac (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not much of a regular editor anymore, so I doubt my comments hold much water to the regulars here, but this whole situation seemed a little unfortunate to me. I think "troll" is probably an overstatement. It was clear from the comments the user made that they intended to have an engaged conversation. At worst, they drew up a perennial subject, but that isn't counterproductive. Good content; bad form all around. Best, Blurpeace 05:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've unblocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

per User:Igor the facetious xmas bunny leading to User_talk:Becky_Sayles#Draft:Igor_Janev, it seems that the bunny was previously editing under 183.86.209.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) if that helps anyone link to a previous account. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

Couldn't respond before, of course, due to a block.

I spoke to Ms Warfare offline and confirmed I'm not a sock.

That's about all there is to say; my edits are not disruptive, it was a bad block.

I just would like to discuss the issue of drafts on Jim's talk (hence [130]) and... that's about it.

Anything else - or indeed anything at all - please let's discuss it on my talk page. No need for a banhammer. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Blanked talk page to hide all this with an open ANi. I restored talk page. So offline contact with GorillaWarfare confirms an acct created today is NOT a sock? How does that work? Every editor & admin who is not on bunny's speed dial judged a indef block appropriate. Guess we will just have to see if the bad behavior stops now. Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose time will tell if this unblock was wise or not. I know where my money is. Chillum 06:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy to have the unblock reviewed, of course, but this seems to be a poorly-thought-out block ignoring any history. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Having been unblocked, the bunny has immediately returned to the Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently article, and is removing sourced content. It seems self-evident that this contributor is only here to cause disruption. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I just hope you keep an eye on this user because now any other admin blocking will have to take great care to avoid the appearance of wheel warring. Chillum 06:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe, while not actually stated explicitly, that the real reason for the block was/is WP:POINT because he created an acct with the sole purpose of arguing policy on Jimbo's page then went off and did exactly what he does not like to make the WP:POINT. See examples which exactly match the behavior. "Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban." I'm surprised I need to explain this with an admin of GorillaWarfare's stature, but hey I don't have her phone number to plead my case. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @AndyTheGrump: This edit is indeed removing POV content. This edit appears to remove content based on an interview with a member of the group. I don't see either of those edits as block-worthy, though if you want to delve deeper into the propriety of the content and sources on the talk page, please do.

@Chillum: Will do.

@Legacypac: Any editor, including you, is completely able to contact me via email or IRC (both posted on my userpage) as Igor did. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've edited before. That's not a crime. People here shout 'sock!' about anyone who demonstrates a knowledge of wikipedia. Sock is all about disruptive editing.

If you disagree with my content edits, you (presumably) know where to discuss it. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You could gain some good faith if you revealed your previous account ID's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, and people could demonstrate AGF by not demanding them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

When someone says they previously edited under some unnamed prevous ID, experience indicates that it's almost certainly a block-evading sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

We are discussing it here. Would you like to explain why you selected an article at random for inappropriate tagging, and have returned to this same randomly-selected article as soon as you were unblocked? How does this article relate to your complaints about the way new articles are rejected, and why, if the process is as arbitrary as you make out, should your own arbitrary slapping of a tag on a 11-minute-old sourced article not be seen as a prime example of such arbitrary behaviour? What was the purpose of this improper tagging? And what was the purpose of the other inappropriate edits you made? What are you trying to prove? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I shall try to answer;

Would you like to explain why you selected an article at random for inappropriate tagging

I didn't select it at random; I used Special:newpages. If my tagging was incorrect, I'm sorry - perhaps we can discuss it in the usual manner, instead of on ANI?

and have returned to this same randomly-selected article as soon as you were unblocked?

I looked at my 'contributions', to see what had happened to them.

How does this article relate to your complaints about the way new articles are rejected,

It doesn't. That's why I tried to 'hat' the off-topic discussion of it.

and why, if the process is as arbitrary as you make out, should your own arbitrary slapping of a tag on a 11-minute-old sourced article not be seen as a prime example of such arbitrary behaviour?

Some (most?) new articles in Special:Newpages are utter crap, and need to be speedy-deleted. For example, I tagged William swinson.

What was the purpose of this improper tagging?

Sorry, not sure which you mean. Let's discuss it.

And what was the purpose of the other inappropriate edits you made? What are you trying to prove?

Diffs please? Thanks.

I hope that helps answer your questions, Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

aside:why the fuck is this on ANI? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

IT is on ANI because we are discussing your behaviour. And you have still given no explanation for why you tagged this specific 11-minute-old sourced article (citing amongst other things, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph) for speedy deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Explanation; I saw it on special:newpages, I thought it was a BLP because "Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently (RSS) is a citizen journalist" - sounds like it's about a person - and it makes (made) rather strong claims - at least, it did when I tagged it [131] - "RSS provide unique insights. The work is dangerous, with ISIL militants searching for, and in at least one case killing, RSS members" Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

So you hadn't bothered to read it properly, and tagged it for speedy deletion as "an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" because it made "rather strong claims"? Is that even supposed to make sense? It made claims certainly - and cited the sources for them. Sources which you clearly hadn't even looked at if you thought the article was 'a BLP'. It seems self-evident that you tagged the article with only the most cursory glance. And accordingly, we still need an explanation - why were you in such a hurry to tag an article for deletion if you were genuinely concerned about the way new articles are handled? And why did you also tag an article about a man who died in 1844 for deletion as an unreferenced BLP? What was the purpose of these rushed edits? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking; do you dispute that it was a BLP? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Which article, the one about a group of 'citizen journalists' or the one about the man who died in 1844? Actually, don't bother to answer that - just explain why you were in such a hurry that you tagged articles without reading them properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

BLP stands for "Biography of a LIVING person" and the subject has been dead for 170 years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Um, see above? "Explanation; I saw it on special:newpages, I thought it was a BLP because "Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently (RSS) is a citizen journalist" - sounds like it's about a person - and it makes (made) rather strong claims - at least, it did when I tagged it [167] - "RSS provide unique insights. The work is dangerous, with ISIL militants searching for, and in at least one case killing, RSS members" Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)" Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

17 people are literally risking their lives, their families lives, and in at least one case dying to get the world information about horrible crimes in Syria and you pick a new article about them to not even read properly or check sources on to disrupt Wikipedia over to protest that someone will not approve an article that could well be about yourself? Then you try to make this into a persecution off you? Do you have no shame? Legacypac (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

'How does "sounds like it's about a person" make tagging it as "not credibly indicat[ing] the importance or significance of the subject" legitimate? That simply isn't an explanation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Simple enough; I saw a new article about a living person making unreferenced and extreme claims. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggest a 30 day block with the warning that any further trouble and the bunny isn't going to make it to Easter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

A block for who? Me? For what reason? How will such an action help Wikipedia? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support reblock - A clear case of WP:IDHT and a bad unblock, as I see it. Jusdafax 08:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Diffs please?

If you are claiming I'm not here to build an encyclopedia, please take a step back and give me a chance. The reason most of my posts are to ANI and such are because I'm answering any questions; if you'll let me live, I can get on with editing articles. This is just the peanut gallery. I wanna go edit articles, how about you? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

He's been busy - tagged Kristina Webb for speedy deletion, but my quick Google search shows Google and a whole bunch news outlets say this young artist is super talented and world famous, just like the article he tagged said. What a way to treat a new wikipedian. Lucky he tagged my new article first as I have some clue how to deal with disruptive editors. Legacypac (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor has been griefing Neutralhomer and edit warring at User talk:Jimbo Wales [132] and been reported in a separate incident at WP:AN/EW. I agree that the unblock was unwise. It's causing a lot of people needless grief. The problem with Igor is widespread disruption, not socking. Focus on that issue. Jehochman ^Talk 08:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we've been concentrating on the disruption from the start. As has Igor. And he's been pretty successful at it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Igor isn't a sock of someone else. When I told him to read WP:DENY before using it, he wrote on my talk page that he "wrote a fair part of it". Not sure who that might have been, but maybe it helps. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone want to explain this post on my talk page? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Now two discussions regarding Igor's edit-warring (Link 1, Link 2) at WP:AN/3RR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And now he filed a malformed edit warring complaint of his own. And why in the world is this editor blanking long sections of an article about a Thai scientist Does he seriously think someone made up the guy's work history? Legacypac (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Promising to AfD my article again. Legacypac (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And, both of those (invalid) 3RR complaints were made by...you two!

The 'malformed' one is just as valid as yours.

Why did I 'blank long sections'? Because the BLP has been unref'd since 2009, so I put the info on the talk page to open discussions about it. That's where you can discuss it, Talk:Shaiwatna Kupratakul#Unreferenced info. Adding it back isn't good, per WP:BURDEN, as I said in my rv.

Fortunately, admins read stuff and have good sense; I suggest you put on some headwear, and look out for boomerangs. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The users above are now harassing me.

I chose a totally unrelated article to work on; from a cleanup category; and Legacypac is reverting me there, too - when I moved unreferenced info onto the talk page (and explained in the edit summary). He/she called it 'vandalism'. [133] [134].

I don't want to edit-war, but if I move to edit anything else, I expect they'll just follow me. Meh. 88.104.24.116 (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Which was me, not logged in - Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please can someone tell this "Bunny" to take Whatever this is away from my Talk Page? Thanks, TF ^{{ Contribs }} 11:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please can you undo your undo which put unreferenced information into the BLP [135] and - if you want - discuss it on the talk page Talk:Shaiwatna Kupratakul. Thank you. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't ask, 'Cause I won't do it. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 11:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And Now He is insulting everyone else on User Talk:Jimbo Wales. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 11:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Titus, he called us "ammeters", which is a "measuring instrument used to measure the electric current in a circuit". Not the greatest insult in my book. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you positive? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• rimshot* Ha. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy Break

Found a sock: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATitusfox&diff=639932019&oldid=639929916 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.104.24.116 clear as a England based IP can be. and started a SOCK investigation request. Legacypac (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

A clearer diff showing the socking of Igor and 88.104.24.116 can be found here. 88.104.24.116 posted a message on GorillaWarfare's talk page. A moment later Igor changes the signature to his username.

IP GeoLocator (located at the bottom of each IP talk page) shows 88.104.24.116 is located in Manchester, England.

This edit in particular is particularly concerning. It shows Igor trying to game the system by acting like another user who is being supposedly wronged by Legacypac and I (or others).

Clearly from this ANI thread, the two AN/3RR reports, the user's behavior and now clear socking and gaming of the system, it shows Igor is clearly not here for constructive editing. I recommend (as have others) that Igor be indef-blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Good God, it's a witch-hunt!

Yes, I'm in Manchester. Is that a crime? maybe it should be

Yes, that's my IP addy. Congratulations, Sherlock.

"Found a sock"? Because I edited with an IP? Sheesh.

I've done nothing wrong. I've confirmed my prior history with GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs), in confidence. She's an arb, so I hope that's good enough.

No socking, no gaming. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That was alot of hot air for nothing. Explain why you used an IP in this edit to pretend to be another editor. You didn't correct your username as you did in this edit. Getting signed out sometimes happens, I don't call people out for that, shit happens. What I will call people out for is gaming the system, which you attempted to do in in this edit. Now, please explain why. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I had to reboot my PC and forgot to log in. Simple as that. I didn't even notice; if I'd noticed, I'd have logged in and changed the sig. Is all. I can't see why that is 'gaming the system' - what was the gain in that edit? It was utterly obvious who I was. Why would I be being sneaky when writing in this thread about me that "The users above are now harassing me"? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Why would you do such a thing? Lemme see, adding another "person" who is being wrong might help your case that you haven't done anything and Legacypac and I (along with others) are just being mean to you. It's happened before...many times before...so it isn't unusual. If you have been here before (which is socking in my eyes), then you should know this, so don't act surprised. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your concept of 'socking' is not in line with policy. There is no "mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction". None of it. Just someone who hasn't edited for years making an account, so they can (in some days) move a page. You're looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist. I've "confessed" to an admin/CU/OS/Arb, what more do you want? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ease up. That's not such a big deal. If Igor wants to edit constructively we should support him. The tone of his recent posts isn't so bad. Let's let him have another chance. Igor, please work harder to avoid edit wars or other actions that rile other editors. Your friend the arb isn't enough to prevent you being blocked of there's more of that. Let's close the thread and move on. Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Shaiwatna Kupratakul

• Shaiwatna Kupratakul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have an impasse;

I found this BLP article in a cleanup category. It had been tagged since 2009; so I removed some apparently unreferenced info and put it on the talk page, and explained in the edit summary - [136]

Legacypac reverted me, incorrectly calling it vandalism [137], I undid that, saying Not 'vandalism' at all. Please see WP:BURDEN. Don't add it back without refs, thansk (sic) [138].

Legacypac reverted it [139].

I undid for a second time, saying Please do not add unreferenced info to this BLP. Please discuss it on the talk page. WP:V WP:BURDEN [140]

Titusfox (talk · contribs) reverted that [141] - thus adding back the unref'd info to the BLP.

I politely asked Titusfox to undo [142], twice [143], three times [144].

But Titusfox has not undone their edit, and has said "Don't ask, 'Cause I won't do it.". [145].

That means Titusfox has added unref'd info to the BLP, refuses to undo it, and has made it pretty clear they won't discuss. What do I do about that? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a contest ~by bunny against himself, how far can he go before he gets banned again. Legacypac (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor, walk away from conflict and do less contentious editing to build up a new track record for yourself. Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

So True. And Legacypac, WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 13:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And Also, IDK what happened and don't want to so that's why I Won't Revert. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 13:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Convenience break

Note for future reference: {{gender|GorillaWarfare}} -> she NE Ent 16:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Linking my comments from my talk page for those of you following along at home. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support reblock - Since GW's not taking any further action aside from saying they have no objection to the unblock being reversed, we are back where we started. Jusdafax 22:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, back. Apologies for the delay—sometimes real-life gets in the way. To be clear, my unblock here was in my admin capacity—I'll state if I'm doing something on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Anyhow: this user has confirmed who they are to me. They are in good standing, and their edits as User:Igor the facetious xmas bunny are not in violation of the sockpuppetry policy. They did edit three times from an IP address, but I don't see how they were deceptive—there was no question that those edits were the same user, as they were responding to the same conversations. I'm a bit perplexed at what exactly it is that Igor did that was disruptive enough to deserve the original block. I agree that the speedy-tagging seems pointy and poorly-thought-out, but it also hardly seems block-worthy to me. The edits to Jimbo's talk page were criticizing AfC, but criticizing a part of the project isn't against policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@GW: Without revealing anything personal about the editor, did Igor identify him- or herself in a way that allowed you to check (within policy) that the identity they provided was actually theirs? And is it your understanding that this new ID is in the way of a WP:FRESHSTART? BMK (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes to both. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful. In looking at Igor's editing, do you think that it is consonant with the instructions at WP:FRESHSTART? (That's not a disingenuous question, I haven't read the policy lately, and am about to turn in for the night.) BMK (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why Igor has been declared "disruptive" when this started by another editor failing to WP:AGF and discuss the matter on their talk page before filing an ANI, as is standard practice. NE Ent 03:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Reblock: I crash for a couple hours and this is still going on? I'm with Jusdafax on this one. A reblock of Igor is requested. In line with the summary User:Nick posted when closing the threads above, there is consensus with admins (and other users) for Igor to be reblocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Harassment on talk pages

On December 12, 2014 at 16:47, I reverted an edit from Dairyfarmer777 because his edit contained improper grammar. He posted an angry message on my talk page shortly after (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KristyBarnes#Scooby_doo_reversion), saying that I should have just "changed his all his grammar myself." I replied, what I felt to be kind a message, apologizing and saying I didn't mean to offend, but that I didn't like how he was trying to get me to fix all his bad grammar myself.

Over a week later, he posted another message on my talk page, basically saying that I didn't know how to use correct grammar, and continued to critique that. While doing this, he was trying to all the fix spacing issues that I made on my own talk page (assumably to try to point out another way that I was wrong). I reverted this edit, leaving an edit summary saying "It's considered rude to fix errors/typos on other people's talk page, let the person who's talk page it is do it themselves."

Today, over two weeks since the original reversion was made, he left yet another threatening message on my talk page, saying "Fixed the errors on my talk page? Cool thanks I've been meaning to get to them you saved me the trouble." Just my opinion I guess.

So should I ask for permission to fix my comments above? Might as well. I ask for permission to fix my comment's indentations."

And then, he left yet another message less than a minute later saying: "Also can I fix the one above this?"

I realize that I may not have handled the original edit summary the best, but I don't feel there is any call for him to be leaving harassing messages on my talk page nearly two weeks since I reverted his edit. My personal opinion is that he should be banned from Wikipedia, since he has a history of doing this to editors, but I'll leave that up to the Wikipedia staff.

Here's another recent example of the multiple times he's done this to editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TL565&oldid=635553975

I asked for permission to fix my comments on your talk page after you reverted my grammar edits of my own comments. I asked for permission to add the indents (I have ocd and it bothered me) and noticed after I already prematurely submitted it that it had an error in it too. I did not know that talk pages aren't allowed to be edited by other users, even if its their own comments.

Him? He? Gendered pronoun?

That past incident, a first and single incident - not multiple incidents, was for a userpage not a talk page. Do they involve the same rules? Userpages I now understand are only for the user themselves. I understand what I did then was against the rules. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor: KristyBarnes should sign their post here cause this is confusing. Nothing I can see at the links is remotely like harassment by WP standards. Some of us have suffered 1000 times worse with nothing done about it. Try WP:AGF Happy Holidays everyone. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Legacypac, thanks for figuring out who wrote this rambling complaint. You're right, there is no harassment here. And that "incident" was a month ago. In addition, KristyBarnes, your edit summary here is really asinine; the Dairyfarmer's grammar was hardly illiterate--I suppose that for you "illiterate" is the opposite of "proper, literate English sentence". If you want to fix something there, fix the grossly verbose and redundant "He's also known to have" which is all over such articles. Now, Dairyfarmer, I suggest you take a long break from KristyBarnes's talk page; to answer one of your questions there, I don't think you need to ask permission to fix something about your own comments. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

What should be done for pro-ISIL Wilayat type articles?

Many articles are being created which are Wilayat type and most of which are deleted or nominated for deletion, thanks Legacypac and to Spirit of Eagle for observing this problem. Now, should we wait for them to be created and then nominate them for deletion (because 99.99 precent of them are not notable and just self promotion or propaganda)? or should we stop their creation? How can we have them SALTed? Mhhossein (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mhhossein. For a start Wikipedia has long had a practice of translating Wilayat to Governorate of Province. WP:AT issues similar to those raised when the group called themselves "Islamic State" are raised as both elements of that title are disputable. A governorate, province or wilayat requires the existence of a state which in this case is not recognised either governmentally or in academia. A name such as Wilayat Sinai is suggestive that large areas of the Sinai have been governmentally controlled which is very far from the truth. GregKaye ✍♪ 07:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking hard and have only found one vague ref that says the ISIL linked group controls ANY territory in Sinai and considering the Sinai is nearly all desert, anyone could set up some tents and claim to "control" a bunch of ground. It is absurd to give them a name on WP that suggests they govern anything - regardless of what they choose for a twitter handle. Now how do we SALT exactly? Legacypac (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The articles have been deleted. If there are reliable sources that document that Daesh claims to have set up administrative units in various places, then I don't see why we shouldn't have articles to reflect that fact. Yes, they're absolutely horrible people and I hope for their imminent total defeat, but we're not in the business here of pretending the world is not as it is. I don't see enough of a problem with recreation at the moment to justify salting any article titles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

RainyDayBooklover

Single purpose account who is deleting sourced information from article Julia Allison. Additionally, another editor 2601:D:CA00:1206:D8F3:AAFD:A876:D84C, did a similiar deletion. I have never seen an account without a name nor an IP edit before. [146] CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That looks like an IPv6 address. Jehochman ^Talk 09:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Problems with Joyce 00

Just looking through the recent changes log and came across this user. They...

• Removed warnings from their talk page: [[147]], [[148]], [[149]], [[150]].
• Vandalized my Talk Page: [[151]]
• Vandalized SmileBlueJay97's Talk Page: [[152]]
• Harrasses other editors who warn or talk to him/her: [[153]], [[154]]

Could Someone do something about this User Please? TF ^{{ Contribs }} 09:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like she's gone, but not for too long. I'll Keep an eye out though. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 14:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Joyce 00 (talk · contribs) has also made many nonconstructive edits to multiple pages including SM Entertainment and Red Velvet (band). I have reported this user to WP:RVAN as well.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  17:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I have applied a block. Only short, because historically previous edits are ok; I will watch. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

AlexanderRa and original research at Diversity Immigrant Visa

Despite attempts at discussion, I've been unable to stop this editor continually adding their own original research at the Diversity Immigrant Visa article. Back in the autumn they added this section, based on their own spreadsheets and analysis, which effectively argues "although the government says X, the real situation is Y." Another editor, JoelWhy removed the material and discussed it with them, requesting a third opinion which agreed that, yes the material is original research. AlexanderRa simply ignored the third opinion and readded the material. My attention came to the article when I discovered this huge link farm, which I removed per WP:EXTERNAL. AlexanderRa, however, keeps readding it, presumably because it contains links to the spreadsheet analysis which they want to promote. Attempts at discussing this with them have proved fruitless, as they simply respond with vandalism warnings ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valenciano&diff=prev&oldid=639942796 , [155]) and as they appear to be a single purpose account, there also seem to be WP:COMPETENCE issues here, as they simply aren't listening. Valenciano (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely not a link farm. Dozens of links were removed including references to laws, agency regulations (DOS, USCIS), articles by US law firms. All those links are very relevant to the subject of the article in Wikipedia and are definitely not a link farm. Repeatedly removing those links is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 16:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The subject of the original complaint was misstated. Valenciano did not complain about Original Research. Instead, he complained about External References and about link farm, and he removed dozens of links that could not be and cannot be classified as those. AlexanderRa (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I *did* complain about the original research here and here. This is what I mean about not listening. Yes, I did remove dozens of external links, because Wikipedia articles, per WP:EXTERNAL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, should not contain dozens of external links. Wikipedia is not a directory. The guidelines are clear, links should be kept to a bare minimum. Even a quick look will reveal that links 4,5 and 7 are dead links. I'm sure they are not the only ones. Other links are invalid, such as links to spreadsheets created by AlexanderRa, which I suspect, is the whole reason why he is defending this massively inappropriate external links section. Others are for things like discussion forums, while four of them are veiled spam for a lawyer. There's also the issue of the huge original research section that he's added there, also contrary to our guidelines, and despite being told by three editors that this is material more suitable for a blog, not for Wikipedia. Valenciano (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Notforlackofeffort

It seems that Notforlackofeffort (talk · contribs)'s primary effort in editing Wikipedia is to wikihound and possibly wikistalk User:Davey2010. Most of this editor's edits contain jabs at Davey2010's competence; for example, see the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tram and trolleybus routes in Tallinn and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperatriz (bus company). Even his comments directed at other editors who !vote against him do not assume good faith (assuming they don't follow WP:BEFORE or lack the necessary skill to comment at these AfDs, for example), and these comments ultimately are just a vehicle for bashing Davey2010 in a not-so-subtle manner. Since I've commented at those AfDs, I've been the target of some of that ire as well. Most of this editor's edits have been this sort of attack against Davey2010. I feel that the battleground attitude and the lack of good faith assumed by Notforlackofeffort is possible actionable, given the previous block for what is essentially the same reason, but I wanted to get other eyes on it since I am involved (having !voted in the AfDs). I had originally asked Davey2010, who had reported this to AIV yesterday, to open an ANI thread if he so chose, but given the fact that this behavior shows no sign of ceasing, I felt it prudent to do so myself. If nothing else, perhaps this will allow Notforlackofeffort to air his grievances in a proper venue, rather than through inappropriate barbs at AfDs. Thanks. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

From my discussions with the user, it seems that they are more than happy to spend time writing walls of argumentative text but have no desire to actually help build the encyclopedia. Sam Walton (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Basically the above user has some sort of issue with me nominating articles, and instead of discussing he'd rather just insult me - There's been various discussions on NFLOE tp, my tp, BBb23's, TokyoGirls and Sams TP (I've only 5 mins got in so bear with me!), I personally believe he ought to be blocked per NOTHERE. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Right. Perhaps there would be more evidence of me actually trying to discuss issues with you, had you not deleted it all from your talk page! You only want me blocked because you have no answer, absolutely none, when I ask you specific questions about the reasons why you want to delete article X or paragraph Y or list Z. If this is a lie, if I have yet again unfairly smeared your reputation, then by all means, go back through all our interactions, and provide the answers to all the questions you didn't answer then, here, for everyone to examine. If they make sense, if people see some logic in them that to me, is non-existent, then maybe I will change my opinion of you. Until then, I will continue to assume you long ago stopped being interested in justifying or explaining anything you do here, to me, or indeed anyone else who has an issue with it (since I rarely see you answer the sort of questions I had asked you when anyone else asks them either). Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I honestly feel like telling this idiot to fuck off but as they say "Dont feed the trolls, If I'm being honest I've never wanted to be blocked so much in my life for incivility but he just isn't worth it so I'm going for the next few hours before I do end up blocked!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Backdoor canvass NE Ent 11:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• The only positive thing about Notforlackofeffort is he writes well ... and excessively. I blocked him once for personal attacks and harassment. I then revoked his talk page access when his comments continued the behavior that triggered the block. Since that time, I watch his contributions, although not all the time, and sometimes, frankly, I don't have the patience to read the tomes he writes. My view is that he now skirts the line with his comments, meaning that he almost attacks editors but not as blatantly as before. I suspect that's intentional. Although he is obviously intelligent, I don't see much use of that intelligence in a constructive way; nor do I see any evidence of collaboration. He's one of those users who is more interested in what he thinks is "right" than he is in collaborating or even being civil. All in all, he's a net detriment to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 - I take your meaning about the editor's writing, but in point of fact NFLOE doesn't really "write well". A good writer knows how to focus their words and not overwrite, making the desired points without boring the reader. As was once said (inappropriately) about Jack Kerouac and On the Road, what NFLOE does isn't writing, it's typing. BMK (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  I am extremely intelligent, even if I do say so myself. I know a hell of a lot about buses and bus transport, and I can read and understand Wikipedia rules quite well (especially when, on issues like NOTTRAVEL, they are ridiculously short). These are the reasons why I am apparently not welcome here - it seems I have embarrassed a lot of people here by being able to talk with some authority on a subject that is very poorly written about here, and being able to quickly spot when someone is using links like NOTthis and NOTthat to claim things that the underlying text of the rules categorically do not say. This is the only source of the disagreement between me and Davey, his name could be Susan or John for all I care about him personally. Yet I'm sensing that certain people are thinking that, rather than address these substantial issues of rule abuse and general ignorance of subjects by people who nonetheless apparently want to speak knowledgeably about, people are instead opting for the quick solution - just get rid of the guy asking the awkward questions. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

For someone who is extremely intelligent you've colossally misunderstood what the issue is here. Sam Walton (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The only thing worse than a dumb fool shooting off his mouth is an intelligent fool shooting off his mouth. Intelligence is a trait often vastly over-valued while other, far more useful traits, are often vastly under-valued. – JBarta (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I must be thick, as I had to read that three times before I realised you were intending to insult me. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The intent was not to "insult" you. – JBarta (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

These are false accusations, and frankly quite upsetting. As I said to Kinu, I have nothing personal against Davey, and I am certainly not trying to make him afraid or upset or otherwise miserable. I am following his edits, but with very good reason - it's very clear his claims to be a "bus enthusiast" and that he "knows a lot about buses" are simply not true (I can give you comprehensive evidence if necessary). His actions show that in fact, his only interest in the topic is to try and get bus route lists and bus company articles deleted, for reasons which range from either very poor, to downright dishonest.

I refuse to accept that pointing out when Davey has, and there's no polite way to say it, told lies, or otherwise distorted the interpreation of a rule well beyond the limits of reasonableness, is in any way unfairly "bashing" him. Perhaps if someone had by now acted on these complaints, it wouldn't seem now like it's all I do here. But the truth is, it doesn't seem like anyone here cares whether someone portrays themselves as something they're clearly not, or pushes a clear agenda to delete articles and remove information simply because they want to.

And certainly nobody seemed to care when Davey accused me of vandalism, or assumed bad faith toward me when he made the quite frankly ridiculous claim that I'm only here to "save every bus article" (at that point, I had voted to keep two). Can I now claim to be upset by these actions, so he can be removed? He only started to complain about my 'behaviour' once it became clear to him he wasn't going to be able to bluff his way out of our disputes, because I have the necessary knowledge to know the subject, and I can certainly read a rule page too.

As to these accusations that I am "not here to build an encyclopedia", what about the fact that yesterday I created List of trolleybus routes in London, which was up to that point a most ridiculous gap in coverage in this supposed encyclopedia I'd seen yet. How many people who seek to criticise me can say they have achieved the same in the last day or so?

You want me to stop caring that Davey insists on trying to delete articles just like that for reasons which frankly don't stand up to any scrutiny - then stop him from doing so! I'm sorry, but I can't figure out for the life of me why anybody here thinks I'm doing anything wrong by pointing out obvious facts, such as when Davey says things like a list of Tallin trolleybus routes cannot possibly be encyclopedic, he is only making himself look silly, since in the real world entire books are written about such subjects (see the reference in the London list).

Either people are interested in facts like that, or they're not. If they're not, then I'm happy to leave Wikipedia's articles about buses and bus transport in the hands of the people who aren't too bothered about what is written about them in the real world, even though the result of such a strategy can clearly be seen - the articles on it are either missing, or just largely crap.

From where I'm sitting, there's a difference between not assuming good faith, and identifying when another editor is deliberately pushing the envelope, or has otherwise not done what he should have done according to the rules. That is the case for Davey, and indeed Kinu. Everything I said about BEFORE and Imperatriz is 100% accurate. If Kinu wants to dispute that, how about he identifies precisely what I said that was supposedly wrong? If he cannot, then why can I not legitimately assume his refusal to do so is not bad faith? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the wall of text above does a better job of demonstrating your unfitness to edit here than anything any of us can say.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No, thank you. Thank you for dragging me here with the apparent expectation that I have to defend myself and explain why I am here to contribute (with examples) and why all the things I've said about Davey are true and weren't remotely examples of stalking or bad faith, and then USING THAT DEFENCE AGAINST ME. How very typically Wikipedia. Of course, the other option was for me to say nothing, and then you would have used that against me too. Or I could have briefly said the accusations were unfair and unjust, but not explained how or why (for brevity), and you would of course have used that against me too. Bravo. Well done for inventing the impossible game that is Wikipedia. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"You want me to stop caring that Davey insists on trying to delete articles just like that". What we want you to do is to stop hounding and stalking Davey around Wikipedia. You have said that you have tried to discuss this with Davey, when I've looked through his page history, most of the discussions you appear to have had are like this one where you actually attack him by calling him "deluded" etc. Wikipedia should not be used for attacking editors. The reason I refused the report at AIV yesterday was to give this the chance for more discussion and to try to reach a resolution - something AIV is not the place for. However, from what I have seen so far I would tend to agree with @Samwalton9: and that you are not here to build an encyclopedia--5 albert square (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want me to stop hounding or stalking Davey, you're going to have to justify those outrageous accusations a bit better than they have been so far. I follow Davey because he is doing bad things, like deleting information from an article because it's "already in the source" (which makes absolutely no sense), or is proposing things for deletion because he "literally found no sources", when it turns out that he's either not looking very hard, or is just plain lying. It's telling that not one person here who is making these accusations of stalking has even taken the time to examine my accusations to see if they are true. I assume that if it were proven Davey is doing bad things, things which need reversing or challenging, then I would actually get a pat on a back for following him around. Perhaps not. I don't know anymore. The concept of how you help Wikipedia seems very nebulous. And on a point of fact, I didn't call him deluded, I implied it would be deluded of him to do action X on the basis of Y. It was a hypothetical situation, and if anyone here actually bothered to take the time to familiarise themselves with the subject and understand the context, they would no doubt agree that someone would have to be deluded if they did X based on Y. If that's what counts as an attack here, then I honestly don't know how you manage to communicate effectively with each other. Although in my experience, it's not so much communicating, as lecturing/ignoring. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You write: If you want me to stop hounding or stalking Davey, you're going to have to justify those outrageous accusations a bit better than they have been so far. So, you admit that you are hounding or stalking this editor, in direct violation of WP:HARRASS. BMK (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Now who's trolling? Obviously I was not confessing to that - I was responding to the suggestion that I supposedly had to "stop" doing it. I would hardly be saying I will stop doing something as soon as you prove that's what I'm doing, now would I? (that was my whole point). I find it very ironic that I have been mercilessly personally attacked and now trolled in the very place where I am purportedly being reported for doing exactly that to other people. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

And "Now who's trolling?" wasn't a confession of trolling either, in case you decide to double-down on the crazy. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep digging, dude, you're getting in deeper and deeper... we can barely see your head now. BMK (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, you're just trolling. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, that, too, is something we come across quite often, the troll throwing around charges that everyone is trolling except them. You'll find it filed under "The best defense is (supposedly) a good offense", but it seldom actually works, because who is actually trolling, and who isn't is too obvious. BMK (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh I don't doubt there's plenty of people here who think I'm trolling, most notably all the people who have a motive in eliminating me, clearing the way to allow them to continue to do what it is they're doing, or are jealous/threatened by my capabilities and the fact I'm not willing to bow down to their ideas of how I should best show my true worth to them (that's you, in case subtlety isn't your thing). In a way, they have to make that accusation, because it's the only thing that will, in their minds, excuse their complete lack of interest in finding out the truth of what's actually gone on (why investigate the complaints of a troll, they will tell themselves). Still, even if people do think I'm trolling, which obviously includes you, common sense dictates that best practice isn't going to be to just troll them right back. Which you've been doing for the last few go-arounds now. If it's true that I'm the troll and you're the better man, then all you have to do to show that is let me have the last word, and not say anything to continue this thread in the manner which it has been derailed since your entry into it. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going offline for at least the next four hours. Since any further participation here in any form seems at best pointless given Bbb23's insightful reply, and since I have apparently "colossally misunderstood what the issue is" according to Sam (and oh what a surprise to see a comment like that delivered on Wikipedia without it being explained so I might 'understand' what the issue really is), I leave it up to fate to decide if I am "stalking" Davey, or if I am simply guilty of asking him questions he cannot, and indeed does not, want to answer, and would instead very much like it to be dealt with by the questioner just being gotten rid of. I presume from now on in he will take the tactical option of not saying anything at all, as he has done before. That is after all the golden rule on Wikipedia isn't it - your version of taking the 5th - if answering someone would require you to admit you were wrong, or had otherwise not fully thought out your position, or admit that your subject knowledge is otherwise somehow deficient, or that you had failed to do something equally important in the grand exercise of writing an encyclopedia, then take the easiest option of all - completely ignore them. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support block - obvious troll is obvious. Has no intention of contributing to the improvement of articles and says so. Has no intention of constructively discussing deletion nominations and says so. Has no intention of stopping the bad-faith insinuations and personal attacks and says so. Has no intention of familiarising himself with policy or guidelines and says so. Claims significant intelligence, but an inability to read what others have written, argue succinctly or follow even basic discussion formatting suggests otherwise. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  Um, if it's not too much trouble, if it wouldn't take too much time out of your busy schedule of not responding to me at the the two AFDs we have interacted at, might you find the time to, y'know, provide proof for when I supposedly said these things. I assume when you use the phrase "says so", it's a quotable thing, right? As far as I can tell, your only issue with me, until you came up with this long laundry list of supposedly quotable stances, is that I was not prepared to take your claim that you "did your own research" on Imperatriz at face value, and that I seem intent on criticising without fixing (as if there's some kind of quota - you can highlight one rule failure for every article created, something like that?). At the AFDs I was particularly interested in a reply from that time you said I "totally miss the point of most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". This concerns me because it's precisely the sort of thing someone would say if they were simply trying to smear another person in the hope they never get called out on it (it might even be a "personal attack" on my intelligence, but I know you absolutely abhor those as they are against policy, so I must be wrong on that at least). Believe it or not (and you clearly don't - hey, I like this AGF thing! I'm getting the hang of that one at least), I've always been very careful to read and at least try to follow the rules here, otherwise how could I possibly criticise people like Davey for not? I would be a hypocrite, and if there's one thing I hate being, it's that. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Where you've addressed queries to me, I've responded, in fact you've quoted one such response where you have subsequently not responded. Rather ironic. The exception is where your diatribe was simply a thinly veiled personal attack. I have no particular desire to afford you another soapbox from which you can attack other editors. You've been here for how long and you have one pointy article and a dozen personal attacks to your name. I don't know what the "quota" is but most would suggest it should be better than that. Also ironically, BMK sums that up perfectly below. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a simple request. You listed several things above that I supposedly said. If it was the other way round, if I was attributing statements to you here and refused to answer your request to back them up, you would no doubt be screaming the roof down by now. I don't care about quotas, I care about the rank stench of hypocrisy which is gradually enveloping this whole thing. And I see no irony in my failure to respond to "Yes, I conducted my own search. If you found something I didn't, feel free to post it here. Otherwise, your accusations of bad faith, your personal attacks and your non-policy nonsense have no place here.", since I don't actually even see a question there. What I actually see is a repetition of this idea I talk "non-policy". My request for that to be substantiated still stands too. If this is anything to go by, you appear to be practicing the theory that if you repeat something often enough, people will just believe it anyway, whatever the truth of the matter. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This dif probably says more than most people would need to reach the conclusion that you're WP:NOTHERE to build encyclopaedia - you openly admit you're, "really not interested in doing it for you, and I certainly wouldn't ever put my name to Wikipedia". I suspect you'll get exactly what you wish for. Plenty of diffs have been provided and given how few contributions you have, finding more isn't hard. I'm afraid I'm just not willing to do the leg work for you. You've told us many times you're not interesting in contributing. I don't need to repeat it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess half out of three will have to be good enough for everyone here then. If that's all it takes to support what were some pretty outrageous claims, so be it. Why would anyone want to put their name to such an obvious sham? This matches up with how (which I only just noticed) you apparently invented this claim that I had suggested Davey must "prove non-notability". I suppose that's where you got the non-policy nonsense from. A little twist here, a little distortion there, and hey presto, a narrative. Proceed straight to NOTHERE, do not pass go. This sort of thing appears to be your particular speciality. Either that or this sort of thing just comes naturally to experienced Wikipedia users, those who are genuinely 'here to contribute'. Yes, I think that about wraps it up for me - I wanted to show just how much you were having to invent in order to support this smear campaign of yours, and I think I just have. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Must be my SuperTrollGoggles2000 - I'll make a note to thank the manufacturer. You're either here to contribute constructively or you're not. You've told us, on a number of occasions, that you're not. Explain which part of "I certainly wouldn't ever put my name to Wikipedia" I'm distorting or twisting. They're your words, not mine. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef block - In four months here, 74 edits, only 7 of them to articles, the majority (46) to Wikipedia space, with 21 to user talk (with the results outlined in the complaint above). This is the very definition of a free-rider who is not here to improve the encyclopedia, but for other purposes entirely. We don't need such non-productive people here, so block him/her until they promise to spend the majority of their edits improving articles, and to stay away from Davey. BMK (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, my rationale has nothing to do with creating articles, but with improving articles by way of editing them. You spend your time trolling instead of editing articles, and, in my opinion, that makes you an unwelcome guest, and is reason enough to block you and make you persona no grata. This is first and foremost a project to build an encyclopedia, not a place for random people to do random things. BMK (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A "free rider" is someone who demands that I use my expert knowledge for free to improve Wikipedia in an area it is wholly deficient in, after they've first used their non-expert knowledge to imply faults in articles where none exist, and have then proceeded to variously insult, frustrate, annoy and generally ignore me, all apparently in the name of collaboration. My contributions have not been random, they have been focused on preventing the wrongful removal of information from bus related articles, and the wrongful deletion of bus related articles. If that's what you call not helping to build/improve an encyclopedia, I bow to your superior judgment. After all, what would I know about whether or not Wikipedia is doing a good job summarising all the available reliable independent information in this subject area? Based on how many times I've been begged to write an article here, quite a lot. In all my time here, once I've been made aware of them, I have done nothing but consistently apply your own rules, rules that several of you, Davey chief among you, apparently do not want to follow, or want to interpret in ways that are simply unjustified. If that's what you call trolling, then you've obviously never met a real troll. A real troll is someone who ignores, insults, frustrates and annoys you, in the name of collaboration. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If you can't improve articles, create or fix templates, help with categorization, or do anything else that's actually useful in building an encyclopedia, than you're not needed here. There are plenty of productive editors who can do what little you do, and without the trolling and badgering. BMK (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of people here able to stop Davey and Charles degrading the overall quality of bus related articles here with their NOTthis/NOTthat/ignore tactics? I think you might want to check that claim for factual accuracy, as the quality of the articles that remain doesn't bear that out. Tokyogirl recently claimed to me that there is a consensus on Wikipedia that bus route list articles are always deleted. Why not take a guess at which two users were apparently heavily involved in establishing that, based on the examples she offered? Hell, why not examine whether it's even true based on those examples (it really isn't - not that she, or anyone else, is prepared to admit it - per the Wikipedia 'taking the 5th' rule). And as well as the poor participation levels involved in that issue, why not take a guess at the level of intellectual rigour those discussions to establish that supposed consensus involved, as far as critically examining Wikipedia policy goes. Here's a hint: Deleter - these fail NOTxyz. Keeper: How? Deleter: They just do. If you think you have plenty of people involved in this activity, you either didn't really research which area I was getting involved in here, or you want this area to be deliberately degraded. There is apparently so few people involved in this activity, that when two of us come to light, as you can see above (or it might be below, I lost track where I am) it is being automatically assumed we are one and the same person. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose to block. Yes, User:Notforlackofeffort is uncivil, but, frankly, WP does not block for common-variety incivility. Moreover, I believe the editor is contributing (albeit in an inefficient way sometimes). The edit to Imperatriz (bus company) was a good contribution. I also believe his opposition to the to AFDs in question, while hectoring and hard to follow, were in the end correct. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

They exist but they don't meet WP:GNG. They shouldn't have been created; you are the only other person who seems to think they are notable. That's your right but NFLOE is clearly trolling. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose block Notforlackofeffort has created one article while Davey2010 doesn't seem to have created any. As Notforlackofeffort is a comparatively new editor who has only made a few edits, he's winning on the NOTHERE front. Regarding civility, it seems to be six of one; half a dozen of the other. They are both trying to put each other down and neither comes out of it looking good. An interaction ban might be needed but for now, a caution seems adequate. Andrew D. (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• So let me get this straight ... Because I haven't created any articles that means it's perfectly fine for the insults?, Also I clearly here despite his behaviour apologized in an attempt to patch things up[156] .... I'm sorry but "They are both trying to put each other down" is utter rubbish and you know know it. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yeah, sorry, but that's an insane rationale for opposing a block. An uncivil, harassing troll with a grudge gets a free pass because he's created a single article? He created it to make a point a few days ago. That's not "content creation" in any meaningful sense. Just more trolling. And more people than just Davey2010 have been the subject of personal attacks from NFLOE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• If a personal attack is defined as playing the man not the ball, then by Christ I've been subject to quite a few here - including from you. And I think you'll find the only point I was making by creating that list, was that it didn't exist before I created it. As Andrew spotted, it was meaningful content creation in the sense that it's one more article than Davey has created on Wikipedia, ever. It was only after I created it, and then Davey started claiming in the Tallin AFD that such lists are "not encyclopedic", did I realise I could use the reference it contains (a whole book solely about the trolleybus routes in one city) as an example of how wrong that view really is. Honestly, I would really really like to know how making this sort of perfectly valid observation on Wikipedia is considered "trolling". I can't see it as anything other than bringing real world facts to a place which, where this editor is concerned, seem to be thin on the ground (this might be a good point to ask you if you even realised that, despite the fact Davey is from Strood in Kent and has said he is a bus enthusiast who knows far more about buses than I do, he didn't even know the single thing that makes the operator that runs right through his home town, Nu-Venture, more notable than the average company. He literally didn't seem to have a clue what it was.) So, is he just inflating his supposed knowledge of buses so that people more readily believe his claims when he says things in AFDs about companies like Nu-Venture? Or is he just not from Strood (although why anyone would pretend to be from Strood is beyond me). 03:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notforlackofeffort (talk • contribs)

• So we've gone from insulting me to now insulting the area in which I live in, ..... You my friend are a pathetic waste of space, You really are!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Another personal attack, per WP:NPA "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just like when Davey dismissed me because I'm a "bus fan". And all the other personal attacks he's made against me, that you just don't seem to have noticed. Perhaps "heavy bias" wasn't a strong enough term to describe your interest here? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Quick note - I've also notified Charles and Tokyogirl79 of this discussion since I brought there name up here and plus they've also had issues with NFLOE, Cheers, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• This seems to be blatant canvassing of editors known to be hostile to Notforlackofeffort. Andrew D. (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• With all respect If I mention anyones name anywhere they get told whether its ANI, AIV, UFAA, I personally find it respectful to tell that person I've mentioned them, and plus as they had issues with him I'd rather everyone gets involved and voices there opinion. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• (ec) It's standard policy to notify someone whose name has come up on the noticeboards. If Davey2010 had thought of it, he could have pinged them when he mentioned them and it would have amounted to the same thing. BMK (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support block - My strong objection to this editor is the obvious intent to insult, as shown on the talk pages. It's disruptive to the collegial effort needed to work together. They may have a point regarding the operation of this place, but there is a right way, and a hurtful wrong way. Let's show this person the door. Jusdafax 00:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef block - I'm sorry, but Andrew's comment is absolutely ludicrous and is one of the daftest I've seen in a while ("winning on the NOTHERE front"? Seriously?), to the point where I seriously think they should retract it. BMK's analysis is solid; we have an account who has a 10% mainspace edit rate (give or take), and whose sole activities otherwise seem to be hounding Davey2010 or generally causing a lot of disruption; they've even admitted to having a lack of interest in actually being constructive. It matters not one jot how many articles Notforlackofeffort, Davey2010, nor anyone else have created (if NFLOE had created a thousand single-word articles, would you support them based on that? Sounds like it.) I also strongly doubt Tokyogirl79 has a history of being hostile to anyone, from what I've seen, and I certainly haven't been brought here by anyone's request. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Insults are not ok, but apparently it is acceptable for User talk:Davey2010 to direct foul language at other despite not being asked not to. Does seem a touch hyprocritical that an editor with over 29,000 posts in 4 years has never added an article, yet regularly nominates articles for deletion.

When it was stated that a post I had made to Vauxhall bus station, I asked at Talk:Vauxhall bus station for clarification as the post did not appear in breach. Rather than answer the question and shutting the issue down the editor (and one other who just reversed my posts) just dismissed my query as 'crap', presumably because my post was not in contravention as asserted, but merely different to his/her personal preferences.

Or in other words, dishonestly hiding behind policy that he/she knows doesn't exist.[157] Hardly the conduct of someone who aspires to be an administrator. Astbam (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Purely out of curiosity, how did you come to find this discussion Astbam? I just notice you haven't edited in months. Sam Walton (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, curious, that. The very first edit of User:Notforlackofeffort was an edit[158] on Aug 19, 2014 to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nu-Venture, an article that Davey2010 had nominated for deletion. On Aug 8, 2014 Astbam had edited[159] the Nu-Venture article, and there are some edit-warring warnings at User talk:Astbam from Davey2010 and from other users around July-August 2014. So both Notforlackofeffort and Astbam seem to share an interest in bus-related articles and a grudge against Davey2010. WP:QUACK anyone? Nsk92 (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nsk92: Quack. SPI anyone? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI report, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astbam. Nsk92 (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Update (after the below message). While I was responding to that investigation, I found the smoking gun which proves it's bullshit - Astbam was the person who put the seed into Davey's mind to delete the Nu-Venture article, which I then opposed 10 days later. So, unless any of you think I'm schizophrenic, then my alternate explanation below is definitely the right one. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Not reallya smoking gun. Please see WP:BADHAND. BMK (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh what a surprise, another example of someone on Wikipedia telling me to see a link, which turns out not to remotely explain why they linked it. What exactly are you trying to say? What possible reason would I have for pretending to be two people in that scenario? What does the person who wants Nu-Venture deleted have to gain by disrupting the ensuing deletion proposal by saying keep? Indeed, what disruption actually occurred over that issue at all? Other than it being kept, which is apparently what I didn't want? For the sake of understanding, just use plain English in your reply, for Christ's sake. No more bloody links. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You can lead a horse to water... If you don't understand how BADHAND applies to the situation as alleged, then I have to say that you're most probably not as "extremely intelligent" as you believe yourself to be. I think the rest of us understand the applicability, n'est-ce pas? BMK (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus. I think you're just full of it, and just don't really see it. I invite anyone here to explain what BMK apparently thinks is just obvious. For convenience, here's the full text of what is at the end of the BADHAND link - ""Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts: Using one account for constructive contributions and the other one for disruptive editing or vandalism.". If anyone here has a clue how that relates to the situation here, where supposedly there's something to gain by one person using two accounts to propose an article for deletion and then get it kept, please tell me, so I might learn why I'm such an idiot for not realising it myself. I'll take silence to mean that BMK was just trying to use the link as a convenient way to insinuate wrong doing. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

All right, in words that I hope are short enough for an "extremely intelligent" person like you to follow: the essence of BADHAND is the creation of two identities, one of which is antagonistic to the other, so that the two IDs can operate against each other, causing disruption and (presumably) amusement for the person behind them.

I'm not saying that you are Astbam or that you aren't, I don't know, but I don't think it really matters all that much, as your behavior as NFTLOE has been sufficiently disruptive to justify indef blocking on that basis alone, but your claim of finding a "smoking gun" that proves you are not Astbam just isn't the case, as anyone who has had to deal with good hand/bad hand sockpuppeteers can tell you. Is that clear enough? BMK (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it clears it up only as far as you seem to think people would find that amusing. Which is a revealing if disturbing window into the minds of the defenders and attackers in this giant game you call an encyclopedia. It doesn't explain why you thought that's what BADHAND says and I was just thick for not getting it, since it doesn't and I clearly wasn't. Nor does it explain why you think that scenario applies to these two accounts, since no disruption resulted from their interaction at the AFD. The fact is, me pointing it out really is the smoking gun insofar as proving I am not Astbam, because the claim that I am him rests on the fact we both had the same interests and both disliked the same person. I suppose you might now say that I am a complete genius, and that I only opposed myself in that AFD so I could have plausible deniability when I got to this stage of my dastardly plan where I could unleash the full potential of controlling not only this account but Astbam as well, but I'm sure even you can see how batshit insane that is when compared to the alternate explanation, which is that someone simply put two and two together and made five. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? Pay close attention. In scenario A, an editor trying to improve a bus related article, gets the NOTthis/NOTthat/ignore treatment from Davey and Charles, despite trying to have an actual policy based conversation with them in a way where both parties leave satisfied they have been heard and understood. In scenario B, an editor trying to stop bus related articles from being deleted, gets the NOTthis/NOTthat/ignore treatment from Davey and Charles, despite trying to have an actual policy based conversation with them in a way where both parties leave satisfied they have been heard and understood. Which is the more likely explanation? That both editors are the same person, or that the way that Davey and Charles attempt to brush off people who know about bus topics is consistently poor, and therefore has the exact same ability to piss off different editors interested in buses? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I've never created an article because I'd feel disheartened if it were nominated (I at times dislike nominating peoples articles but it's all part of editing here), Plus I've tried article creation and I'll admit I was shit at it, Also Bit strange after not editing since October that you decide your first edit this month is to this?, Also I don't want to be an admin as my temper as well as patience gets the better of me unfortunately.... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef block, (take note I'm somewhat involved in this, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NIBS (bus company)) NFLOE is constantly showing a battleground attitude, Davey's attitude wasn't great sometimes, but he apologized for his behavior, then NFLOE deleted his comment, for example. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  I'm glad you brought that up (AmaryllisGardener). Davey had deleted messages from me to him multiple times before that without comment. He then turned up at my talk page to give a classic non-apology apology - "If I have fucked you off in any way then I apologize". He knew full well he had fucked me off, and yet even in that non-apology apology he found time to tell another lie - claiming as he did that if I had just told him where to find information to prove NIBS was notable, he would have happily withdrawn. Well, funnily enough, that's exactly what I had done. Not only did I provide a link to a news report (which he made absolutely no comment about, not even to dismiss it - how collaborative!), I also told him the title of the magazine where, if I am not completely senile, I know for a fact he will find at least one (and very likely many more) articles on the company. Do I remember the precise issue number? No. Would he be able to find it if he actually wanted to? If he was sincere about withdrawing if the information exists, then of course he could. It would only take one phone call or email. But he's not sincere. Instead of commenting on that news report, he found the time to lecture me about how bad it is to comment on the person (while in the very same posts, dismissing everything I say on account I'm a "bus fan" and "want every bus company here saved". The first quote might be true, albeit patronising and borderline insulting (but is irrelevant if we're not allowed to talk about the person), but the second was just another lie. So damn right I ignored his non-apology apology. And I was not at all surprised he has since found time to hypocritically complain about that, while conveniently forgetting he'd done exactly the same to me several times previously, in situations where I actually had good reason to expect a response (because of all the people here claiming this is a collaboration). And yes, everyone please note that AmaryllisGardener is no doubt heavily biased here. Their original delete comment cited the fact the article didn't reference any independent "websites" (when the true notability test is sources, which include print media). Correcting people on basic facts like that when they're seeking to pass judgement on subjects about which they know nothing about, is the sort of 'behaviour' of mine that people are all bent out of shape about - I expose their failures to follow even the most basic rules here. Somehow though, every single time, including here, you people still manage to turn these failures around and blame me for them. I point out a subject will have been covered in print media for common sense reason x, y and z, thinking I'm doing you all a favour by letting you know things you apparently never knew before, and surprise surprise, it's then my fault the article will be deleted because I didn't drop everything I was doing and hunt down all the issue numbers and ISBN numbers. And now, somehow, not creating articles counts against me in the 'not here to help us' argument, even though for the most part I have been contributing by trying to stop articles that shouldn't be deleted from being deleted. This apparently makes me a very bad person, not remotely fit for Wikipedia. And who is my main opponent? Why, it's the guy who has apparently never created a single article, and instead spends his time trying to delete things. And he's a good guy. Well, if anyone can figure that one out, they really are smarter than me. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm... no article creations = bad guy? Not hardly. We all have different ways of contributing, and Davey's is AfD. Perfectly fine. It doesn't matter if you work with GAs, you work with creating articles, you copyedit, or work at AfD, all of those areas improve Wikipedia. :) About my "heavy bias", I don't know why you had to make it clear again, I just said I was involved earlier, but I can still discuss this here. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef block The idea that any editor "must" create articles before they can avoid harassment and/or stalking is ludicrous. BMK's analysis is spot on. Also, indef is not infinite. The WP:STANDARDOFFER is always available to anyone who wants to edit productively. MarnetteD|Talk 02:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support block: per not here. Vrac (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef block per Jusdafax and others. We are far too patient with disruptive editors who, in net, contribute very little to the project. Also, someone who cannot (or will not) comment succinctly, and ignores suggestion to do so, has no business working on an encyclopedia. - MrX 02:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  You can't handle the truth! Succinct enough for you? I have no business working here, that's for sure. But boy have I been begged to create articles for Wikipedia, based on my expert knowledge. At the same time as being told I'm a worthless piece of shit by the people who find that knowledge inconvenient when it contradicts their claims that this or that article fails NOTthis or NOTthat or GNG. It's a surreal experience, I'll say that. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose block at this time: We need to get better at editor retention; suggest mentoring and WP:AGF before totally and completely lowering the boom. If the editor is here for the reasons other believe (e.g., WP:NOTHERE, that will become obvious over time. If the editor has a mentor and someone watching his edits, maybe what's bad now could become better. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  A nice sentiment, but it rather misses the point. We need to get better about retaining editors who improve the encyclopedia. We don't need to retain the vandals, the trolls, the free-riders, and the other disruptive editors who do so much to make editing here problematic. NFLOE makes it quite clear in his bloated comments that they have no intention to change anything, that what they are doing is exactly what they want to do. Given this, showing them the door is the answer, not wasting time trying to change their character. If and when they grow up a bit and decide they want to contribute productively, they can ask to be unblocked and given another chance, BMK (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it misses your point and the point of the other circling sharks, but I don't see any harm in a mentor at this time. Of course, if the SPI comes back positive for violating policy, that will likely be the final nail in this individual's proverbial coffin. Personally, I think a little more actual AGF rather than just talking about it would be a nice thing to see. Then again, AN/I isn't typically the place for seeing that policy actually being followed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you've also missed the essence of AGF as well. It's not something that you hold on to come hell or high water, it's something that you start with when an issue is first raised, and there's little or no evidence that anything wrong is actually going on. Once there's been sufficient evidence presented, it's totally wrong to ignore it on the basis of "AGF". BMK (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

And where, may I ask, is your AGF concerning the people expressing negative opinions about NFTLOE's behavior? You call us "sharks", implying what, that our comments are motivated by uncontrolled base instincts and not by human reasoning? That we're hungry animals who will attack anything in the water that's bleeding and defenseless? That's hardly either fair or reasonable, is it? BMK (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support block. Having been told his editing is problematic, the user in question is continuing to make personal attacks on this very page [160]. Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. -- Calidum 04:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Block: I find Davey2010 an excellent example of the kind of heavily entrenched editor who chases away new editors through finely tuned incivility. He seems to have a serious double standard problem. It's not surprising that other editors get so frustrated with him that they engage in personal attacks. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"Chases away" would be a valid description only if Davey2010 was the only person supporting a block. And I'd rather have finely-tuned incivility toward trolls than blatant incivility and disruption from trolls. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support block We need more collaborative editors who make improving the encyclopedia their top priority at all times. We do not need tendentious, combative, repetitive editors who specialize in useless walls of text and feuding with their enemies. This editor is clearly part of the second group. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• On the issue of me supposedly contributing little to Wikipedia by way of new articles - is there a single one of my critics here who is even able to make an educated guess how long it would take to do something like write a half-decent Wikipedia article on the 1990s bus company London Northern? Which is just one glaring example of the many missing articles on Wikipedia in this field. If anyone here wants to put their money where their mouth is and claim they could do this in the same time it's taken me to comment in a few AFDs and "stalk" Davey (who it turns out by his own admission he couldn't write it at all, even though this is exactly the sort of article he's attempting to pass judgement on based on what he little he knows about what books and magazines are out there), then I will personally send them the money to buy the books and magazines required to write it. On one condition - if you fail to complete it, or if you do but it still has obvious holes in it (because you were too lazy or incompetent to do a thorough literature review, which someone who knows absolutely nothing about buses would have to do), then you send me back 10 times the money I sent you. Any takers? Thought not. Anyway, sorry to distract you, now you can back to your lectures about what I haven't done for Wikipedia, and how much other people like Charles and Davey really have..... Notforlackofeffort (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The "new article" thing you keep coming back to is a red herring. Many editors never create a single new article in their editing careers, and yet they contribute significantly to the improvement of the encyclopedia by editing articles (you're such a "extremely intelligent" person who who knows "a hell of a lot about buses and bus transport", you should be able to improve some of the articles about those subjects), by helping in categorization, by working with templates and in various other ways, none of which you choose to do. Instead you're doing what we see here, on your talk page, and on the talk pages of other editors. If you are really "extremely intelligent", you're certainly not demonstrating it here, nor is your extensive knowledge about buses anywhere on display. So, why should we allow you to stay around? Editing here isn't your right, it's a privilege that the community can take away when it sees fit to do so, and if you are interested in maintaining that privilege, you had better start to show it damn quick. BMK (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    • OK then, please explain where/when/why Davey was granted the privilege to make claims such as this idea he knows more about buses than I do, or that he is a "bus enthusiast"? Since he said those things, I await your personal report on the inspection of his own contributions. Is he doing all the things for Wikipedia that you would like to see such an expert perform? Since he isn't creating articles, does what he does make up for that with what else he's doing, in your mind? Or is he in reality often doing what I have observed in this area, and deleting information and indeed whole articles for reasons which barely stand up to scrutiny. Does your interest here stretch to examining what he has done, or are you solely focused on me? Given your passionate belief that editing here is a privilege not a right, would you perhaps like to comment on whether or not someone who removes information from an article on the grounds "it's in the source anyway", is abusing that privilege or not? What about someone who is playing fast and loose with the phrases like "there's literally no sources", or with the definition of a directory or indiscriminate information or a timetable any of the other NOTs he invokes but which never seem to translate into a proper, English language, justification for his actions, unless you take one particular interpretation based on some pretty shaky assumptions, and then just ignore everything else that contradicts it (or more accurately, anyone else). My extensive knowledge is on display in all the places I've been commenting at, including on people's talk pages. I didn't challenge Davey to write the London Northern article for a laugh or to troll or harass, I did it to expose the fact that even though he claims to know more about buses than me, this was quite clearly a total lie (I didn't even know at that time that he hadn't yet created a single article on Wikipedia). My intelligence is on display when I spot people abusing the rules to get outcomes they personally want due to their various likes/dislikes, rather than to get Wikipedia articles as close as is humanly possible to being a complete summary of all available information in reliable independent sources, whether they be online or offline. I have the intelligence and the knowledge to be able to do that for this topic, if I put my mind and about a million man hours into it, which I think scares the shit out of you, for pretty obvious reasons. Hence your multiple attacks on me, which long ago ceased to be based on anything I've actually done, or so it seems to me anyway. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not reading another one of your WP:TLDR comments until you write them in a way that a human being can read them. If I see something that's succinct and to the point, using paragraph breaks and less than 1K bytes, I'll try to read it and respond, but if you're just going to piss all over the many editors telling you that you're too verbose, I'm not bothering. BMK (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
        • And yet you'd gladly have me spend all my time to write a thousand times more words to create articles which you can't even begin to appreciate are even missing, let alone write yourself, just to prove my worth to you, and all for free. It's pretty obvious who's being pissed on and whose being shat on in this particular scenario. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Ah, ah, ah! Remember, "creating articles" is your red herring, we're talking about improving articles.

            In any case you clearly have not an iota of a wink of a jot of a conception of the difference between writing to improve the encyclopedia and the kind of verbal diarrhea you've been letting loose in Wikipedia space and on user talk pages, which doesn't improve the encyclopedia in any way shape or form and just adds unnecessary bulk. Yet another reason to indef block you, I'm afraid. (And, sorry, we never pay for anything, whether it's useful editing or random spew. BMK (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

            • I'm afraid I do. It's you who clearly doesn't appreciate the benefit to Wikipedia of people like me, subject experts, working to prevent the needless loss of information in a topic area, information which you would surely see was perfectly valid and acceptable if you only stopped to pass a critical eye and a healthy dose of common sense to the reasons people like Davey are using to delete it. You must have a screw loose not to be able to realise that if you can't repair the holes being left by the cowboys faster than you can build new walls using qualified builders, your precious encyclopedia is doomed. I mean seriously, do I have to ask for a third time what you, the almighty protector of Wikipedia, thinks of someone removing information from an article on the grounds it's in the source anyway? I mean hello.....I've just given you a slam dunk example of someone doing something that nobody here can deny is just monumentally stupid, yet it's being greeted by you, the person who holds improvement of Wikipedia as the One True Ring, with total and utter silence. Which is exactly what happened when they did it to the article. It only got fixed because I was following that editor and saw him do it, and exercised my right, or privilege, or whatever the fuck you want to call it, to fix what he had broken. You don't want me to follow that guy? You wan't to believe his crocodile tears and buy into his claims of stalking or harassment, just because I applied a little bit of common sense, logic, and yes, your own goddamn rules to what he's doing, and to all those AFDs, then fine. It's your project to fuck up I guess, since I was apparently never part of it anyway. I'll take my fancy book learning and my educashun and improve someone else's encyclopedia. Maybe I'll contribute to one of the printed works which call themselves encyclopedias of trams, trolleybuses or buses, the things that real Wikipedia people like Dave the so called bus enthusiast have never even heard of! Square that circle if you can. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
              • Of the many articles you've created here, which would you say are your top 5 or 10 best efforts? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
                • Out of the thousands of people you must have similarly tried to provoke with such obvious attempts at trolling, which do you think were the top 10 comebacks? Pick any one off that list and substitute it here by way of reply. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
                  • I don't think I've ever asked that question before, but I've never talked to a subject expert before (I'm guessing your expertise is in profane and abusive language). So your comment tops the list, by default. And is your comment a hint that you have not actually created any articles here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
                    • It was a hint that I'm in no mood to entertain any more obvious trolls today. It's a shame you didn't take it, as now I have to be so crass as to directly tell you to go and get your kicks elsewhere. No soup for you today. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
                      • Are you saying you have created articles here? Under which user ID(s)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support IBan between User:Notforlackofeffort and User:Davey2010 If that is why you think he is here, just IBAN him and if he violates it, it is an easy block. --Obsidi (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support block, it seems quite clear from the text above that User:Notforlackofeffort is mainly here to argue and pick fights with others. The long, rambling, pseudo-intellectual essays provided as responses here are as clear an illustration of the Dunning–Kruger effect as one could ask for. Perhaps unblock if they agree to cease all personal attacks and a mentor is appointed to keep them on the straight and narrow, although looking at their contributions, where one has to comb finely to find anything unambiguously positive, I'm not struck by a sense of optimism. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

  I agree. I have clearly miscalculated the capacity of other people here to tell the difference between legitimately following a user because they're breaking the rules, and stalking them for the purposes of harassment. I also completely underestimated the capacity of people here to recognise the difference between calling someone an asshole, and criticising people for failings to follow Wikipedia policy for reasons which stem solely from their own personal situation, such as a lack of expertise. I also simply underestimated the capacity for people here to just be completely biased toward existing users and hostile to new ones. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support block. Not one ounce of sincerity detectable in that user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  Ah, see, now, I knew there would be a price to be paid for not entertaining you. Sorry I didn't bite, but if that makes me insincere, I guess I'll just have to live with that. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of Administrative Tools, Administrator Abuse, Disregard of Administrator Accountability by Drmies

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

---

One main issue is that there is documentation of you assisting a user in removing warning templates, and acting in collaboration to issue threats. The corruption goes further in of your awareness of threats made to the reporting user (me) regarding retaliation and while allowing reformatting of my TALK page. Additional misconduct was an ethnic slur made by you used as insult in using your decision to block. And the block was to inflict punitive damage and obstruct seeking assistance from other administrators. Long term misuse of administrative tools are numerous and can be described further with quotes and links. VersoArts (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&action=edit§ion=24
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VersoArts&action=edit§ion=10 |VersoArts (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Obvious WP:BOOMERANG. For WP:CIR, if nothing else. - Sitush (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's see if we can get an accurate reply out of OP before that. He's coming here in good faith, let's at least attempt to see his complaint through. Uh, User:VersoArts, what did Drmies do again? It's not really clear with your initial complaint. Tutelary (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they have come here expecting good faith (their talk page is full of insults about the admin cabal etc), and they've certainly not shown much. - Sitush (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If there is any evidence of abuse it has not been presented yet. Sitush may have a point. Chillum 21:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think we should start giving people a chance to say what is bothering them instead of immediately running to WP:BOOMERANG and blocking/banning them. --Biblioworm 21:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that. Have you read the talk page of the user? The competency concerns voiced are based on more than this ANI post. There is a greater context. Chillum 21:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Or just close the thread, it's clearly going to generate nothing but heat, no light. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed; but Drmies never actually blocked this user, he simply turned talkpage access off after s/he abused it. And I'd like to see a diff of an "ethnic slur" used by Drmies - I think we can assume that didn't occur. I think the editor is here in good faith, but their failure to understand Wikipedia policies even after being reminded numerous times, together with not-100% English comprehension, is causing problems. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Worth looking at User talk:VersoArts . Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see what admin action of Drmies is disputed here. Support closing this thread for lack of substance. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 21:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The closest thing I'm seeing to a "ethnic slur" anywhere in those two links as someone accusing someone else of being a fan of the Alabama Crimson Tide. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, after glancing over Verso's talk page, I have to admit that I don't see anything problematic with Drmies' actions...on the other hand, I see a lot of stubbornness and accusations on Verso's part. Support closure of this thread. --Biblioworm 22:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've just indeffed VersoArts as WP:NOTHERE, which actually doesn't come close to summing up all the reasons for blocking them. First, I removed an incredible amount of obnoxious drivel from Bgwhite's talk page. Putting aside the content of the material, Bgwhite had asked VA not to post to his Talk page. Then, I started reviewed the user's edits and his Talk page, and the evidence that he has no interest in improving anything here was overwhelming, as was the evidence that he attacks, distorts, and rants at every turn.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I was going to suggest exactly what you did, with any unblock contingent on displaying supporting evidence. "Ethnic slur" is a serious charge which can't be allowed to stand without proof. He's only been here 2 weeks, so he might be relatively clueless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Vandalism-only account User:Thattrollking

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

---

This edit and the username of the account don't give me any confidence that this person is here to contribute to the encyclopedia and I therefore request an administrator block them on the grounds of these two things alone immediately to nip it in the bud. Yoppy The Nurse (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Already indeffed. Next time you see a name like that, just file a report at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention which is the place to do that, thanks. Jusdafax 22:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Long-term hoaxer/disruptive editor

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

---

• Work number1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is virtually since the start he edits here only busy with hoaxing,[[161]],[[162]], frauding,[[163]],[[164]],[[165]], making extremely disruptive edits, [[166]],[[167]],[[168]],[[169]],[[170]], or doing combinations of all these things,[[171]],[[172]]. He/she already has gotten a warning for it,[[173]], but he/she obviously doesn't seem to care at all.

This is just a mere fraction of it, and it's extremely disruptive and obstructive to Wikipedia's content. Take a look at all the other thousands of editors who make an account to do such things and tell otherwise. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to consider these edits hoaxes. That's not a "this guy is fine" statement: I don't understand the situation and don't see a reason to make any conclusions about them. Would you please explain why they're hoaxes? I tried to source-check some of them, but everything I checked was sourced to stuff I couldn't access, all print resources aside from a books.google.co.in book that's not visible with my American IP address. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The editor certainly has problems with the English language and with violations of WP:No original research. He has been adding population figures that are not found in the cited sources. He should be cautioned against making further changes. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend, were you able however to check the other edits I linked? Perhaps calling it hoaxes wasn't clear enough on my part; Rather just all extremely disruptive on top of a large amount of frauding of articles. Per this edit [[174]] he changes a sourced edit that states "Indo-Aryan" and a dated historical time of the "5th and 6th century", into Bene Israel and 9th and 10th century, respectively while keeping the source and thus, falsifying it. Let's see some more. He adds self made pseudo-scientific hoax additions such as here [[175]], [[176]], adds self made numbers here [[177]]. He adds a self made bogus unsourced addition that Pashtuns are mixtures between Persian Jews and some Indian group [[178]]. Here he falsifies sources [[179]], [[180]], [[181]], [[182]], and here he adds more bogus pseudo-scientific stuff such as that the strategy of Baloch people are known like the Tatars from Russia. Their culture can be mixed threw South Asian, Iranian and Saudia Arabia as well. [[183]]. Do I need to continue? Have a further look at his editing history.[[184]] - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked a bunch of edits and ran against offline sources, so I figured that your conclusion (that he's hoaxing) was based on something more complex than citation fraud. Thank you for the additional explanations. I still don't see why we can say anything more than "it's unsourced" about bits such as the Pashtuns are mixtures edit, but you're definitely correct on the citation fraud: when you put text in front of a citation, it's a claim that "this is in the source", and when it isn't, you're making false claims about the source. I'll be imposing a block momentarily. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

He writes Peshewer when it is Peshawar, I just reverted this change[185]. His mixing of different cultures can be considered as pseudohistorical revisionism. 36 hours of block seems like a nice decision. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Sectarian Agenda WikiStalking

• FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been Wikipedia:Wikistalking by proposing two articles that I created for deletion and one article from 2007 that edited also for deletion. [186], [187] and [188]. He has also tried to declare me as vandal but it failed [189].I simply removed the redirect and restored the page Islam in Kerala [190]. Then FreeatlastChitchat cyberstalking me edit the page and removed the previous editors historical information

from the page and added his sectarian Ahmadiyya info to the page. When he reverted his page and restored the information that he has deleted he called that vandalism. FreeatlastChitchat has made the major changes in that article while I have restored the article and wikified few words. he has been involved revert edit war in that page.I would like a resolution of this dispute. Thanks. Nestwiki (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As I do not engage in or condone edit wars. My stance is as follows.

• The articles which I tagged for deletion DID require deletion. you can view my Talk page to see that.

At least one other user was of the same view as is evident from his message on my talk page.

Hello FreeatlastChitchat, I agree with your reason to propose deletion of Pakistan Institute for Parliamentary Services, if you were to bring it up with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, I would support the article's deletion. Also, with Papri chaat, I would recommend proposing a Merge with Chaat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Hope this helps, Happy editing! Pjposullivan (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• You can see from the history of edits by Nestwiki that he ALWAYS tries to vandalise/edit ahmadiyya related articles. He was warned once before by another user but his agenda continues. If you look at his recent contributions you will see that he has sustained history of disrupting ahmadiyya pages, hence his agenda is against Ahmadiyyah.
• If you look at the pages which have both me and him as the editor you will see that he has reverted me multiple times without any explanation. This was his "getting back at me" for tagging his pages for deletion. Which I did in good faith. This is borderline ridiculous.
• He mentions the Page about Kerala Muslism. I edited the page to include the fact that the Kerala Court has given its decision that Ahmadis are muslims. This is a major major event in the history of Islam in Kerala. Therefore I added it to the section.

Nestwiki then deleted this and wrote in the edit summary (WIKIFY). How this blatant POV deletion comes under wikify, only he can tell.

I also removed the unsourced parts of the section which were POV. a simple example is my removal of the sentence that all important mosques have a madrassa attached for religious education. This is unconfirmed by any reliable source and cannot be sustained. Which mosque will you consider "important"? the Sunni mosque or the Shia mosque?

Seeing this I removed this.

I also removed blatant POV sentences like "Below them are Arabs, said to derive from Arab inter-marriages with Indian women". Below in what may I ask? If muslims are made of different sects , with each sect a completely different hierarchy, then how can this be true?

I have explained the reasons for my edits and the reaction of this user. I will be looking forward to hearing from an admin on this issue , thank you.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As a quick observation here from an admin, WP:AIV should never be used to intercede in what looks like a straightforward content dispute. The way that WP:Proposed deletion works means that anyone may tag and article and anyone may remove that tag, however it should not be used for cases that are likely to be controversial. IF you really think an article needs to go, try WP:AFD, where it will get a review from the community who will hopefully be impartial. I don't see anything in either edit history that even remotely justifies the spite that you two seem to have for each other, I'd suggest the best solution would be for both you to go to lengths to avoid crossing paths with the other, for now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

SqueakBox and porn again

I reverted SqueakBox's blanking[191] of all the names of people involved in the video anthology Dirty Diaries. This included the name of producer Mia Enberg who is mentioned in several of the dozen or so references in the article. The article has a dozen or so references and none of the participants are listed as porn actors, but listed as directors (though some of them are performers as well). Two of them fairly notable, especially Ester Martin Bergsmark and to some extent Johanna Rytel. Besides obviously being listed by name in the actual films, there's confirmation of this at the film database[192] of the Swedish Film Institute. All of these references were present in the article at the time of the blanking.

I posted[193] a notice at SqueakBox's talkpage, but was then alerted to the fact that the user has been involved in controversial porn-related editing before and found this discussion. SqueakBox's editing is extremely heavy-handed and in this case, it's clear that there hasn't been even a minimal attempt to check existing references. This type of sloppiness is inexcusable. I'm not in the least interested in getting dragged into SqueakBox's contentious BLP drama on my own, so I'm posting here as a preventive measure.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)