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

Disruptive tagging by Redban

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

---

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

Hi all,

Redban has recently been going on a mass-tagging spree of pornbios, without properly evaluating the notablilty in question (including [1][2][3][4]. This type of tagging appears to be this accounts only type of edits, so I smell a WP:DUCK here as well. Further insight into this, however, will probably be beneficial. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The user is actually tagging the articles in a retaliatory manner. See this comment by the user: "Either this page remains or you remove 99% of the pornstar biographies on Wikipedia". Nymf (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yesterday I have questioned on Redban's talk page about three specific templates, Riley Steele, Kayden Kross and Lorelei Lee (all of them passes WP:GNG as well as multiple point of their relevant SNG), without receiving any response on why they were supposed to have notability issues. As Nymf said, everything started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Bitoni (2nd nomination), where he tried to keep the article on the basis that "her twitter page has 134,000 followers" while "Gracie Glam has 91,000 followers on twitter", and saying "Either this page remains or you remove 99% of the pornstar biographies on Wikipedia". Once Bitoni was correctly deleted, he tried to fulfil his threat and started a series of retiliatory AfDs, often introduced by plainly inaccurate and misleading rationales, some of them are early snowing (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Fontana, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gracie Glam, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rebeca Linares, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marco Banderas). Then he started this indiscriminate tagging, most of it with a 30-seconds-time-rate and without any edit summary/talk page rationale. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, so a few of his AfD/tags could be incidentally right, but this does not change the fact his actions are blatantly disruptive and a book case of WP:POINTY. Cavarrone 18:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Wow ... well, as I said in the talk page, I didn't know that "tags" could be disruptive. I thought I was simply alerting to the community to a page's possible flaws. As for the Afd's, the only ones complaining are the same three or four people who, I presume, are extremely protective of Wikiporn pages (such as Caverrone, Rebecca1990, Guy1890). Like the tags, I didn't see how these Afd's could be disruptive because the community makes the decision to delete an article, not I. I simply start the discussion; the others give the verdict. Lastly, the admins must acknowledge that these complainers will quickly cite Rod Fontana and Gracie Glam's Afd but never acknowledge these, or rarely offer an honest Delete or Keep opinion on them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lanny_Barby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sky_Lopez_(2nd_nomination) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Memphis_Monroe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shyla_Stylez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nikki_Nova https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Jaymes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tory_Lane_(2nd_nomination) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angelina_Valentine

The truth is that the same people complaining about me are the same people who never support any pornstar deletion, however obvious. I see no reason to be draconian for the sake of a few unhealthily avid porn fans on Wikipedia. They are not complaining of disruption; they are complaining about losing their beloved porn pages. I'll also note that I already gave my word on my talk page that I won't make another Afd until the ones currently open close. At least give a new user some leeway. As for the point about my contributions to Wikipedia, often I forget to log in, so these are also my work here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/108.41.160.197&offset=&limit=500&target=108.41.160.197 Redban (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• "The same people complaining about me are the same people who never support any pornstar deletion, however obvious" is obviously inaccurate and calling me "avid porn fan" smells of personal attack as well. I started many deletion discussions about pornographic actors (eg [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) and voted to delete dozens of them; when I voted to keep them I was very, very rarely contradicted by the close. Your disruptive AfDs include votes by User:Morbidthoughts and User:Milowent, your tagging was reverted also by User:Nymf, User:Qed237 and User:Avono, two AfDs were speedy closed (and later reverted) by User:Dusti as disruptive, this topic was opened from User:Mdann52. You were warned in your talk page by multiple editors. I am active on a large number of fields, particularly cinema, music and comics, very rarely edit adult-related contents. You are virtually only active on pornography-related articles (excluding some insignificant copyedits on Wrestling articles). If you are trying to depict your disruption as a good-faith editor harassed by "avid porn fans" you are for tough times. The only avid porn fan are you as it is obvious reading your comments in Bitoni's AfD. Cavarrone 19:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Suggestion for all -- If you disagree with the taggings and Afds, then simply discuss them on the particular page (Afds) or Talk page (tags). I see no reason for a complaint like this for something as consultative as Afds and tags. I sincerely believe that this complaint, as well as the baseless but repeated "disruptive" and "pointy" insults directed at me, have the sole purpose of protecting the pornstar pages, not preserving Wikipedia's peace or integrity. Again, this topic has no merit. Redban (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Redban, indiscriminately and randomly tagging for notability dozens of articles, within a 30 second timerate, almost always without any edit summary is disruptive and pointy, sorry if you don't like the terms. When I asked you about three specific templates in Riley Steele, Kayden Kross and Lorelei Lee articles I received no specific response (and I asked you about Lee twice, and I am still waiting). When I pointed on how inaccurate was a deletion rationale by you, and I also provided several sources in support of the notability of a discussed subject [10], your answer was a complete joke, if not offensive trolling [11]. Here there is a pattern of disruptiveness, that's why we are here to discuss about your behaviour. You are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Cavarrone 20:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

So origionally, I have also raised this report at AN3. However, after looking at it, it also appears that there are wider issues than just the original taggings. Qed237 and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz have also been edit warring over the tags, without any discussion. Following me reporting him, HW has said my report there was incompetent, harassing him and should be sanctioned for raising it. Therefore, I'm referring it here for further insight. --Mdann52talk to me! 19:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Mdann52 brought a 3RR report citing 2 pairs of reverts on different articles, made no effort to discuss the matter with me before filing the 3RR notice, and ignored the fact that I had opened discussion of the substantive issues in three different places. That Mdann52 repeats their false claim that I did not engage in discussion underlines why I believe some sanction is appropriate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware of any discussion as such - all I can see is removed messages and warnings. Of course, if actual discussion have been taking place, please link me to it and I will strike the relevant comment. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I already posted the links in the 3RRN discussion.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm really wondering why Redban hasn't been blocked already. This has been going on for almost a week. If a user did this to articles on mainstream actors, they would have been blocked already. It's funny how Redban went from believing that Audrey Bitoni (a porn star who fails WP:PORNBIO & WP:GNG) was notable enough for a Wikipedia article, to asking that we delete articles on porn stars who do pass PORNBIO and/or GNG because in his opinion, they aren't notable. This sudden change of mind occurred within a few days. Redban has absolutely no concern for enforcing notability guidelines, he is just disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. He stated "Either this page remains or you remove 99% of the pornstar biographies on Wikipedia" in Bitoni's AfD. Most of his additions of notability tags to articles have been reverted because the subject passed PORNBIO and/or GNG. Most of the AfD's he has started have a consensus leaning towards "keep" with a couple having several "Speedy keep" votes because of how obvious it is that the subject is notable. We've had several discussions with Redban on the AfD's he's started, his talk page, the notability guidelines talk page, etc. where he continues to dispute the consensuses in favor of our current notability guidelines and the consensus in favor of keeping the articles on individuals who pass these guidelines. Redban's defense ("I didn't see how these Afd's could be disruptive because the community makes the decision to delete an article, not I. I simply start the discussion; the others give the verdict") is flawed. We don't initiate deletion discussions for every single page that is created, just those that don't appear to meet our notability guidelines. His defense for tagging articles is "I didn't know that "tags" could be disruptive. I thought I was simply alerting to the community to a page's possible flaws." First of all, most of the pages Redban has added notability tags to have no flaws, secondly, he's been warned about these tags by several users and most of his notability tag additions have been reverted and he still claims that he doesn't know that adding these tags is disruptive. Gracie Glam is among the most notable porn stars he has started an AfD for. In Audrey Bitoni's AfD, he voted keep and argued that her 134,000 Twitter followers demonstrated notability and compared this to Gracie Glam's 91,000 Twitter followers. Why did he choose Glam? Because he knows that Glam is a notable porn star, if he didn't know this he wouldn't have chosen her to make this comparison. He also argued that Bitoni's AVN Best New Starlet NOMINATION was evidence of notability, but he somehow thinks that it isn't evidence of notability for Glam, who actually WON that very same award. He is clearly aware of how notable the subjects of the articles he is trying to delete are. He is presumably a fan of Audrey Bitoni and he is upset that her article was deleted, so he now wants all articles on porn stars he isn't a fan of to be deleted as well, particularly males which he thinks "should be held to a higher standard than the females". He doesn't agree with the direction Rod Fontana's AfD is headed in, so he now wants to get AVN Hall of Fame inductions removed from PORNBIO and have all of its recipients articles deleted. An induction into the AVN Hall of Fame is among the most prestigious accolades in the porn industry and there is absolutely no controversy whatsoever over its significance. No one besides Redban has suggested we remove it from PORNBIO, in fact, everyone who responded to him on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) opposes his views on the Hall of Fame criteria, but he continues to insist that we remove it anyways. Redban should be blocked immediately. Just look at all the warnings on his talk page; we've given him many chances to rectify his behavior but he refuses to stop. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• This complaint is misbegotten and inaccurate. Redban's tagging was prolific and sometimes inaccurate, but the claim that it was indiscriminate is unfounded. While a few tags are quite wrongheaded, the great majority are clearly appropriate and should not have been removed summarily. For example, Mdann52 gives four examples of supposedly inappropriate tagging:

1. Sandra Romain There is a solid argument that the subject is not notable. All of the listed awards are "scene" awards, which per WP:PORNBIO #1 do not count towards notability. The biographical content in the article is fairly slight, and the references are not clearly independent and reliable. Ref 7, for example, is a PR piece promoting a trade show appearance. The tagging is clearly reasonable.
2. Sophia_Rossi Rossi has no claim to notability under PORNBIO. No awards, no nominations, an unbilled role as an unnamed movie character, and an undescribed role in a single TV episode. A clear fail. The news item is quite trivial, and does not approach what the GNG requires. The tagging is clearly reasonable.
3. Lorelei Lee (pornographic actress) The subject has no awards, only nominations, and is a poor fit for the standard PORNBIO criteria. However, the cited extensive coverage and mainstream film involvement leaves little reason to doubt she satisfies the GNG. The tagging is inappropriate.
4. Juelz Ventura The subject has no individual awards, only nominations and scene awards, no mainstream credits, and no independent reliable sourcing or biographical content The subject therefore apparentlyy fails PORNBIO and the GNG. The tagging is clearly reasonable.

Rather than cherry-picking the small number of bad tags out of a very large set, I've reviewed the full set of nearly 100 tags. By my reckoning, more than 70 are clearly reasonable, perhaps a dozen are arguable, and about a half dozen look to be wrong. (See User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Redban tags for details. Reviewing the full set also demonstrates that the tagging was not indiscriminate, but was done with considerable care. The majority of the articles tagged covered porn performers who had no individual awards, only scene awards or nominations, which do not count under PORNBIO. Some others asserted only non-notable awards from non-notable award-givers (eg, NightMoves), which fail the well known/significant test in PORNBIO. A few others asserted individual awards in ersatz categories like "Dirtiest Girl in Porn", "Best Butt", "Orgasmic Analist", "Unsung Siren", and "Superslut", which have been viewed skeptically in PORNBIO discussions and which do not likely establish notability. A few of the tagged articles list appropriate individual awards, but are so deficient in providing independent that it is quite reasonable to question whether GNG failure should trump technical SNG satisfaction. Some tags look wrong to me, some are debatable, but the great majority are consistent with practice regarding such tags. By my rough calculations, about 80% are OK, 13* raise questions, and 7% are wrong. That's a pretty good track record, and pretty solidly establishes that Redcap's actions were not indiscriminate or disruptive.

In contrast, one of the most vocal complainants/detaggers, User:Rebecca1990 always !votes keep in porn-related AFDs. Per the Scottywong AFD tool (discounting one spurious !vote), lining up with consensus only about 30% of the time (35% if no consensus outcomes are excluded, roughly 50% if NC is equated to keep). That's no better than a coin flip, and can fairly be described as indiscriminate. Another perpetual keep-!voter, User:Subtropical-man, lines up with consensus only 20% of the time, barely 30% if NC is equated to keep. That's really indiscriminate. If Redcap is going to be blocked, these two have been far more disruptive and have earned much stronger sanctions. Funny, isn't it, that nobody's proposing that.

Really, that's not supposed to be how Wikipedis works. Editors are allowed to make mistakes or express unconventional opinions. (Unless one of the petty martinets in the admin corps gets involved, but that's a different kettle of rotting fish.) And we certainly don't punish editors for being only 80% right. How many editors could meet that standard? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

to be honest, I'm not an expert in the relevant notability guidelines, although GNG is plenty enough IMO. That's why I've raised it here, in order to get more attention on it. In any case, the edit warring over the tags is not really ok, and the best way to resolve all this may be at AfD (which I don't have time to pursue). --Mdann52talk to me! --Mdann52talk to me! 08:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo),

1) I or Rebecca1990 often vote for keep for articles because we believe that the articles are encyclopaedic, you often vote for delete because you have own reasons. We (I, Rebecca and you) are the same only on the other side of the barricade, so.

2) The activities, mass tagging by user Redban are clearly disruptive, and has clear signs of trolling. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 10:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• If HW is correct and 70-80% of Redban's taggings are reasonable, then that is certainly not either trolling. That 20-30% is a larger error rate than I'd like, but it's not a disruptively bad one. What would sort the problem out is if all the "correctly" tagged ones were sent to AfD. I realize that you and Rebecca1990 would !vote Keep on most if not all of them regardless, but AfD generally comes out with the correct result. Black Kite (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• What? 90% of Redban's taggings are not reasonable, mass tagging by user Redban are clearly disruptive, and has clear signs of trolling. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 14:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hullaballo's views on pornography are well-known, very strict and often persuasive, I respect them, but sometimes his are not the majority views. He is the only one to endorse the IMHO plainly wrong nominations for deletion of Gracie Glam and Marco Banderas, and he reverted two speedy closures in two discussions that are inevitably moving to be closed as keep. Even if I agree that several tagged articles could be deleteable, I don't see any reasonable chance that articles on Romain (who is full of coverage in mainstream Romanian news-sources, and the ones in the article are just a little extempt), Olivia Del Rio, Alexis Texas, Kristina Rose or Annette Schwarz could be actually deleted. Some of the tags were virtually very correct, some of them debeatable, some others wrong and several others spectacularly wrong, the main point is that it is obvious from Redban's previous own words and behaviour they were agenda-driven and part of a larger retaliatory pattern. Unsurprisingly he started the tagbombing LITERALLY TWO MINUTES AFTER he was asked by an uninvolved editor to slow the rate of his deletion-nominations. The time-rate of the tags leaves little if no doubt he did not even checked the articles he tagged: when I asked about some of them, he was unable to explain the reason WHY he put the notability tags on such articles, and his first 70 or so tags were put in about one hour, well below of a minimum standard it is reasonable to expect by a responsible, good-faith reviewer who analyzes sourcing and contents of the articles. His communication alternates trolling and personal attacks, not what we should expected on a collaborative project, and often smells of wikilawyering and other WP:GAME techniques. His bias and his agenda are crystal clear just looking at his own comments. The worst thing is that in spite of warnings and discussions, I don't see any sign he intends to change his attitude. Cavarrone 14:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• • For the record, the two AFD closes I reverted were invalid NAC closes. Per WP:NAC, non-administrators cannot close AFD discussions before the standard seven-day period has run unless the discussion qualifies as a speedy keep. These were not closed as speedy keeps, but as snow keeps; therefore each non-administrative closure was simply invalid. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Also, Redban is new user (from end of October 2014) and half of number of his edits are edits in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Apart from the fact that he can be sock-puppet, his overall contribution is highly controversial (half of edits by Redban are nominations and votes for delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 14:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz listed Ashlynn Brooke, Olivia Del Rio, Brooke Haven, Ariana Jollee, Katja Kassin, Kinzie Kenner, Sunny Lane, Marie Luv, Daisy Marie, Julie Night, Taylor Rain, Amber Rayne, Amy Ried, Kristina Rose, Olivia Saint, Annette Schwarz, Monica Sweetheart, & Taryn Thomas as OK to tag even though all of them pass PORNBIO's non scene/ensemble award win criteria. You listed Sunrise Adams, Lexi Belle, Alektra Blue, Roxy Jezel, Jada Stevens, Alexis Texas, Ava Vincent, Vicky Vette, & Lezley Zen as arguable tags even though all of them pass PORNBIO's non scene/ensemble award win criteria. I guess the rest can be considered arguable although I believe that almost all of them pass either another criteria of PORNBIO (mainstream appearances, starred in blockbuster, etc.) or GNG. When me and most of the other editors reverted these notability tags, we left edit summaries explaining what guideline(s) they passed and why. Redban clearly doesn't care about enforcing our notability guidelines and he does not truly question the notability of these porn stars, he just thinks that if his favorite porn star, Audrey Bitoni, can't have an article, no one can. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you have no problem pointing out that I always vote "keep" in AfD's in an attempt to discredit me, but you conveniently fail to mention that you almost always vote "delete", even in articles which are subsequently kept because consensus determined they were notable. Many porn articles kept at AfD had an almost unanimous keep consensus with the only delete vote coming from you. Don't try to discredit me by claiming I have a bias, which I don't. I have voted keep in articles about porn stars I dislike. And stop defending Redban, there is no justification for his disruptive behavior. Every other editor who has encountered Redban's edits has noted that he is disruptive and wasting our time. Rebecca1990 (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Deliberate dishonesty and disruptive behavior. Rebecca1990 is misrepresenting the express terms of the PORNBIO guideline. The applicable criterion (#1) states "Has won a well-known and significant industry award". It adds that scene/ensemble-related awards are categorically excluded, but does not on any way presume that other award categories pass the "well=known and significant" test. Rebecca's position was soundly rejected in the extensive rounds of RFCs that resulted on the current guideline text. Morbidthoughts summed up the matter quite accurately, saying that, "The debates or contention in [various deletion discussions] have been whether their nominations are significant enough to satisfy PORNBIO simply because they are performer awards. No, they are not and consensus had made clear when we last edited PORNBIO that the category is important in determining significance."[12] Categories like "Orgasmic Oralist" [13] have been characterized as too insignificant to satisfy the PORNBIO test. It is one thing to argue for change in policies and guidelines. It is quite another to falsify guideline text to claim that your soundly rejected position has consensus support. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't like to be negligently misquoted, Wolfowitz. Your forgetting to close the quote on my summary is misleading because you also chained another editor's opinion about that XRCO category as reflecting consensus when it has not. This type of rationale would not be permitted for article content under WP:SYN and should not be accepted here either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear God, will you assume a little good faith. You're taking great umbrage over a punctuation error when the ref clearly signaled the end of the quote. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If I had not assumed good faith, I wouldn't have been using the words, "negligently" or "forgetting". Even if the punctuation had been correct, your chaining still would have been misleading, "deliberate" or not. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have to admit something about the user just doesn't add up!, And I have to agree that IMHO it seems the user's pissed off about this article getting deleted so thus he's sticking to his word and nominating every other article just to be a pain in the arse (had there been real concerns in regards to the state of the articles I wouldn't have a problem whatsoever but they all seem fine and it does just come across as retaliation for his favourite article getting deleted), Personally I'd like to see him blocked for a week but that's just my opinion. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Any normal Wikipedia action will generally be considered to be run the risk of being considered disruptive if done en masse, unless there is a clear and widespread prior agreement that the mass action is acceptable. The only way to get that agreement is with some kind of centralized consensus discussion, which did not occur in this case. It's clear from this very discussion that views on the appropriateness of the tagging differ widely, and that, in and of itself, is an indication that Redban's bold edit was not, on the face of it, one that would have easily received a consensus agreement. Redban's mass edits should be mass-overturned, he should start a centralized discussion regarding the subjects he (or HW) believes should be tagged (and that discussion should not take place here), and Redban should take onboard the lesson that there was a better way to go about what he wished to do. Should he do it again, he should be considered to have been suitably warned, and should be blocked for deliberate disruption, and individual editors who take it upon themselves to re-tag these articles without prior discussion should be warned to stop and talk before acting. BMK (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• I've only seen a little bit of Redban's activity as I must not be an "unhealthily avid porn fan", but he appears to have a POV that is anti-porn and is tagging outside our standards. This discussion is probably getting too long for anyone to know what to do, but basically Redban will lose any credibility to get anything deleted if he acts in this manner.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• I'm wary of anyone who mass-tags or mass-nominates AFDs, as such behavior is nearly always disruptive, generating ill will in the community and polarization in discussions. Any new account that does those things deserves outright suspicion if not blocking on sight. We don't do agendas, and we expect competence and care in our editing, which requires proper time spent on each decision we make when we choose to act. And we certainly don't do retaliatory editing, and the timing of this spree coming after they "lost" an AFD on the same subject matter is definitely concerning. If Redban persists in tagging or nominating articles for deletion, they should be blocked immediately as it's clear there is no consensus for their actions and the end result has been entirely nonconstructive, merely generating a lot of fuss and a lot of work for others. They should feel free to participate in discussions others have started, but there's no trust for them to start their own and no reason to let them do so. postdlf (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• I've got a long history of agreeing with HW about porn articles, but in this particular case I don't agree. This is a brand new account whose main activity is large-scale AfD nominations. Whoever this is, they're on a crusade. We shouldn't tolerate it.—S Marshall T/C 03:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I've been quite careful to avoid the suggestion that this editor was acting in good faith, wanting to leave them enough rope to hang themself, and they've done a pretty good job of it. We have a new editor -- no, a new account for a plainly experienced editor -- who surfaced as a vigorous porn enthusiast, did a 180 degree turn into a rabid porn deletionist, went on a tagging spree that mixed 80% reasonable tagging with some howling bad calls that virtually called attention to themselves, and raised a shitstorm of zealous porn defense here, far out of proportion to the minimal disruption involved. They've stirred things up so much that people are reverting stub tags placed on one- and two-sentence articles [14] [15] [16][17], which in any rational context would be seen as perfectly acceptable. The provocateur's behavior and the sometimes deliberately disproportionate reaction to it, have polluted things so badly that an impeccably presented and argued AFD nomination by Morbidthoughts (who's only had one nomination turned down in five years!) has been caught up in the circus and appears to be failing (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Stevens (2nd nomination)). There's deliberate disruption going on, all right, but not the simplistic sort. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Looks like I have to go and elaborate on my nomination to make it impeccable since redban had done all the arguing for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal - TBAN

I believe enough has been said. May I formally propose a tban for Redban from pornbios, including tagging and AfDing, subject to the usual exclusion. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 13:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:POINTY Avono (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time - I don't think there's been a sufficient history to justify a topic ban right now. Redban should be warned that their behavior was disruptive, and told that if they do it (or anything similar to it) again, they will be blocked. At that time, a tban might well be justified. BMK (talk)
  • Support - per Redban's current behavior, as revealed by Cavarrone below. The editor clearly has not taken onboard the advice inherent in this report, and seems clearly to be on a personal mission in regard to pornbios. BMK (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Such sanctions are intended to be preventive. When his behavior was challenged, the user stopped. It's pretty clear that some of the users calling for his scalp either don't understand banning/blocking policy or are willfully ignoring it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by what you take "preventive" to mean in this context. "He doesn't happen to be doing it while we're discussing it" isn't really an argument, and stopping in and of itself doesn't establish that they understand what the problem was. Topic bans are always meant to prevent future disruption of the same kind caused in the past, sending a clear signal to the editor that "you've proven you can't be trusted to work in this area" and that they will be blocked if they ignore that. postdlf (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • He was challenged. He stopped. He engaged in discussion. What else do you want a user to do? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
      • The only promise I see from him right now is "I'll stop while the current batch are pending." That's far from an acknowledgement that there was a problem, and instead he attributed the criticism of his deletion agenda purely to an agenda to keep rather than any problem with his methods or judgment. More editors who have no involvement in that subject area have since commented (and all critically), but he has not yet responded to that. But note as per my comment below, I'm basically in agreement with BMK that this discussion constitutes a warning that resumption of the same conduct will result in him being blocked, and I don't think it's (yet) necessary to ban him from any involvement in porn articles. Unless he shows new methods of disruption in that area... postdlf (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
        • ...which he has now. postdlf (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think we have call for banning from the whole subject matter, but it's clear from the above discussion that if Redban resumes rapidfire tagging or mass-nominates any more articles, they will be blocked. postdlf (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• I was for echoing the postdlf's and BMK's comments above, but apparently this individual has not stopped anything... he has just reprised with this unhelpful tagging and his last tag has as edit summary announced future AfDs: "Article full of nothing ... I'll put the tags for now before deletion". Interestingly the article lists several reliable book sources and already survived an AfD based on the subject passing GNG. This editor has no other interest than making his crusade. Sadly support at this point as the community have better things to do than loosing time reviewing his edits and challenging his work. Cavarrone 22:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sigh... I've blocked them for 24 hours for disruption. Their responses to BMK on their talk page are hard to read as anything but trolling. I suspect the nonsense will resume when the block expires, so support topic ban per above, and I'd favor a ban on any tagging activity regardless of article subject. postdlf (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, the trolling, the personal attacks and the combative attitude are also a part of the problem, the main part IMHO. Some of his comments/actions smell of sockpuppetry, too (eg the almost immediate reply to BMK with a citation of a rather little known essay is not what I expect from a brand new editor, as Redban pretends to be). Cavarrone 23:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I wondered about that as well. postdlf (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Template:Uninvolved Looks like s/he gave up, guys. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 14:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
          • The use of that retired template is also unusual for a new editor. I can't say I put a lot of trust in its use here. My inclination is now to indef block the account so they have to present an argument for reactivating the account, rather than letting them sneak back when no one's paying attention. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Yes, almost everything about this editor just cries out "returning editor trying to obscure their identity." In my opinion, a block would be prophylactic. BMK (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Input. Now I havent read all of the massive paragraphs posted on here by people, but to me I think the conduct has ceased so a ban isn't appropriate cause of the rules in our WP:BLOCKDETERRENT and WP:NOPUNISH. The quotations are: In general once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not seen as appropriate ......... Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased.

You guys are inclining or suspecting that he will come back but suspicion isn't enough for a ban since banning needs utmost caution and care. If we give the fella' the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has given up, then just let this go and move on. If he comes back and decide to start trouble again, then report it again as well as this page and you can likely get him banned easy.

I would also need to question the level of disruption by asking if its really enough to warrant a ban. From what I see above, he started tagging A TON of porno-people for notabilities yet even then the majority of the tags were actually arguable. Right now most the tags have been removed and he hasnt put anything back (so no edit warring). Was his actions really disruptive enough to deserve a total ban from Wikipedia, guys?

Also, the guy is new on here and our rules say, Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future. See Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers. Since 2007 the amount of editors on Wikipedia has been going down a lot and a lot of people say our bureaucracy is the cause of that decline. Lets set a gentle precedent right now and let this go and move on. Its Christmas season after all. Let it go, guys! Move on with it! Percentagesign (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

By posting using an account that is less than 24 hours old you are illustrating the actual issue: many problematic users are not "new". Further, any declining editor participation is more likely due to failure of admins to take action against problematic users who drive away other contributors. However, let's assume the editor in question is completely new and simply is at the center of a disagreement. Why has this section dragged on for a week? A good-faith new user would see there was opposition to their style and would say "Oh, sorry, I'm new ... I'll stop doing that and take some time to figure out what the problem is". If that had happened, this would have been finished a week ago. Perhaps the new editor is right...they just need to proceed more slowly and collaborate with others. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead with the block, notwithstanding the comment posted here out of the blue as the 30th edit of an account that wasn't even 24 hours old. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support of indefinite blocks of at least the following editors: User:Redban & IP address 108.41.160.197, the latter of which is "Redban"'s admitted (above) IP-address when he was editing while logged out. The very recently-created account of User:Percentagesign has also been editing in the same areas as these two accounts...see: editing along with the "Redban" account, editing along with both the "Redban" & the above IP-accounts, and editing along with the above IP-account. All three accounts have been editing in similiar areas...NYC-area school & baseball-related Wikipedia articles...with the "Redban" & IP-accounts both also editing in the pornography & literature-related areas as well.

After reviewing the vast majority of the edits from the "Redban" account, most of them, IMHO, have been highly questionable or obviously diruptive, which pretty much means to me that this (not at all new to Wikipedia) editor is not here to to build an encyclopedia. Attempts from above to try & defend this editor's behavior on Wikipedia are, at best, misguided. Enough is enough people...far too many editors have had to waste time undoing or fixing edits from these Wikipedia accounts. Guy1890 (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that together. I think WP:DUCK clearly applies, so the "new" account is getting blocked as well (hell, their comment above is a textbook DUCK example). postdlf (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• TBAN warning from an admin willing to re-engage on the issue if Redban does not take the advice being offered here to heart in a hurry. Looking at the context and pattern of the edits, I'm inclined to agree that there can be very little doubt that underlying cause for these tags is a reactionary (if not outright retaliatory) response to findings connected to similar issues in another AfD. In other words, an extensive fit to make sure the WP:OTHERSTUFF meets the same fate as the content said editor wanted to keep, whether the cases are equivalent or not. The fact that some of these tags may or may not have been incidentally on the mark is really secondary, because, in the long run, editorial activities carried out with these kinds of goals in mind inevitably ends up disruptive and counter-productive on the balance, usually by a significant margin. I'm less concerned about Redban's edits to the pages themselves than I am their attitude in discussions, including a propensity to downplay concerns about their behaviour and frame the motivations of their critics in terms of (often insulting) straw man arguments, even when the vast majority of involved editors are trying to tell them that their approach is disruptive. It seems doubtful there will be a change towards a more measured and good-faith approach until Redban admits that there is a problem to begin with. Even if the tagging abates in this case, similar problems on other topics are likely -- if a change in editorial approach and priorities are not stressed -- since the core issue is respect for process, not a matter particular to porn actresses. All of that being said, I really don't see enough in terms of blatant policy violation to justify a block or ban at this point. Surely some form of administrative warning is appropriate first. Yes, I'm a little dubious it will get the desired effect, but pro forma it seems the right thing to do. Snow talk 07:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Bullying, intimidation, and ownership of articles

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

---

I have made thousands of edits to city articles, and have added 159 new articles to Wikipedia. I feel I am a respected editor, and have never been censured or blocked. For the past month I have tried to contribute to articles about New Jersey, and have been repeatedly harassed by User:Alansohn If you look through my edit history, you will see that nearly every edit I have made to an article about New Jersey has within minutes been reverted or tinkered with by User:Alansohn. Sometimes his corrections were so sloppy they seemed almost made in haste, and I needed to go back and fix them (see Bear Tavern, New Jersey and Aserdaten, New Jersey). There real problem is that this sort of ownership and intimidation scares editors away from articles about New Jersey. I have twice reported to you his incivility and desire to "own" New Jersey articles, see here and here. He has left this edit summary for me last week. Today, when he was unhappy with one of my edits, he left a message on my talk page and concluded "You are operating in very dangerous territory here." Please take action against this editor with a long history of incivility. I edit on Wikipedia because I want to build an encyclopedia. No one on here deserves to be bullied and intimidated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Archive link to previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#New Jersey is NOT owned by one editor. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Magnolia677 is currently involved in his latest edit war in which he insists that there must be a standalone article for Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey. I have pointed out to him that the article is for a location that is exactly the same as Marlboro Township, New Jersey. I raised the issue on his talk page (here and here) and he refused to respond. I raised the same issue in more detail at User_talk:Tinton5 (here), and he again refused to provide any explanation, instead choosing to blindly undo the reverts before replying that the place appears on a map as his entire argument. He was bold and recreated a standalone article for Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey. I reverted the change and provided a rather clear explanation for my position based on the available data. Google maps and MapIt all seem to think that the GNIS point for this "other" Marlboro is at the southeast corner of Vanderburg Road and Hudson Street in Marlboro Township. There is no evidence that Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey is anything other than Marlboro Township, New Jersey. Per WP:BRD, I have tried to raise the issues rationally with Magnolia677 and encourage him to discuss, make his case and establish a new consensus overriding the longstanding status quo ante that has Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey as a redirect to Marlboro Township, New Jersey, as there seems to be no way to make it a meaningful independent article. His choice of action is to come to here to WP:ANI. Any suggestions? Alansohn (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If your position is that the Marlboro article is, in effect, a duplication of the Marlboro Township article, why not breing it to AfD and let a consensus decide, rather then repeatedly making the decision on your own? If it is as obvious as you say, then the outcome should be in your favor. BMK (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please recognize this "smokescreen" and look into my ongoing concern with this abusive editor. Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken, the community finds it rather rude and disrespectful to go straight to deletion, even for articles like Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey that have no prayer of retention and will result in a redirect. Instead, WP:Deletion policy suggests trying to edit the article and trying to merge the content into another article. I've done my part, but User:Magnolia677 has refused to have address the issues and simply refuses to consider a merge. I am more than happy to pursue resolving this issue via WP:AFD, but the underlying problem of Magnolia677's refusal to work on a collaborative basis needs to be addressed. This is the third ANI he has initiated in just a few weeks and this is the third report that will go nowhere. It is well past time for Magnolia677 to face appropriate sanctions for this chronic disruption. Alansohn (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Going to AfD cannot possibly be more "rude and disrespectful" than deleting it yourself on your own. Let the community decide, that's what it's here for, to decide consensus, and what AfD is meant for. You may well be right, but pushing your opinion in the face of disagreement from another editor is not ideal. BMK (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't delete anything, I'm not an administrator, but I can change a non-viable article back to a redirect, which is exactly what I did. You may want to speak to User:Magnolia677, who has refused to discuss per WP:BRD, blindly reverted his changes and than ran here -- for the third time -- to ANI. Alansohn (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't be disingenuous, converting an article to a redirect is tantamount to deleting it. BMK (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I was tempted to take some sort of action here, but I ought to be considered involved, as I've had enough encounters with Alansohn of the same sort as what's being mentioned here. Part of the problem is that Alansohn appears to come into everything NJ-related almost immediately after its creation, e.g. doing big makeovers on Aserdaten about ½ day after its creation and Bear Tavern about ½ hour after its. Yes, big makeovers can be helpful, but by coming in so soon, without discussion or explanation (I see nothing on either talk page, and Alansohn's first comment about Aserdaten on Magnolia's talk page came after most of the edits were made. If you've looked at many of these NJ place articles, you'll understand what Alansohn means about the standards (they're pretty much all formatted the same way, so it's unhelpful to have exceptions without good reason), but as far as I can see, the standards are simply mentioned without explanation or even offers to explain. Meanwhile, look at Marlboro: no discussions at Talk:Marlboro Township, New Jersey or Talk:Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey, and everything in the final sections of User talk:Magnolia677 and User talk:Tinton5 makes it appear that Alansohn doesn't understand what's going on, and when it's explained to him in simple terms, simply contradicts and continues saying what's already been disproven. Magnolia provides clear evidence that community and township are different concepts, but Alansohn repeats what he said before, along with an obviously false claim that the community is a point, not a community. Even here, we see the same attitude: outside of New Jersey, community articles of this sort are routine in the USA, but Alansohn assumes that the community will back up his highly unusual idea. Part of the issue, of course, is a content dispute over whether community and township ought to have separate articles, but regardless of whether they ought to be separate, Alansohn is enforcing a local standard without obvious explanation, ignoring or discounting explanations given by Magnolia, and so badly demonstrating ownership that he assumes that his highly idiosyncratic approach to this situation is based in the community consensus with which he is actually so greatly at variance. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Are not the "standards" for NJ articles ones which Alansohn created himself? That, at least, is how I interpret "I am looking to create a structure to load expanded information into pages for all of New Jersey's 566 municipalities" from his talk page. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but – just as with the Manual of Style, which ArbCom has told us should not be treated as if it was immutable policy – standards, guidelines and consistent formatting should never get in the way of presenting the specific material in a specific article in the best possible way. BMK (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I tried the remove the categories he created and then insisted on adding to the "notable people' section of New Jersey articles. Look at the nightmare I faced here, here, and here. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:NE2 raised the issue at AfD (see here) that I should support the deletion of other, similar place articles where there is no assertion other than the fact that it exists, such as Beacon Hill, New Jersey. I'm no fan at all of such articles, but I'm extremely reluctant to delete such articles as there appears a legitimate chance that they might have room for expansion. For a Marlboro / Marlboro Township pair there seems to be little likelihood that there is anything to distinguish the two, there seems to be no benefit to having an independent article and this has been the status quo / consensus for nearly ten years and I had nothing to do with that redirect. I've reached out to Magnoli677, encouraged him to state his case, and all he has done to back up his edit war is state that it exists. Feel free to disagree, but trying to use an edit to my user page from nine years ago as an argument seems to be something of a stretch. Alansohn (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Reached out?? A week ago you told me it was "time to cut the crap and learn to work collaboratively". Magnolia677 (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

After much arbitrary deletion on your part, you were dragged to Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, where the result was "My independent input is that Magnolia677 seems to essentially concede your points in favor of including the cat link." (see here), and that included having a shill chime in on your behalf after a rather blatant WP:CANVASS violation on your part here. You win some, you lose some, but your approach of trying to get your way but edit warring, refusing to discuss and running to ANI is not how Wikipedia works. Alansohn (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Alansohn: what harm are these articles on real communities doing? If you were interested in improving our information on places, you would at the very least merge any independent information into the township article, rather than simply redirecting.

As for the specific example of Marlboro, this appears to be older than the township itself (for those unfamiliar with NJ government, townships are somewhere between counties and towns/cities, comprising areas of the state that have not been otherwise incorporated). http://www.marlboro-nj.gov/DOCUMENTS/Master_Plan_Re-exam_adopted_July_2012.pdf has some information for expanding the article about the unincorporated community (search for 'village'). http://www.marlboro-nj.gov/DOCUMENTS/Marlboro-Community-Vision-Plan.pdf (p. 41) shows that there is a defined "Marlboro Village Historic District", so it does have boundaries (not that such things are required to be a notable place). --NE2 04:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

My abilities to edit Wikipedia have been severely restricted lately by personal circumstance, so I am often unable to follow or respond on this page (Mostly seeing Wikipedia on my phone, and this page is usually too large for my phone to load), but much of the problems Magnolia is experiencing with Alansohn started a bit prior to his edit drive on small NJ places (for which I applaud him. Stubs on tiny communities are a very useful addition here. They allow someone who may know of some obscure sources a place to "build up" info that they may have otherwise just not shared). Magnolia backed me up on some edits removing COI from St. Augustine Preparatory School. Alansohn took exception to this action by myself and Magnolia and brought his argument to my talk page here. After repeated back and forths regarding the edits (my position being that the editor was an indisputable COI editor and the quality of her edits were of a secondary concern to that. His being that the edits were good and so should remain.) in which he refused to address the COI issue and only would talk about the quality of the edits, I asked him in no uncertain terms to quit wasting my time as we were obviously not going to agree (keep in mind, this is on my talk page). He refused to respect that so I told him on his talk page to leave me alone and stay off my talk page, while telling him I would be more than happy to discuss any edit with him on any article talk page (here). I was not the most polite with him at that time...in fact I was a bit rude. After re-factoring my comment on his talk page here he did leave me alone for a while, until the 1st of December, when he stalked me to a brand new users talk page here, and then again appeared on my talk page, insisting on debating something with me on my talk page. Alansohn seems very confused as to the respective uses of article and user talk pages, and the accepted method for obtaining consensus here on Wikipedia (see above and here). Referencing the archived discussion mentioned above, Alansohn's notion that he might ever get to see the content of any email and his attitude that Magnolia and I discussing a similar problem we had both had with him was somehow actionable here is very indicative of the attitude all the rest of Wikipedia is dealing with from Alansohn. It is telling that there has been no-one, in either of the discussions here that has come forward to defend him. As a member of the Editor Retention project, I find his attitude of ownership and self importance (witness the above referenced intrusion on a brand new user's talk to make a point with me) to be very destructive to recruitment and retention of new users and his ownership of all things New Jersey to be destructive overall to our coverage of US places. I know I have not behaved as well as I could here either, and will accept a sanction for it without complaint if you feel it needed. But when I get maybe two hours a week to actually use a PC and try to do some substantive editing (the phone interface sucks) it is very frustrating to have to waste my time dealing with the fallout of some other editor's overblown ego. I don't care if Alansohn has 400,000 edits, 4 edits or 4 million edits: his behavior is detrimental to the community as a whole. John from Idegon (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The article for St. Augustine Preparatory School is instructive. User:John from Idegon took it upon himself to arbitrarily remove content from the article and to restore content that he knew full well was incorrect, inaccurate and out of date, without taking any action to distinguish between edits that improved the article and edits that might potentially be problematic. For someone who claims to be deeply involved in "editor retention", John from Idegon has consistently demonstrated an inability to work with users to keep and add content, instead preferring to remove content with often inappropriate warnings, which seem designed in every way possible to discourage new editors from participating. It is this kind of arrogant attitude that leads to discouraging editor retention, from both new and experienced editors. It's no surprise that User:John from Idegon has shown up here, acting again as a shill for User:Magnolia677; the two do an excellent job of covering for each other's actions (see here for a pair of edits from Magnolia677 to help out John from Idegon). I can't imagine anyone having the gall to compare an editor to Adolf Hitler, but if this edit is an example of User:John from Idegon's editor retention efforts, we're all screwed: "The only editor that is not going to be retained is ME. I have had my fill of arrogant pricks like the asshole above. He stalks me to a brand new editors talk page, addresses a venomious message to me there and doesn't even say boo, good morning or get fucked to the editor whose page it is and I AM THE ONE BEING ORDERED BY YOU TO RESPOND? Fuck this. I've told him to stay off my talk page and it is my understanding that is to be honored. Another editor told him if he doesn't like the guideline he has said he doesn't think needs to be followed he should address his concerns there. What a crock of shit. I have nothing but respect for you, 7 and 6, and it puzzles me why you would get involved in this. But I am done with this. Zigheil, mein Fuhrer Sohn." If this is how WP:Editor retention works, we have bigger problems here than I ever imagined. Alansohn (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Alan, the quote you provided clearly states that you yourself violated a very clear behavioral standard in continuing to post on a user's talk page after being told not to. If you believe an editor using admittedly over-the-top language to describe someone who apparently by his actions took it upon himself to violate basic standards of decorum is generally unacceptable, I might not disagree, but that behavior was apparently brought on by similarly unacceptable violation of decorum, in this case your own, and that should be taken into account. Your conduct in this matter does give the impression of being problematic. Having said that, the conduct of some others doesn't seem to be conduct which they would want the teacher to tell mommy about either. You do not have the right you seem to believe you have to violate conduct guidelines. I think that much of the problem is at least in part based on your own conduct, and your apparent refusal to engage in reasonable discourse. I don't have any reason to think the specific article on Marlboro Township necessarily qualifies for inclusion either, but unilaterally turning it into a redirect without any apparent discussion isn't proper either. I believe the time has come, perhaps, for you to recognize that your conduct includes some problems that are far bigger than you seem to have ever imagined, and that the time may have come for you to act in a more genuinely cooperative manner than that you seem to have often displayed to date. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I first approached User:John from Idegon after he removed extensive edits from the article for St. Augustine Preparatory School (see here), in which I couldn't have been more polite in suggesting that there might be a better way to deal with the situation. John from Idegon responded here with a bad faith personal attack. Sure he's merely a passive agressive jerk, who demands that I respond reach out to him and say hello on his talk page and then goes bezerk when I do. But there is no excuse for John from Idegon's for "Zigheil, mein Fuhrer Sohn" and even John from Idegon seems to recognize that it crosses a line, but it takes a special kind of person like a User:John Carter to rationalize one of the most unacceptable personal attacks I have ever seen. If changing a contentless article back to the redirect it was for nine years "isn't proper" but "Zigheil, mein Fuhrer Sohn" is acceptable behavior that you are willing to condone, we're far more screwed up than I've ever imagined. Alansohn (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Alansohn, you seem fixated on the fact that because an article has been redirected for nine years, then it is set in stone. Time changes stuff on Wikipedia you know. I mean, look at all the disruptive editing you were blocked for just six years ago. You've changed, right?

• April 29, 2009 - "persistent assumptions of bad faith; incivility; personal attacks in violation of editing restrictions".
• April 14, 2009 - "incivility; violation of editing restrictions at several recent CfDs".
• January 22, 2009 - "incivility, violation of editing restrictions".
• October 10, 2008 - "incivility".
• July 28, 2008 - "abuse of process at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Rlevse#Oppose and general violation of editing restrictions".
• June 17, 2008 - "violation of arbcom ruling".
• January 21, 2008 - "personal attacks and Tendentious editing".
• January 15, 2008 - "gross incivility after request to refrain from gross incivility".
• January 9, 2008 - "edit warring". Magnolia677 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Again with your egocentric attitude. I thought my implication was clear but since it's not I will just flat out say it. Wikipedia would have much less problems retaining editors if the likes of you were not here. If Magnolia and I in totally separate instances at totally separate times experienced your bullying ownership attitude and at least one other editor (an admin BTW) also has, I would have to say it needs to be treated like the police treat child molesters. If we know of three times there are probably 300 more. You may have made 400,000 edits, but that includes all your posting to people's talk pages. Just how much of it is constructive? I would gladly trade all of your work to get you censured so you quit driving off new users who are capable of understanding that Wikipedia is not going to work the same way now, with over 4 million articles and 10,000 editors as it did when you started editing and there were a few hundred thousand articles and less than 1000 editors. Times change. You are absolutely refusing to. What is your explanation for taking a dump all over that new editor's talk page, where you were not involved and he was not involved with you? You did not even mention the editor whose talk page it was at all. How can that be anything other than stalking and bullying? And how totally rude of you to totally ignore the poor brand new guy who is left staring with his tongue out going, " WTF just happened?" Here's a piece of news for you, Alansohn. Neither I, nor any other editor in all of Wikipedia ever has to talk to you. NEVER. Yet you have repeatedly posted on my talk page, even though you were told to stay away, that I must talk to you. You have done the same on Magnolia's talk page. My personal opinion is that there is no value whatsoever in retaining editors like you. My efforts are at intercepting the new ones that get thrown in with us lions and no chair and try to give them some tools to survive. Mainly, anymore, that includes giving them the tools to survive the likes of you. You bent me out of shape, and I reacted poorly. I will not apologize to you, but I will gladly apologize to the rest of the community. However when you come to my talk page and demand things, AFTER YOU WERE TOLD TO STAY AWAY, you should probably expect a less than stellar welcome. And just so you are absolutely clear, Alansohn...I would applaud you leaving Wikipedia forever and have absolutely no intention of doing one single thing that will promote YOUR retention. You are about the only one I will say that about at this time. It is only useful editors that are willing to work with each other that I have any interest in retaining, and that will remain one of my main concentrations here. I will gladly agree to leave Alansohn alone, as long as that does not mean I cannot continue to work on school and place articles in New Jersey. I am probably not going to be able to respond here again this week. Ping me if a response is imperative and I will find someone to proxy post for me. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And just as you find the over the top, but categorically accurate comparison to the dictator Adolph Hitler unacceptable, I find your use of the word "shill" to describe any of my edits to be yet more of your uncivil bullshit. I guess since you have undoubtedly driven off any allies you ever had here, you find it impossible that two editors would share similar beliefs and edit cooperatively on subjects they share interest in. An action that is not, BTW, against the rules unless there is canvassing, which is not the case. I have many articles on my watchlist that Magnolia has on his. I also have many articles that Nyttend or Kudpung have on their watchlists and tend to edit those articles in a similar manner. Does that make me their shills? Or are they mine? Or are you just being the egocentric jerk we all know you are? John from Idegon (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I would propose that Alansohn be topic banned from any article related to New Jersey for a period of three months. I would further propose that he issue a heartfelt apology to the poor new user that got caught in his tirade toward me. I will gladly take the standard 24 hour Civility block for my calling up of Hitler's name...that was completely unacceptable. Perhaps after three months his attitude of ownership will wear off. John from Idegon (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please notice how quickly Alansohn redirected Fair Play, New Jersey, without so much as a talk page discussion. In one edit summary there he stated "article has no content and should not be created until genuinely useful content can be added". Yet on dozens of other New Jersey geo stubs created from nothing more than a GNIS reference, he is happy to add some minor tweek and not redirect (as if to say, "Alansohn has been here"). See, for example, Cedar Run, New Jersey, Millhurst, New Jersey, and Georgia, New Jersey. For goodness sake, Gilford Park, New Jersey doesn't have ANY sources and he was happy to add his name to the list of page editors! This is nothing but bully behavior. All I've tried to do is add some new articles to New Jersey, and I've had nothing but intimidation and bullying. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:GEOLAND, the notability guideline that applies to geographic features, states that "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally-recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." The Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey article that User:Magnolia677 recreated -- after over nine years as a redirect -- contained a single source and no content other than a pair of roadways. The single source provided offers nothing more than a one-dimensional point. In no way, shape or form did this article have any of the "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" required by policy. Magnolia677 couldn't even bother to explain where in the county this place was located, nor could he explain how this one-dimensional point differed from the parent article for Marlboro Township, New Jersey, an article with more than 250 sources that made no mention of a same-named hamlet within the township or the existence of a "Marlboro Village". Given that there seemed to be little likelihood of this article ever distinguishing itself from its parent, a reinstatement of the redirect seems to be more than approrpriate. I would have gladly merged any content into the parent article for Marlboro Township, New Jersey, but there was none. Both users have several years and tens of thousands of edits under their belts. Both of them ought to be vaguely familiar with the fundamental Wikipedia policy that makes Intercourse, Pennsylvania notable -- the existence of ample reliable and verifiable coverage included in the article -- and explains why there are no articles for Mule Piss, Minnesota or Ass Wipe, Arkansas. The existence of a bare GNIS entry does nothing more than provide the possibility that an article might be created that meets the notability standard. Nor does it seem that User:Magnolia677 understands that making AWB edits to articles -- such as Cedar Run, New Jersey, Millhurst, New Jersey, and Georgia, New Jersey, or any other such article -- hardly constitutes a seal of approval, nor the fact that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't make any equally crappy article notable. I'm still not sure what it is about an editor pointing out the most basic failure to create articles with reliable and verifiable sources that drives people like User:Magnolia677 to run to ANI at the drop of a hat. Nor can I understand how this edit trying to explain that sourced content should not be deleted can turn folks like User:John from Idegon into fits of insanity that justify calling me Adolf Hitler, a madman who murdered tens of millions of people, though maybe Hitler also allowed editors with a potential WP:COI conflict to add useful contents to articles. Alansohn (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"On a case-by-case basis" means via a community consensus discussion, not by the decision of a single editor who appears to be predisposed to reject communities as non-notable unless he personally is involved in the creation or writing of the article about them. Articles about New Jersey communities are not Alansohn's private domain, and being bold only goes so far. If disagreement with Alansohn's bold actions arises, he needs to open a consensus discussion, and not to step up his pushback efforts, as he has done here. All of his comments here are positively dripping with an ownership mentality, in this case not for a single article, but for a class of articles. BMK (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Convenience break

If this is strictly about behavior, not about content disagreements, then the example of the history of the Fair Play, New Jersey article does give a sense that some basic issues exist. It's not a good idea to redirect unilaterally in the manner shown in the history after being invited to discuss on the talk page. This is the kind of thing that should be discouraged, because it doesn't look like great behavior no matter what the issue is with the content.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• The current edit war that User:Magnolia677 has engaged in at Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey is most relevant here, but Fair Play, New Jersey is also an excellent example of an article that was created (see here) as a substandard article consisting of 13 words based on a single source, which simply states that the place exists. I know full well that there are people who believe that this is a paradigm of Wikipedia's best new articles, but per WP:GEOLAND such articles for unofficial places need to have "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." and that '"If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally-recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." After much back and forth, Fair Play, New Jersey now includes five sources, all of which are trivial mentions. Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey presents great potential issues, which have already been addressed by Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey, its many participants and other Wikipedia editors. The article had been a redirect for nine years, having been turned into a redirect in 2005 by User:67.108.122.62, not by me. The new standalone article created by Magnolia677 was made up of 24 words and, yet again, a single source. My revert was based on the fact that there was no apparent distinction between Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey and Marlboro Township, New Jersey. I reached out to Magnolia677 on three separate occasions here, here and in greater detail here), clearly laying out my concerns. Magnolia677 refused to address these issues and followed up with a blind revert (here) with the insistent edit summary that Marlboro is "listed on GNIS and on a map", with nothing more than that. After a few more blind reverts, he created this ANI case here an hour later (here). There are 565 municipalities in New Jersey and virtually every one of them has a pair of GNIS entries listed both under "civil" and "populated place", and Magnolia677 apparently plans to create an article for every one of these non-places. There are 17 Wikipedia articles that exist in the format "placename, countyname, New Jersey" and nearly every one is a redirect, including Bloomingdale, Passaic County, New Jersey (created by User:Anthony Appleyard, not me), Franklin, Somerset County, New Jersey (created by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), not me), Greenwich, Cumberland County, New Jersey (one of several created by User:ChrisRuvolo, not me), Jersey City, Hudson County, New Jersey (created by User:NE2, not me), Red Bank, Monmouth County, New Jersey (by me), Shiloh, Cumberland County, New Jersey (created by User:GTBacchus, not me) and Waldwick, Bergen County, New Jersey (created by User:Steven Russell, not me). Sure, I did create one of these redirects, but there is broad consensus among editors here that there should not be a separate article created for such places. User:Magnolia677 is more than entitled to disagree and the source uncovered by User:NE2 might possibly be useful here in creating an article for the Marlboro Village Historic District, though this search turns up only four sources in all of the Internet. If there is something that I have done wrong here on this article -- adequate to merit Magnolia677 maliciously creating this ANI case after a series of blind reverts or for User:John from Idegon to label me as an Adolf Hitler -- I'm not seeing it. I think that my actions were based on a good faith effort to comply with Wikipedia policy at WP:GEOLAND and to engage in the community discussion required by WP:BRD. I am merely one of dozens of editors who have set the consensus that such articles should be redirects and I hope that User:Magnolia677 will start engaging in discussion in the future, preferably before he starts overturning longstanding consensus. Alansohn (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

TLDR. It's a fact that Marlboro Village is a small place within the huge Marlboro Township. --NE2 19:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ex post facto that's an excellent argument, but the article was created on a standalone basis solely based on the existence of an entry in GNIS, nothing more. The issue was raised to Magnolia677 on three separate occasions asking what the difference was between Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey and Marlboro Township, New Jersey and Magnolia677 offered no answer. Marlboro Village does appear to exist, but it was never mentioned before in a parent article with more than 250 references, appears in only four sources (per Google, none of which are in-depth) and was discovered only after the fact. The standard to redirect to the parent article for such places is longstanding and you are one of the editors who helped establish that consensus. If only Magnolia677 had done the research you had done and had added the source to establish that the two places are not identical, there would be no issue. But as it stood when it was created as a standalone article by Magnolia677, Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey only included two dozen words and a single source. I am merely one of dozens of editors -- you among them -- who have set the consensus that such articles should be redirects. Alansohn (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"appears in only four sources" - entirely false. Here's one of many sources that use the disambiguated "Marlboro Village" form of the place name: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/legacies/NJ/200003335.html

"you are one of the editors who helped establish that consensus" --NE2 20:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the section you TLDR'ed, where you were among the editors who ensured that articles in the format "placename, couny, New Jersey" were turned into redirects. "appears in only four sources" is entirely accurate; Just click on the source I provided. You've dug up some sources that mention a "Marlboro Village", but this source is a great source about the Marlboro Tree, but only mentions Marlboro Village in passing. That's why the Marlboro Township article has a section for the Marlboro Tree, but not for Marlboro Village. Again, you've found some potential sources for an article for a Marlboro Village Historic District, but this source was found after the fact and my recommendation would be to start it as a section within the Marlboro Township, New Jersey article. Alansohn (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"Just click on the source I provided" - I see no source provided by you, only a Google search in which you deliberately used the Marlboro Village Historic District form to produce fewer results.

If you mean my creation of Jersey City, Hudson County, New Jersey, that's a perfect example of you refusing to accept that Marlboro (Village) is a separate place. Nobody has ever claimed that there's a separate place within the city of Jersey City called Jersey City. But there is a Marlboro (Village) within Marlboro Township, water is wet, the Pope shits in the woods, and the climate is warming. --NE2 20:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

After the fact, you've done a fantastic job. Credit where credit is due. But I did several searches for "Marlboro Village" and those come up with more than 20,000 sources, none of which talk about a section of Marlboro Township. Your best source is about a tree. Where are the in-depth independent sources and where were they when the article was created? Why do you refuse to accept the fact that my objection to the standalone article was based on my good faith search for sources, which found none? Alansohn (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

None of this addresses my point. Redirecting a page three times in the face of requests to discuss is not great behavior, no matter the rationale. It doesn't matter how wrong you think the other editor was. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact, it does. After dealing with User:Magnolia677 at Fair Play, New Jersey, I learned my lesson and did exactly what anyone could possibly have asked me to do. After he turned Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey into a standalone article, I explicitly reached out to Magnolia677 on three separate occasions here, here and in greater detail here), clearly laying out my concerns that there was no apparent way to distinguish between the two Marlboros, based on my re-reading of the article and my review of the potential available sources. I made the good faith effort to reach out and discuss as required by WP:BRD, Magnolia677 refused to do so. If my reaching out regarding this article justifies User:Magnolia677's running off here to ANI or for User:John from Idegon's utterly repugnant "Zigheil, mein Fuhrer Sohn", I'm not sure what I did wrong here or why these "not great behaviors" by both of these editors are being ignored. I've changed, and I look forward to Magnolia677 starting to be a constructive partner in dialogue when he seeks to overturn broad consensus on such redirects. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(One of those three separate occasions just looks like you added a link to comment you made five minutes earlier.) The Hitler comment's horrible, but that's not something you can lay at Magnolia677's feet or use to justify anything that happened before it or separate from your own earlier talk page etiquette. If you've changed, then great; the only long-term goal is productive non-disruption. It did look like you were acting unilaterally before, on a good faith assumption you were right. Your claim Magnolia677 refused to do so doesn't look completely supportable, as those good faith "reaching out"s you reference seem to have had responses and discussions when you made them.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I note that John from Idgeon proposed a three-month topic ban on Alansohn here. No one seems to have directly responded to that proposal yet. It raises the question whether there are sufficient bases to consider sanctions of some kind in this matter or not. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

User:John from Idegon? He calls other editors Hitler ("Zigheil, mein Fuhrer Sohn") and he's the one who's coming up with sanctions. Perchance do you have any prior connection to User:John from Idegon that you would want to disclose? Alansohn (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Damn, you got me. John from Idegon is the conjoined twin of my secret male concubine (as opposed to my out-in-the-open male concubine the Marlboro Man). --NE2 20:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nicely done, but I think that User:John Carter may have a clearer conflict that he ought to disclose. Alansohn (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

On what evidence? That the usernames share the letters "ohn"?__ E L A Q U E A T E

Considering that I have from the beginning, back when my user name was warlordjohncarter, made it clear that the name was taken as an homage to the Edgar Rice Burroughs character, I also find myself forced to question even the possible basic rationality of this accusation. Alan, displaying what some might not unreasonably consider blind paranoia is in no way helpful to you in this matter. John Carter (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You know, my younger brother's middle name is John, so maybe he's a sock of John from Idegon too! Of course, he doesn't edit Wikipedia (a wise choice on his part), so maybe not. BMK (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Funny, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention includes some recent conversations between User:John Carter and User:John from Idegon, who not only both are John's but seem to be part of a mutual admiration society. I do give credit to John from Idegon for this edit, where he talks of himself as the very model for "Editor of the Year" based on his work as "an editor that wonks around and neatens and cleans like myself" but begs off based on his "recent poor behavior". So, the two of you never met before or is there at least a legitimate WP:COI that ought to be acknowledged? Alansohn (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for effectively proving beyond any shadow of a doubt, at least to my eyes, that the question of paranoia I raised before is a rather valid one regarding your conduct. In all honesty, I had forgotten John edited on those pages myself. In all honesty, I didn't even place the name until you just now brought it up. This transparent continuation of the frankly irrational behavior of yours which led to this thread being started in the first place raises I believe even stronger questions regarding your capacity to function in a collaborative environment. And, for what it is worth, no, to the best of my knowledge, I have never met any other wikipedia editors in any capacity. I have actually made it a bit of a point to avoid any meetings myself, partially because they tend to be rather far removed from where I live, which is Saint Louis, Missouri, and, partially, because I actually don't see much productive in them. The fact that you continue your stupid harping on the acknowledged misconduct of others while at the same time continuing your own habit of grossly unacceptable conduct Makes me believe that there is a very strong possibility that the only way to stop your indulging in the kind of unacceptable behavior which led to this thread being started would be some form of sanctions against you. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI isn't SPI, and this is such a silly looking accusation that I can only see it hurting the accuser. If you're not going to make an actual accusation, then please stop this, as it's a goofy distraction. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe that Alansohn is trying to spin some kind of COI out of this totally innocuous discussion. It doesn't even fit his description of it as a "mutual admiration society", since other editors were involved and the two Johns barely even referred to each other. BMK (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Alansohn, some advice:

• (1) Stop posting extremely long blocks of text, divide your comments up into digestible paragraphs, otherwise few people are going to read what you have to say.
• (2) Stop obsessing about John from Idegon's repugnant remark. He shouldn't have said it, but having said it doesn't invalidate his points concerning your behavior.
• (3) Stop taking upon yourself the sole burden of deciding what happens to New Jersey community articles. There's a Wikipedia community out there which will decide, you must allow them to. Sometimes you'll be right, sometimes you'll be wrong, the world won't end either way.
• (4) Start taking some responsibility for the behavior which has been reported here. You say you've changed from 2009, when you received a number of blocks, but the behavior we're reading about right now seems very similar to that behavior.
• (5) Stop lashing out at everyone who criticizes you, it makes you look very bad, which is not a good thing on ANI, since it can lead to unwanted results.

BMK (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And since I just read your comment above, (6) Stop finding conspiracies in the perfectly normal Wikipedia activities of other editors. This report is not about everyone else, it's about you, and if you don't calm down and deal with the problems which have been brought out here, you're likely to be sanctioned in some way, which I assume you don't want. BMK (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• • @Beyond My Ken - (1) I have addressed the issues raised here.
  • (2) I've demonstrated that I made a good faith effort to find sources to demonstrate that Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey was different from Marlboro Township, New Jersey and that none were found.
  • (3) I've provided links to three separate edits in two different places where I reached out to User:Magnolia677 and made my case per WP:GEOLAND that articles for such places need to have "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." and that '"If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally-recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it."
  • (4) I've provided links showing that several other editors -- other than me -- have turned articles in the "placename, countyname, New Jersey" format into redirects.
  • (5) I've shown that User:Magnolia677 made no effort to make a case that the Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey was different from Marlboro Township, New Jersey before starting this ANI, which raises the appearance of bad faith.
  • (6) I've provided links showing that I have dealt openly and honestly with Magnolia677 and learned from the situation with Fair Play, New Jersey.
  • (7) I acknowledge that the sources User:NE2 has found might well have been an effective argument for an independent article, but that I had no foreknowledge of such sources.
  • I hope that I have addressed your issues and I hope that Magnolia677 will start working on a collaborative basis in the future, much as I have tried to do so. Alansohn (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • No, actually, you have sidestepped the most important one again with your final comment: it's not about other editors, it's about you. If you can't give some believeable assurances that you're going to deal with other editors and their work in a less imperious and entitled manner, then I'm going to have no choice but to support sanctions against you. BMK (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow! I've struggled as to how to participate in this conversation...I just want to comment that I have appreciated the contributions of Magnolia677, Alansohn, and John from Idegon. All have put in considerable time and effort, but this has gotten out of hand. Alansohn, I agree with the crowd here that you "own" New Jersey. You've made great contributions in that area, but you need to accept the value of other editors work. Magnolia677 and John, if you don't regret some of your comments already you surely will soon. I think maybe everyone ought to take a week away from New Jersey articles to cool off, then try to find some common ground and a positive way to move forward. All three of you are too good to waste your skills fighting among yourselves. Again, thanks to all of you for your many fine contributions to Wikipedia. Jacona (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure: John Carter and myself are the only two members of an inactive Wikiproject on Southern Gospel Music. I guess that means we must be the guys on the grassy knoll, eh? I agree completely that this thread is rapidly spinning down the toilet, being pushed by a plunger in Alansohn's hand.

Just one last thing: Several miles ago in this thread, I clearly stated that accessing this page is difficult for me and asked that if my attention was required, that someone ping me. Since that time, Alansohn has pinged me no less than 5 times, and absolutely none of it required my attention. Not that my personal situation matters, but let me explain it as so to shed some light on what problems Alansohn's attitude and demanding nature can cause. I am visually impaired and cannot drive. I am also in the midst of some economic hardships and cannot afford to have an internet connection in my home. So, because of Alansohn's persistent harassment of me via pinging, I took the time and effort to walk the 3 miles I need to travel to reach a PC that I can use. All to hear of myself being a sockpuppet and to rehash my prior bad actions which I had admitted to and apologized to the community for. I even indicated my willingness to take any punishment the community saw fit. I am sorry, but his behavior is what gets swept up after the parade is done and nothing more. He needs to be stepped on to teach him a lesson. John from Idegon (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And now, since I am done with anything constructive that can be added here, I am going to take some of my limited time on a PC and do what supposedly we are all here to do...I am going to go work on an encyclopedia that people can use for a while. Something I have been able to do very little for the past month, primarily due to the repeated interruptions from Alansohn demanding that I deal with his issues. Yes I lost my cool. It was not the right thing to do. In form it was very poor behavior, but in substance it was right on the mark. Alansohn's demanding behavior is obviously being perceived by others in the same light as I perceived it...dictatorial. It is well beyond time for the community to decide what to do about it. John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions against Alansohn

I note once again that another editor has proposed sanctions against Alansohn, specifically a three-month topic ban, above. I also note that the behavior of Alansohn in this thread itself seems to be primarily a continuation of the behavior which led to this thread being started, and that between his previous behavior and his current conduct here the basis for thinking that perhaps the only way to end his disruptive and unacceptable behavior is a short sanction. I would with reservations, as someone who actually doesn't know New Jersey related content very well, I suppose support such sanctions. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Other John, I am in agreement, however I still think, especially in the light of the harassing behavior illustrated above, that a short block should be included, and perhaps a strong message that further obstructive behavior such as these TLDR diatribes, answering discussion points by changing the subject, jumping in on uninvolved editor's pages to wage his (sorry, no better word comes to mind) vendetta, refusing requests to leave an editor alone or to end a discussion when asked, etc. will be dealt with with escalating sanctions. John from Idegon (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(1) I have learned how to develop better tactics to deal with Magnolia677 since Fair Play, New Jersey

(2) After a lengthy discussion about the use of see also categories, we had a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, where we were able to reach a consensus. Not perfect, but a consensus.

(3) I have raised no issues with any articles Magnolia677 has created since Fair Play, and my issue with Marlboro was based on genuine, good faith concerns.

(4) In the Marlboro article, I reached out to Magnolia677 and tried to make my case for discussion where other, knowledgeable editors could provide input.

(5) I have pinged John from Idegon, as required where mentions are made, and I had no idea what the effect was on him based on computer access. Sorry.

(6) I don't own any article -- let alone any state. Nobody does. Alansohn (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

None of which addresses the concerns regarding the conduct which led to the current discussion, or, unfortunately, the content of much of your commentary here. Or, perhaps, the rather dubious thinking which seems to have been involved in the creation of the commentary here. John Carter (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Alansohn, with regard to #2..."we were able to reach a consensus" at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. You invited input to deal with a dispute, then called my input a "failure", and denounced another editor's input as "rambling nonsense". Get real man. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Diffs, Magnolia? How do the words "failure" and "rambling nonsense" count as worse than, "shaking my head" and "get real man"? μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously unfamiliar with the everyday usage of "shaking my head" and "get real man"? Not to mention that your argument is a complete red herring. Blackmane (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I suggest that Medeis is just trying to muddy the waters here, to distract our attention from focusing on Alansohn's behavior. BMK (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Blackmane (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This whole dispute seems to have more than one kicking horse, and based on the fact that there's more than one person outlining heavy paragraphs of text and giving almost passive aggressive edits, it wouldn't seem right to sanction any single editor, excluding all other disruption within this topic area. Given that, there does seem to be some conflict in the form of a content dispute--I recommend WP:DRN or mediation for settling this. Often times, personal behavior disputes stem from content disputes, and once that content dispute is resolved, it ultimately resolves the personal behavior dispute as well. Tutelary (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So because more than one person is wrong, we do nothing? Resolving this one content question (which BTW, I am not substantially involved in) will NOT in any way solve the problem of the long term poor behavior of the very long term editor who certainly should know better. At least one of the content dispute articles is at AfD. How will DRN assist in that? AfD will determine the communities position on that particular article, which should speak to the others as well, but Alansohn will not accept that historical AfD results speak to the community's desires. Place stubs are not an issue anywhere else in the United States except New Jersey. They are an issue in New jersey solely due to Alansohn. Just what is DRN supposed to do about that? There isn't even one specific article to have DRN on. The issue is Alansohn's inability to understands that he is beating a dead horse on a subject that the community has already spoken on. John from Idegon (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Here's what I propose. (1) Alansohn be indefinitely prohibited from conversion of geographical articles to redirects, be they in New Jersey or elsewhere. If he has a problem with the notability of any such piece, his correct course of action is hauling the piece in question to AfD for decision by others. (2) Anticipating a possible problem, Alansohn be indefinitely prohibited from making multiple notability challenges to lists of what he feels to be problematic articles — one article per AfD. (3) Everybody who needs a trout for edit warring, consider yourselves slapped. Carrite (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I would accept that as a reasonable solution, but will remain skeptical that it will end the issue. Alansohn needs to accept that Historic AfD decisions and broad article guidelines do represent the community's wishes, even if he did not participate in the discussions that formed them and learn what to do if he does not like said guidelines (engage in discussion to change them, not slug it out on each individual article. That wastes everyone's time). John from Idegon (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Carrite's proposal. It may or may not solve the problem in the long run, but it is a good faith attempt to solve the problem in the short run. Should it prove insufficient to resolve any long term problems, the evidence of that might be enough to make it reasonable to take other steps. John Carter (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "indefinite".....reminds me of "double secret probation" from the movie "Animal House". An "indefinite" sanction is what you would expect from a judge in a totalitarian state. I think any sanctions should be short and definite in term. The object should be to gain recognition that there is a problem, thus changing behavior, not to humiliate a prolific contributor or declare some sort of "victory". Jacona (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • If Jacona does not like the specific remedy being proposed I recommend they suggest a specific alternative. NE Ent 02:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • In the context of wikipedia, indefinite means simply that there is no set deadline. An indefinite sanction can be extended, theoretically, into infinity, or it can be removed altogether upon demonstration of good behavior. In some cases, that can last three months or less. It is all, basically, left up to the individual involved. John Carter (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose As someone very familiar with New Jersey who has come across many articles edited and maintained by Alansohn I commend him for his tireless work. I have never witnessed anything but well-reasoned behavior. The Marlboro dispute is absurd, and Alansohn was on the right side of it. Other than the Marlboro dispute, there are no diffs or links above to support any sort of sanction, let alone an indefinite one. (The one mistake I do see by him is defending himself too vigorously: "the behavior of Alansohn in this thread itself"; it's meat before lions.) There should be no discussion of any sentencing until the evidence is presented, this isn't Stalin's talk page where we accuse people of vague crimes and convict them because they defend themselves vigorously. Let's see the damning evidence. μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • What, someone on one side of the issue references Hitler and gets taken to task for it, so you, on the other side of the issue, feel you have to reference Stalin? Nice choice, that, really good judgment on your part.

    There have been no accusations of "vague crimes", there's been specific evidence presented of particular behavioral problems, to which Alansohn has actually offered no defense, while continuing to attack others, which is what he's been doing "vigorously". In other words, your entire comment is flawed and inaccurate. BMK (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Diffs? Twice in this sanctions section John Carter has referred to the problem of Alansohn's daring to defend himself here in words John apparently doesn't like. But defending yourself from accusations is not proof of guilt. As for Hitler, he didn't go in much for show trials. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"Diffs"? What would you like, diffs of there being "no accusations of vague crimes", or diffs of Alansohn "offering no defense"? As for Alansohn vigorously attacking, I suppose I could give you diffs of that, but it seems a little silly, considering that it's this very discussion we're talking about, and you could just, you know, read it. Besides, if I work up some diffs for you, I have the feeling that next you'll be asking for diffs of me posting the diffs. BMK (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"Hitler/show trials" - You're not serious, right? You've forgotten the trials presided over by the fanatical Nazi judge Roland Freisler, who screamed at the defendants in the "People's Court", practically foaming at the mouth? In particular the trials connected to the 20 July plot?

In any case, you've missed the point entirely. A mention of Hitler by someone else doesn't require a mention of Stalin by you, as both references poison the well, and your point could have been made in a much less prejudicial manner. Wikipedia is not a nation, it's not a democracy, and this is not a show trial; indeed it's not a trial at all, it's a discussion among peers about a problem that's been brought to the community's attention. Try to use some better judgement in the future. BMK (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning Stalin is a non-issue; describing me personally, by name, as a Nazi is a very serious violation of basic decency. Calling an editor Adolf Hitler is probably the most disgusting, repugnant and uncivil personal attack I have ever seen; Nothing I have ever said or done justifies it. "Zigheil, mein Fuhrer Sohn."?!?! Describing that as a "Hitler reference" or a mere "mention of Hitler" only further trivializes a rather shameless personal attack. The need for better judgement flows in all directions here. Alansohn (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop evading the issue and address the problems with your behavior, which you have consistently refused to do. BMK (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Second that, BMK. The whole Hitler thing is a red herring argument, as I did not start this thread, Magnolia677 did and he did it a full 12 days after the "Hitler incident" occurred. Strange that it wasn't a problem until Alansohn got called on his behavior, ya? John from Idegon (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I was seething from the moment I saw User:John from Idegon callme Hitler. I was seething as a Jew. I was seething as someone who knows too many survivors. I was seething for the 6 million Jews that Hitler brutally murdered. Magnolia677 and John from idegon have had a chip on their shoulders because I had the nerve to challenege Wikipedia content. I am far angrier, far angrier than that. When I first sawe it, I would have driven straight to wherever Idegon is and taken care of him. I didn't. I bit my tongue hard and pretended. I will not tolerate this bullshit anymore and it's not just the assholes who think that calling me a Fuhrer is ok. Stop evading the issue. Do whatever the fuck you want here but there's no block long enough to deal with someone like this. Go find a Holocaust survivor and learn what they went through. Explain to them why this is acceptable behavior. Then fuck off. Alansohn (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my comments above, nevermind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by medeis (talk • contribs)

It is worth noting that the above comment, which I am grateful to see, makes it rather clear that Alansohn took the reference to Hitler in an extremely personal way, which most people would not. I'm a German, not a Jew, who has here and elsewhere been compared to Hitler, among others, and I can understand how ethnic and cultural differences make it reasonable for some people to take what are, in most cases, perceived as generic insults as being worse than they were. Having said that, such overreaction is not in and of itself sufficient cause to excuse misconduct thereafer. I regret that Alansohn took the comment as much worse than it probably was intended to be. I regret even more that in his comment above he seems to me at least to be indicating that the prejudices he has regarding others for that comment seems to be ongoing and unlikely to disappear. It is rather clear that at least right now he is in nothing like a rational and cooperative spirit, and there is no particular reason to believe that will change in the future, given the depth of emotion expressed. Perhaps some sort of direct interaction ban might be called for. John Carter (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Alansohn has long had an unfortunate propensity to escalate conflict. It's been several years since I had interactions with him of that character (all at CFD, not the present editing area), and I've seen him around in other contexts since then without issue and had hoped he had made some growth. This current quagmire came on my radar after I happened to post a tentative agreement with him on a content issue here, only to have my head bit off by Magnolia677 in what seemed to me like an overreaction based on the comments I had seen in that thread.

But what I'm seeing in this thread from Alansohn is the same pattern of him digging in his heels in a content dispute and then making it personal, him responding to criticism of his own conduct not with acknowledgement or even substantive defense but instead with increasingly shrill outrage over everyone else's conduct (even if he had not previously made an issue of it), and him trying to smear or goad anyone new who is joining in the criticism (often with the frivolous claim that there is some kind of collusion or COI explaining editors' agreement contrary to his position, as John Carter has seen here). While others in this can share some criticism for their own reactions (see WP:GOAD), Alansohn has been the prime cause and center of many such a storm but is always loath to take responsibility for his own contribution to it. I'm very disappointed to see that continue or resume after so many years. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Carrite's suggested sanctions - I don't need to see anymore. Alansohn's been given multiple chances to address the probelms that a number of editors see in his behavior -- and has, in fact, exhibited exactly that behavior here -- but steadfastly refuses to deal with it, or even to engage in meaningful dialogue. Therefore I have no choice but to support the sanctions suggested by Carrite above, which were:

  (1) Alansohn be indefinitely prohibited from conversion of geographical articles to redirects, be they in New Jersey or elsewhere. If he has a problem with the notability of any such piece, his correct course of action is hauling the piece in question to AfD for decision by others. (2) Anticipating a possible problem, Alansohn be indefinitely prohibited from making multiple notability challenges to lists of what he feels to be problematic articles — one article per AfD. (3) Everybody who needs a trout for edit warring, consider yourselves slapped.

  With that, I'm outta here. BMK (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is everybody so freakin' quick to argue for sanctions? Where's the disruption here? I've seen far more editors argue with such brazen attitude and be applauded for it in their own defense, yet when somebody somebody doesn't like does it, they're 'denying the issues' and 'failing to take their own conduct into account'. I'm probably blind, but other than edit warring, where's the freakin' disruption? All I see here is long paragraphs without saying much of substance--and no diffs either. Tutelary (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree we need diffs, but after having argued in defence of Alansohn only to have him come back with yet another obscenity makes me think of the proverb, "fool me once..." μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tutelary, (and in answer to NE Ent) that sanctions against anyone are premature. Both these editors have made valuable contributions, and both are always sure they are right, even on those rare occasions in which their might be another valid point of view.Jacona (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

HE'S NOT GETTING IT! I spent two hours TODAY researching and then creating Carpentersville, New Jersey. Then along comes Alansohn, and instead of leaving a friendly thank you on my talk page, he edits the article and adds this nasty edit summary: "add details re parent township needlessly omitted from the article; use the source http://www.state.nj.us/infobank/localnames.txt when creating further such articles and cross reference in the parent municipality article". Needlessly omitted? I created a whole darned article! Friends, if you go way back up to the start of this thread, you will see that I wrote "nearly every edit I have made to an article about New Jersey has within minutes been reverted or tinkered with by User:Alansohn", and "The real problem is that this sort of ownership and intimidation scares editors away from articles about New Jersey". I added a new place to Wikipedia. It's a real town, with an interesting history. Isn't this what we want on Wikipedia? Yet this editor, Alansohn, habitually insults every edit I make. I ask you again--after all this discussion--to please stop this intimidation and bullying of editors who dare touch New Jersey. He doesn't own it, and HE'S NOT GETTING THE SUBTLE HINTS SO MANY HAVE PROVIDED HERE! Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

May I add...I also originally said: "sometimes his corrections were so sloppy they seemed almost made in haste, and I needed to go back and fix them". Again...check out Carpentersville, New Jersey. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That having been screamed, I think it's obvious Magnolia doesn't play well with others either. An IBAN preventing them from reverting each other and commenting about each other and their edits, in edit summaries and elsewhere might help. It's curious whether Magnolia677 and Alansohn would agree to that, since in itself it doesn't restrict their editting, just their starting fights or feeling they have to respond to provocation. μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I would support an interaction ban of the kind described above as well, or if necessary any sort of direct interaction ban. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with a mutual IBAN between Magnolia677 and Alansohn in addition to Carrite's suggested sanctions against Alanbsohn. BMK (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I am still awaiting said diffs of disruption other than defending one's self and edit warring. Now if there was a history of edit warring, that would be cause for topic ban, but one single time--I believe every single person on Wikipedia has done such at one point in their career. Tutelary (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sufficient evidence has been presented here by a number of editors. That you refuse to look at it unless is shown in one specific format is your problem, and does not invalidate the evidence. BMK (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've come to ANI three times in the past month to report the same bully, and finally, in this thread, I felt something was going to be done. Now an editor writes: "I think it's obvious Magnolia doesn't play well with others either". I was hoping someone here would put their foot down and say that bullies won't be tolerated on Wikipedia, but all I seem to have done is upset you folks. I don't want to receive my first-ever censure on Wikipedia for "starting fights", so I'll be ending my edits to New Jersey, at least for now. When Alansohn wrote me "you are operating in very dangerous territory here", he wasn't joking! I don't think I started this or deserve to be treated the way I did. I just think people should stand up for themselves in the face of bullies, and was hoping some of you felt the same way. Now I'm being placed alongside him. How creepy. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, actually, no, BMK; the evidence is not clearly (if at all) demonstrated. I have had to bring issues to ANI multiple times, and each time I have provided the edit summaries or offending texts in a bulleted list and linked to a diff. I have also linked to previous threads where other actual evidence had been presented in the same way. The only such list we have here even coming close is some edits of Alansohn in 2009 (!!!) alluded to but not linked to by M677. In even the rather condescending ("you folks") passive-aggressive ("treated th[is] way"; "creepy") paragraph immediately above M677 asserts that Alansohn is a bully, but that is the question at hand, he needs to support that accusation, not beg the question by assuming it is already proven. I again voice my support for an IBAN, which should stop the insults flying and the content disputes being brought to ANI. I am not opposed to Carrite's suggestion in principle, but I'd need the evidence be made explicit in the way I have explained to support it. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Passive-aggressive"? What are you, a psychiatrist? Friends, I just want to add a few more articles about New Jersey without being hounded by you-know-who. In the past month I've added Carrs Tavern, Pecks Corner, Crossley, Quarryville, Aserdaten, Harmony, Friendship, Foul Rift, Fair Play, Carpentersville, Paulina, and Bear Tavern. If you think my accusations against the Jersey King are all in my head, please take a look at the edit histories of those articles. Instead of insisting on "diffs" as the smoking gun of his bully behavior, may I suggest instead you add "Alansohn" and "Magnolia677" into the Editor Interaction Analyzer and look for a pattern. I'm unfamiliar with a "mutual IBAN", but if it means articles I create about New Jersey will be left alone by Alansohn, sign me up! Please don't misinterpret my frustration, bold caps, use of the term "folks", or editing with a cat in my lap as ill-will; no editor on Wikipedia had added more Love, Love, Love, Love, Love than me. Thank you again for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not anybody else's burden to go looking for the evidence when you are the one bringing the complaint--if you have this tool then you can use it--you being the one who has made the accusations.

That being said, see WP:IBAN--basically you would not be able to mention each other directly or indirectly or revert each others edits, but would still be able to edit the same articles. Only if one or both of you violated that would there be some sort of block. (Carrite's suggestion above is a separate issue.) The huge benefit is that no one will feel the need to escalate a dispute since no one will be able to start one. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Would this edit be included in an IBAN? After I create articles he tinkers with them. Sometimes the edits are unnecessary, but not in violation of policy. Other times, such as here, he adds sloppy errors which need to be deleted. If both these types of edits are protected, this will be a big help, as it will allow me to continue creating new articles about New Jersey. It doesn't help other editors, but that's where Carrite's excellent suggestion may bring relief. Thank you in advance for your response. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The exact details of an IBAN would be the determination of the closing admin. You'd need to have a WP:RfC (normally) requesting an IBAN and the uninvolved closing admin would determine its exact terms. Both of you would have to deal with the fact that neither of you owns a topic or article (I am saying that as a general principle) and constructive edits to the same article wouldn't be problematic. One person simply reverting another's work--a 1RR edit war-- would be forbidden.

But at some point an IBAN is by itself not going to prevent one editor from making edits another editor doesn't like. If you start an IBAN then you might specifically request that, say, Carrite's proposal also be instituted on both of you. The problem with the content disputes is that either of you coming back to ANI repeatedly will just annoy the admins, and then WP:BOOMERANG.

To answer you specifically on the Foul Rift diff question, no, an IBAN itself would not prevent that sort of edit. (And it's not the sort of thing I would expect any admin to respond to unless you could show bad faith with diffs and verifiable information contradicting what was added.) All the IBAN does is prevent immediate edit warring, nasty summaries, and talk page comments that invite retaliation. It is constructive prima facie and no admin is going to want to create a template or to have to look at every article history to see who created it to prevent such edits. If it were factually wrong you'd have to go to the talk page and maybe end up at dispute resolution or arbcom. Arbcom's liable to leave you both topic banned for a year, and neither of you wants that. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, when I created Carpentersville, New Jersey a few nights ago--after all this discussion on ANI--and Alansohn quickly left a nasty edit summary on the new article...there's really nothing I can do to stop that. I get it. Magnolia677 (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not my purpose to challenge you, but neither the edit summary nor the edit itself at Foul Rift seems personally hostile to you. (I am not going to go looking for diffs you should be providing when you mention edits, so I have nothing to say about the Carpentersville article.) He has added information and the edit summary at Foul Rift is entirely neutral. The mere fact that he is "on top of" New Jersey related articles is not a problem. Unless there's some actual bad faith editting, like misrepresentation of sources, your example makes me think that only an IBAN would be appropriate, not sanctions against Alansohn. Basically, is this diff from Foul Rift what you consider your worst evidence against him? It would also be helpful to hear from Alansohn to know what he thinks of a simple IBAN per the above comments. μηδείς (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I articulated my concern when I first started this thread, and it's larger that just edit summaries. And Alansohn has already commented plenty in this thread, including "I will not tolerate this bullshit anymore and it's not just the assholes who think that calling me a Fuhrer is ok", and "fuck off". Magnolia677 (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Quoting Alansohn's obscenities here does no more than your screaming above did to make a case. You have seen other editors comment on the lack of diffs to back up accusations. "unnecessarily omitted" in an edit summary isn't going to get you anywhere. This thread will likely soon be archived, so if you have the diffs to make a case you should provide them. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Aside turned aside

• AfD vs. Redirects. Question ... one issue, more discussed at the top of this long thread than recently, is the suggestion by some that Alan has done something bad by choosing to redirect pages rather than bring them to AfD. My question arises because I was formerly of the habit of bringing certain articles to AfD rather than redirect them, but was advised by some editors (such as user:DGG) that they thought that in certain circumstances where the redirect is presumed by the redirector to be non-controversial (which I gather applies to some of Alan's redirects) those editors such as DGG felt it was better to redirect such articles, rather than bring them to AfD. Here I see some editors suggesting the opposite. Do we have a firm view on this at the Project? Or is the matter one that is uncertain? Certainly, I've seen differing views. Epeefleche (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Please open another thread on AN about this, or the Village Pump. This thread is supposed to be focusing on the behavior of Alansohn, although his allies have so far managed to muddy the waters and waylay the discussion. BMK (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • My advice was to be bold and do the redirect when the redirect is clearly noncontroversial. An objection to it shows that it is controversial, and anything controversial needs a community devision, and that can be done either on article talk pages or at XfD--I'm not aware we have any firm rule about which is better. Personally, I have always used XfD when challenged, & let the general community see & decide the issue. I have several times proposed that disputed merges/redirect/deletions be considered together at one board, named Articles for Discussion. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Edit warring on Electronic Cigarette by Doc James

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

---

I have just edited the Electronic cigarette article to reflect the findings of a new secondary source. User:Doc James has reverted my edits twice without explanation. Given the history of this article it looks like edit-warring to push a POV.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Here Fergus removed two 2014 review articles [18] calling them obsolete

Here Fergus removed another 2014 review article from the journal Circulation [19][20] calling it obsolete

Here again they remove a 2014 review calling it obsolete [21]

In this edit [22] they added "However this is contradicted by the Cochrane Collaboration, whose 2014 review found no evidence that electronic cigarette use is delaying or preventing smoking cessation" Which part of the ref states this?

The review did not state "no major health issues associated with electronic cigarette use". They found "low to very low" quality evidence of no major health issues

This is also not exactly correct "No serious adverse effects from e-cigarette use are known;"

So yes issues Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate, is it, Doc? "None of the RCTs or cohort studies reported any serious adverse events (SAEs) that were considered to be plausibly related to EC use."--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

[ec with Doc James] Your "Cochrane2014" source (link) isn't trustworthy on this subject; to quote their own opinion, The quality of the evidence overall is low because it is based on only a small number of studies. This is one of those articles meant to draw attention and research money to the subject, saying basically "we can't say solidly yet, but we really have potential here". Also, you removed sources such as Harrell from the journal Otolaryngology and "Drummond2014" from the Annals of the American Thoracic Society. One new source with admittedly shaky conclusions doesn't mean that all previous research is junk: per WP:NPOV, we need to represent all significant views on the subject, and you're removing the view that these things are of uncertain efficacy. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I removed the claim that there is no evidence. Now there is. I made clear in my edit that this evidence is tentative, but to claim that there is no evidence is now incorrect and should not be in the article. There aren't any actual reviews that contradict the Cochrane one's (tentative) conclusions, just opinions. Doc seems determined to downplay this as much as possible, despite the fact that a larger review about to be published in Circulation came to exactly the same conclusions.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I to look forwards to reading that review in Circulation when it is published. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So do I. Going by the abstract it looks quite promising. And of course, what with the status of Circulation, I'm sure nobody will challenge it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The article in question has been under protection for several weeks due to edit warring. FergusM took advantage of the expiration of the protection to make 8 back-to-back POV edits for which there was no consensus and regarding which discussion was ongoing on the Talk page. His engagement style on the talk page is excessively confrontational, dismissive, and makes no effort to reach consensus. I suggest a 24 hour block.

• "They're "obsolute" (sic). Their central claim, that no evidence exists, is demonstrably wrong. Stop this. You do not WP:OWN this article.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 7:43 pm, Today (UTC−8)"
• "That's sadly true; there are people too stupid to recognise sarcasm. However life's too short to waste time on them, so I shall sail merrily on my course and not give their miserable, humourless lives another thought.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles"
• "He doesn't have a point; he's just POV pushing again.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 6:53 am, 14 December 2014, last Sunday (4 days ago) (UTC−8)"
• "My guess is that most people who come here want to know if e-cigs are effective for smoking cessation, which they are. Sadly many of them will be discouraged by the article and will probably keep smoking, meaning half of them will die. It's a shame that ANTZ ideologues put dogma before health.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 4:50 pm, Today (UTC−8)"

Formerly 98 (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made numerous efforts to reach consensus, most of which have been dismissed or ignored by Doc James, QuackGuru and Yobol. The talk page makes that quite clear. I suggest a 24-hour block for Doc James and an indefinite one for Quack.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• I smell a boomerang. FergusM1970 seems to be the one clearly pushing a POV, strongly in favor of e-cigs and removing any information possibly critical or undecided about them. Softlavender (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed claims that are now obsolete. It's stupid to say there is no evidence for efficacy when there now is. As for POV-pushing, didn't you just suggest two links to some quack's website as reliable sources?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I submitted two compendium-type articles by an MD to the article's Talk page for other editors to review and decide on, noting that the citations to the articles contained some MEDRS sources and information. Nice attempt at deflection. If the "claims" that you removed are "obsolete", then you need to post RS studies that dispute the claims, rather than remove cited information. Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I posted an RS containing evidence that e-cigs are effective for smoking cessation. Clearly, any claim that there is no evidence is now obsolete. That's pretty basic logic. And you posted two links to "the world's #1 natural health website", which is liberally speckled with links to fluoride cranks, anti-vaxxers and other assorted nutjobs.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It is quite clear from the talk page discussions that there was no consensus for FergusM1970's unilateral removal of sourced content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD. Anyway the fact that it's sourced is irrelevant, because it's now obsolete. The strength of the evidence can be debated, which is why I used the word "tentative" in my edit, but to claim that there is no evidence is simply wrong and makes the article misleading. Far too much WP:WEIGHT has already been given to hypotheticals and vague "concerns", whereas there seems to be a determination to play down actual research. Go read the article; it's a mess, mostly because every trivial review with a truckload of "concerns" is cited. The facts are buried under a pile of "concern", innuendo and sludge.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats not completely true. There are a lot of people in agreement for removing parts of the page dealing with obsolete wording. link. While FergusM1970 changed things, so did Doc James while the discussion was ongoing in a series of 11 edits.diff AlbinoFerret 04:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

...none of which he had consensus for.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD? That's bold-edit, revert, discuss. Not bold edit, revert, run to WP:ANI and call for everyone you disagree with to be blocked... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is very contentious, this content dispute is an example. Discussion needs to be done before anything is done. WP:BRD leads to edit wars on e-cig. AlbinoFerret 04:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As Andy stated, BRD means bold, revert, DISCUSS. Discussion does not lead to edit wars, it leads to talk-page discussion and consensus, and the cessation of removal or altering of existing content until an adequate case is made and consensus is reached. There's nothing about that process that leads to edit wars; it prevents edit wars. Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As you describe it, it sounds good, but when something is found to have no consensus and should be removed or retained it will be reverted by multiple people who disagree. Its best to discuss things first. Perhaps small non contentious things its ok, but anything major or likely to be disputed, talking first stops problems. AlbinoFerret 06:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

What you wrote does not even make sense, and I'm not sure you even understand BRD, least of all as pertains to this case, because you haven't given any evidence that you do or have even read BRD. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Fergus is recently back at this article after a 6 month topic ban for aggressive and non collaborative editing. He probably needs an indef topic ban. Zad68 06:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• One set of edits that he did that were reverted is not reason for a topic ban. This is a content disagreement and should not end in any ban. There was no edit warring. AlbinoFerret 06:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

He's being proposed for a topic ban for returning immediately to a contentious article he has had a 6-month topic ban on, edit-warring on it, and then instead of discussing per WP:BRD, coming to ANI to request that the editors who disagree with him should be topic banned. It's not hard to see there's a pattern here. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. I discussed all of this extensively on the talk page before making any edits at all. When I undid Doc James' first revert I asked him to discuss. He didn't; he just reverted again. Without consensus. He has serious WP:OWN issues, right down to the fact that an article about a consumer product is laid out as if it's a medical article. His justification for this, presumably based on psychic abilities, is that "That's what people come here to look for." How does he know that? And does it matter? It still isn't a medical article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The only pattern I see is that editors from the medical Wikiproject like to try and get editors who they disagree with about content topic banned. Its much easier than having to work with them. AlbinoFerret 11:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can't work with somebody who's goal is to subvert Wikipedia to promote a fringe POV or a corporate POV. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That e-cigs are effective for smoking cessation is hardly a fringe POV. It's accepted by many qualified tobacco control experts and several NHS smoking cessation services.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Those are pretty serious allegations. Just because someone disagrees with another editor does not make their point of view fringe or corporate. This whole blow-up is over a Chocrane Review, hardly fringe. There was discussion, and on this page its needed before editing. The article is now protected, and while I was against it. Perhaps its needed for a longer term. There is no compromise or discussion, just jump in and have a revert fest on the part of multiple editors. AlbinoFerret 14:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't say stuff like "The only pattern I see is that editors from the medical Wikiproject like to try and get editors who they disagree with about content topic banned. Its much easier than having to work with them" unless you want to get replies like mine. Jehochman ^Talk 16:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I assume it's me your slurs were aimed at, so how about producing some evidence that I promote fringe or corporate POVs?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban of FergusM1970 per Zad and others. Their editing is disruptive at this topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry what? It's not me who tries to terminate discussions with "Ah no". As the user page makes very clear I have been actively involved in trying to find consensus on many issues, which you have not been doing; you just oppose every change that's not to your liking and refuse to engage in meaningful discussion. There are several discussions going on right now, for example about rearranging the article sections; you haven't contributed anything except to oppose the change without any explanation. It is not me who is being disruptive; it is you and QuackGuru.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Another example: There is a discussion, started by Formerly98, about reducing the emphasis on the highly contested Grana/Glantz paper. You have repeatedly resisted any attempt to remove claims based on this paper, but you are taking no part in the discussion. I think we both know that this does not mean you agree the paper is being over-used, and are happy to see its use scaled back. You seem to think you can ignore attempts to build consensus, then just step in when any change is attempted and veto it. This is disruptive to the process of improving the article, which frankly is in a very sorry state - and that isn't a reference to its POV issues; I mean it's a badly written mess.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So, in attempting to find a record in ANI archives of the six-month topic ban mentioned above, I find lots of threads about disruption from FergusM1970, but I'm unable to come up with this six-month topic ban. Could someone post it, please, so others can opine as intelligently as possible? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a community topic ban, it was agreed to by FergusM1970 about 3/4 of the way down at User talk:FergusM1970#Unblock request, as a condition for John unblocking the account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Floquenbeam. I'll catch up before entering an opinion (but I sure see lots of threads about disruption on lots of topics). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You'll also see a lot of spelling and grammar corrections, new articles and general Wiki activity. Most of the issues I've had have been either with a) a well-known Irish Republican tag team or b) Doc James, whose editing style does not involve an awful lot in the way of meaningful discussion or consensus building.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll focus on drilling down into your role in the Venezuelan situation, since I know who's who in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. The sockpuppet allegations were particularly amusing.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Another fine mess (but no, you don't strike me as Alek Boyd, and I've edited around him for years). So,

Looking at Derwick Associates (another controversial article that has appeared many times at ANI) and trying to determine if there is a pattern of disruption, I find FergusM1970 generally correctly removing non-reliable sources and making some good edits. But,

1. Yes, you removed several non-RS here, but why is elmundo.com not a reliable source?
2. This is original research; if that text is in that source, please point it out to me (I speak and read fluent Spanish). Same here.
3. Here, you say in edit summary that Justiciero1811 is Alek Boyd (a well known Venezuelan blogger). Law.com is giving a dead link right now, so I can't determine if the text you deleted is reasonable.
4. Here, you are rightly deleting some non-RS, but why are you removing ultimas noticas and el universal, for example?
5. Same here, what's wrong with el mundo?

OK, so on that cursory review of your older editing patterns in a topic I know, I am getting the idea that you remove reliable sources to support a POV. Convince me I'm wrong. I'm not going to weigh in on the med situation, since I don't want to give fuel to the fire that WP:MED editors are aligning against you. It does appear that either controversy follows you, or you follow controversy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can definitely assure you that I'm not Alek Boyd! Anyway I don't speak Spanish at all and relied on machine translation plus calls to my sister in law, who's Spanish. As I recall (and this was a while ago) my statement about Batiz regularly publishing anti-Derwick articles was based on the large number of anti-Derwick articles he's published. I realize that may count as WP:SYNTH but I was less knowledgeable about Wiki rules then. I honestly can't recall what suggested to me that Justiciero was Boyd. I removed the sources you highlight because, in my estimation, they didn't relate to the article; Justiciero seemed to be loading the article with cites to hostile articles that didn't necessarily have a lot to do with what it said. I don't think my edits there constitute pushing a POV, because the article as edited by me still mentioned the allegations against the company. The issue was that Justiciero had made it even more POV than the e-cig article currently is. I submit that it was a lot closer to NPOV when I finished than it was when I started.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll just add that the editor who complained about me in that case was a self-confessed sockpuppeteer who made malicious allegations against me.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any topic ban This is a content dispute. Some discussion on the talk pages and some edits that were reverted do not rise to the level of a topic ban. There seems to be a pattern of trying to topic ban people who disagree with editors from the Medical Wikiproject link while defending those they agree with regardless of the disruption. This whole blow up is a result of editors who dont show up to edit, but to shut things down. If it is found that one party is indeffinatly topic banned, both should be banned. AlbinoFerret 23:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Now that is quite a fine mess, but I'm not seeing the WP:MED alignment you mention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

One example: Doc James is insisting that the article, which is about a consumer product not licensed as a medical device anywhere in the world, should conform to the Medical Wikiproject layout. This despite a recent RfC which found no grounds for doing so. There's an ongoing discussion about changing the order and his sole contribution has been "No, there's no reason to change it." His supporters are principally Zad68 and Yobol, who also seem to share his views on a number of other medical articles, and QuackGuru, who's just appalling.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, one would hope all this ongoing fuss is about more than order of sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It is. The reason I opened this discussion in the first place is that, earlier today, I added a MEDRS-compliant source outlining evidence on e-cigs. At the same time I removed a number of older statements claiming there was no evidence, as these are clearly no longer accurate. I made clear in my edit that the evidence is tentative (what in science isn't?) and Doc immediately reverted me twice. The new source had been discussed on the talk page without any input from Doc James beyond "I disagree." Rather than push the boundaries of 3RR I brought it here. I would ask that either Doc James is put under 1RR or that he agrees to engage meaningfully on the talk page from now on, rather than the somewhat dictatorial way he'd been doing up to now.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think its a good idea to require discussion from everyone before editing the article to avoid edit wars. I do agree that there was little discussion on the edits before the edits were done. I will also point out that Doc James at the time of the reverts called them "Good Faith Edits" diff. AlbinoFerret 00:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There's plenty discussion. It's just that Doc James doesn't participate except to say "I disagree" or "There's no reason to change my preferred wording".--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing is a content dispute. As for not seeing the alignment, look at the defence of QG in the link I gave. AlbinoFerret 00:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Move to close this ANI as ridiculous, and a ridiculous waste of everyone's time, or to issue a boomerang result for failing to follow WP:BRD and gain consensus and instead rushing to ANI to get everyone else blocked. Two reverts (and two diffs) are not edit-warring, and ANI is not AN3 (which this case would not even merit to begin with). This inappropriate ANI has turned into an endless round of self-justification by the filer, devoid of diffs, and is wasting everyone's time. Enough is enough. Softlavender (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hyperbole much? Where have I asked to have anyone banned?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You asked for an indef for Andy QuackGuru (which amounts to a ban), and a 24-hour block for Doc James. I've now changed the wording to block. Softlavender (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I asked for a 24-hour ban for Doc. I didn't suggest anything for Andy. I also asked for an indef for QuackGuru, which given his history seems perfectly reasonable. Hardly "everyone else" though, is it? Still hyperbole.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I meant your request of an indef for QuackGuru (for whom you have provided no diffs); now stricken and corrected. I've already stated several times above that you are trying to get those who disagree with you blocked via an inappropriate, nearly diffless, and wildly unwarranted ANI, rather than establish consensus per WP:BRD. Softlavender (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've spent half the day trying to build consensus on a number of issues. Doc James has not. He just issues proclamations then reverts any edit he doesn't agree with.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You did not do any such thing before you filed this ANI. You made two cursory posts on the Talk page and then filed this ANI without cause and without any prior attempt at reasoned discussion or finding out and establishing consensus. Your continued self-justification here is, again, just wasting everyone's time. I'm sure you'll have a self-justifying response to this as well, but I've no interest in wasting my own time further. My motion to close this unwarranted ANI still stands. Softlavender (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Try actually reading the talk page. I started a discussion about the new review. It was discussed extensively. Doc James agreed that there was now evidence of efficacy. Then, when I removed the now-obsolete statements that there is no evidence, he immediately reverted me twice. At that point, rather than risk breaching 3RR as I have done before, I brought it here because further discussion with him would be, from bitter experience, pointless.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cig part II

We've just managed to get a major improvement made to the article, after building a consensus that brought in editors from both the "MED" and "non-MED" camps (I know we shouldn't be split into opposing camps, but that's the reality on that article). The admin who made the edit characterized those opposed to it as "bleating 'no consensus" from the sidelines, without actually specifying their objection to the proposed change'. The opposition was Doc James and QuackGuru. This is exactly why I brought this case; Doc James (and Quack of course) seems determined to maintain the article in his preferred state but cannot, or will not, give any explanation beyond "It's fine as it is." It is very frustrating and unhelpful to the process of trying to build a better article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So yesterday, after discussions that have dragged on for months, we managed to get rough consensus on the order of the article and (while the article was still protected) got an edit request approved. Doc James just reverted that edit without any discussion at all. He is editing disruptively and needs at least a 1RR restriction.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And reverted again, still with no attempt at discussion.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And, despite having reverted an admin-approved edit twice in a few minutes with no attempt to discuss or seek consensus, he has now posted a message on my talk page accusing me of edit-warring!--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The page has now been locked as a result of the edit war started by Doc James with his preferred wording in place, which I can only assume was his aim.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Next, QuackGuru. There are three daughter pages from the Electronic Cigarette article; one deals with safety and another with legal issues. Quack has been duplicating and mixing up content across these. Earlier today I moved a legal paragraph from the safety article to the legal one; in the process I deleted half of it which dealt purely with safety issues that were already covered elsewhere in the safety article. Quack's response was a rambling series of accusations in which he accused me of "not wanting the information on any page" despite the fact that it was right there at the top of the first section. This is definitely a WP:COMPETENT issue and quite possibly a WP:AGF one as well - both issues that have been repeatedly raised against Quack across multiple articles. His continued presence at the Electronic cigarette article is not helpful. I note that a lot of progress was made today and he contributed nothing. When he does contribute the article instantly gets bogged down in conflicts over his edits and WP:IDHT behavior.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And he's done it again. Obvious, massive competency issues.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And again. WP:IDHT, WP:COMPETENT, and the FSM knows what else. It's impossible to have a discussion with him.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And yet again. This time it's a discussion about a new paragraph for the Usage section. Quack clearly has serious reading comprehension difficulties because he's now insisting it's about the lede. I request that User:QuackGuru is indefinitely banned from editing on electronic cigarettes, broadly construed, because quite apart from any other issues he is utterly incompetent to do so.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And now he's just posting nonsense.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban of FergusM1970 per Zad and Doc James. Disruptive. Cloudjpk (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Show evidence of disruptive editing.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

FergusM1970, admins are no different than any other editors in content disputes, so referencing "admin-approved edits" isn't helpful. Doc, MEDMOS order of sections is just a guideline, and I'm not seeing clear consensus one way or another for order of sections here (if I missed it, pls point it out). I'm glad the article has been protected; if all of these editors can't find more productive ways forward, then extended protection or topic bans may become necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia the content had been in the previous order for many many months. It was changed to a different order on Dec 19th 2014 after one day of discussion following 21 days of discussion that found no consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It has been in the previous order for many months because you have flatly refused to discuss any changes to it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. The point I was making is that an admin approved the edit request yesterday while the article was protected, as he judged there was a rough consensus for it. After it was unprotected today Doc James started an edit war to revert that edit with no attempt at discussing it. An RfC had just found no grounds to impose the order he wants, and commented that it doesn't look NPOV. If he wants this order he should offer a convincing reason for it; he has not even attempted to so so.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

what about placing it under community sanctions then? Since it has already reached Reductio ad Hitlerum levels ... Avono (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The point SandyGeorgia is that its never ok to edit war to get your way. Whats even worse is placing Edit warring warnings on the talk pages of people who revert you once while you revert 3 people.diff1 diff2 It shows you know what you are doing is wrong. AlbinoFerret 20:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The locking admin has just reverted Doc's edit on the grounds that the admin yesterday ruled on consensus.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are referring to Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Sections_Reorder_Proposal, a few days of discussion with a handful of editors reaching no clear consensus doesn't impress me. (Neither does Doc's concern about the order of sections, though.) With this amount of intransigence over minor issues, I suggest it may be time to visit community-imposed 1RR sanctions on the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there was no consensus for that order to be used in the first place, but Doc and other MED editors have refused to consider any changes even though the article is not medical. I'd like to see 1RR for everyone, but I'd still request an indef topic ban for QuackGuru.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• There was no consensus

We had a RfC here regarding the layout of the article which was closed by User:FormerIP on Dec 17th, 2014 after 21 days as "no consensus".

Another discussion regarding the section ordering was opened the next day at 18:18 [23] which had people on both sides of the discussion 4 supporting / 4 opposing (now 5). The page was fully protected due to many issues. User:MSGJ made the change after only one day of discussion and without clear consensus or really sufficient time for discussion or consensus.

The page protection was removed and the article restored to how it was previously by myself. From my understanding one needs consensus for a change not consensus to keep an article the same. The article has now been fully protected again by User:CambridgeBayWeather and they have

With User:AlbinoFerret and User:FergusM1970 each making more than 100 edits pertaining to e-cigs per day and lately only editing this topic things can become a little hard to follow. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Doc, could you please explain what FormerIP said about the order you are insisting on? Did he say there were grounds for it or not? Did he say it looked natural and neutral, or not? Overall would you say he supports it?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There is never an excuse for edit warring to get your way. There is dispute resolution. AlbinoFerret 20:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban for Doc James While this section was open, on the same page as was a problem before Doc James reverted the page order 3 times leading to the page being protected. Previous version of page order reverted to Admin MSGJ changed the page order in two edits after it was discussed on the talk pagediffdiff. Doc James Reverted the page order diff I reverted it back diff. Doc James partially reverted the order diff FergusM1970 changed it back diff Dock James reverted a third time diff They may be partial edits , but eeach restored the Health section to near the top. This is clear edit warring. Doc James knew he was warring because he placed eddit warring warnings on other people who reverted once diff1 diff2 while he continued to revert. Doc James has been warrned for edit warring on that page before link AlbinoFerret 20:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's Quack who urgently needs topic banned. If Doc will agree to discuss meaningfully, rather than relying on stonewalling and a handful of stock phrases, a ban might not be necessary. The problem is that he's very high-handed and won't let go of the belief that it's a MED article. If he can accept that and engage with people maybe we wouldn't have these problems.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Each side wants the other side topic-banned: tit-for-tat. So, how about all four (Fergus, Ferret, Doc and Quack) agree voluntarily to no edits for a month after protection is removed, so the community doesn't have to impose something more severe, and we'll see if some other editors can clean up what is, as of now, rather a dreadful article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, on condition that Ferret and Doc also agree, but I think Quack merits a closer look. Even disregarding his behavior, he's incompetent.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll also voluntarily agree to a six-month 1RR on all e-cig topics, on condition that Doc also agrees to that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that you have this wrong, Doc James involved himself in an edit war to win an edit. Policy says those that engage in edit warring should face consequences. I have done nothing and dont think I should take a break because another editor decided to engage in edit warring. There is no excuse for it. AlbinoFerret 22:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That is of course a valid point, especially because the reason this AN/I exists in the first place is Doc started an edit war yesterday as well.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Analyzing last 1,000 edits for each of the four using Wikichecker for top five pages edited:

AlbinoFerret, 1000 edits since 20 Nov

• Talk:Electronic cigarette[WP] (449)
• Electronic cigarette[WP] (73)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[WP] (71)
• Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes[WP] (68)
• Talk:Legal status of electronic cigarettes[WP] (50)

70% of edits in the last month on e-cig topics.

FergusM1970, 1000 edits since 10 Jan

• Talk:Electronic cigarette[WP] (368)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[WP] (78)
• Electronic cigarette[WP] (66)
• Safety of electronic cigarettes[WP] (45)
• User talk:FergusM1970[WP] (40)

56% of edits this year on e-cig topics

QuackGuru, 1000 edits since 21 Nov

• User:QuackGuru/Sanbox[WP] (187) (seems to be mostly e-cig stuff)
• Talk:Electronic cigarette[WP] (166)
• Electronic cigarette[WP] (125)
• Safety of electronic cigarettes[WP] (72)
• User talk:QuackGuru[WP] (47)

55% of edits in one month on e-cig topics

Doc James, 1000 edits since 9 Dec

• Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents[WP] (72)
• Wikipedia:Education noticeboard[WP] (67)
• Talk:Electronic cigarette[WP] (52)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine[WP] (43)
• User talk:Doc James[WP] (26)

No such pattern.

There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that need improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There are. I use Wikipedia for work research on a daily basis and I make a point of fixing spelling, grammar and any other mistakes I find, just to raise the quality slightly. However I am somewhat irked that the e-cig article is such a mess. It and its daughters are, in large part, unreadable - huge chunks look like they were translated from Korean to English by someone who only speaks Greek - and that thanks to intransigence by MED editors it's impossible to improve. Am I POV pushing? I don't think so. Yes, I think e-cigs are a great smoking cessation tool, but I am not trying to expunge negative material from the article; I just don't think having lots of speculation, or six consecutive sentences saying "We don't know about..." makes the encylopaedia more useful or accessible. We could easily have one sentence that says "We don't know X, Y and Z." That's what I've been trying to do at the Safety article, and apart from QuackGuru (see diffs above) there have been no complaints. I'm willing to step back in the interests of progress if Doc will reciprocate, but again, Quack is not a competent editor. He has massive IDHT issues. He appears to have reading comprehension problems. He cannot write a coherent sentence or choose words that preserve the meaning of a source. I don't think there's any chance he will ever become a productive editor on this topic, whereas with a bit of nurturing, guidance and North Korean brainwashing techniques Doc, Ferret and perhaps even myself might.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia:As has been pointed out numerous places, I seldom make one edit and leave. It usually takes 4 or 5 edits or more for me to get things perfect. The topic interests me, but it isnt the only interest I have. I am also a member of the Citation cleanup Wikiproject and like to answer RFC's. The article has lots of discussions and I like activity because I am a disabled person who spends time online. But my activity is no excuse for another editor to edit war. AlbinoFerret 21:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. If we take a month off from pointlessly banging our heads against the grim ramparts of Fortress Medmos I can teach you to indent properly. :-)--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Do it like this then; it's clearer.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I did, I wasnt replying to you.AlbinoFerret 22:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the silver lining in these unpleasantries is that at least y'all are funny :) Albino, I understand the limitations of editcountitis; mine show a similar pattern. I did want to give you all the opportunity to comment on whether we are seeing evidence of unhealthy fixations on individual content areas. As Fergus points out, the articles are dreadful, and something has to give. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it's worth (and they make some pretty small coins here) is that the MED point of view has to give. It's an article about a consumer product with no known health risks when used correctly beyond making some people sneeze. The article should definitely make clear that there are concerns from some people, but the insistence on stuffing it with speculation and alarmist statements is not helpful. Yes, some e-cigs (the disposable and cartridge-based ones that tobacco control and the tobacco industry demand are the only ones on the market) release metal nanoparticles, but the level of these particles is between 10 and 50 times lower than the FDA safe limit for asthma inhalers! You won't get that from the article though. It reads like a medical journal, albeit one written by someone who learned English from watching Beavis and Butthead. For the average reader - the person it's meant to be aimed at - it's just impenetrable and alarmist. Even Formerly98, a self-confessed MED partisan, is arguing that we should cut out the wilder claims of potential, but entirely hypothetical, dangers. Why can't we just say "There's some bad stuff in there but not very much; it's way safer than smoking but, yanno, not quite as safe as lettuce."?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I should probably note that even the article on actual real cigarettes, which really are dangerous, doesn't follow the order Doc wants, with health effects first. So I see no reason at all why this one should, and I'll reiterate that the MED crowd had no consensus for changing to this order in the first place. That makes the outrage at "no consensus" now seem vaguely invalid.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: The articles is dreadful because no one wants to discuss things and work to make them better. Its just dump and revert. Personally I think a long term protection is the best. It may make the article progress slowly. But it will force people to work together and compromise for the good of the article to get things done. Short blocks just have people waiting till they are over and start the nonsense all over. As for my editing, I am forced to use the source editor and even that has bugs on my distro, I dont type that well and spelling errors always seem to show up after I have saved it, but I have tried to make an improvement and preview twice before saving. I tell you what, I would trade being able to post a lot for being able to leave one of two rooms for most of the day and having to get people to help me if I want to leave the house for simple thing like a doctors appointment. AlbinoFerret 22:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said, Albino, I understand the limitations of editcountitis, and my editing is the same (it takes me five edits to do what most editors do in one). But for whatever reason, there is an unhealthy dynamic at that article. I have little experience as far as knowing which kind of sanctions to apply (1RR, extended protection, topic bans, whatever), but something has to give. For everyone to be calling for everyone else to be topic banned doesn't seem to be going anywhere. If long-term protection is decided by those more accustomed to dealing with protracted disputes, so be it, but it seems to me that the most collegial way forward would be for all four of you to agree to sit on your fingers for a month, and see what others can make of the situation. At least that is preferable to having something imposed upon you or the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bore, but I still don't think that suffices for Quack, because I can tell you exactly what he'll do. He'll spend a month working up a massive edit in his sandbox, then five minutes after the month is up slap it on the article without any discussion. Next he'll argue, edit-war and disrupt to keep it there. I will lose my temper with him and get blocked for six months. Everyone else will walk away from the article in disgust. It will be brought to AN/I repeatedly. Doc will argue in favour of Quack. The whole mess will start again. The article's future will be at lest slightly brighter if it has no QuackGuru in it, because he's both abrasive and incompetent.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've never edited around QuackGuru, so can't agree or disagree. I did just take a look at cigarette, and think it's not a very good model; for something as proven dangerous as cigarette smoking, the health section there seems to be downplayed, which I find curious. Perhaps it's never been an issue because, well, it's uncontroversial, and we have health effects of tobacco. Would e-cigs have been invented if not for health issues? Is Safety of electronic cigarettes given too much or too little weight at e-cig? Your argument about Quack (above) seems to indicate that some combo of article protection or 1RR sanction might be needed. I hope you can all come to find some middle ground on the health issue, so you don't end up in an arbcase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, digression. No, e-cigs wouldn't exist if it wasn't for health issues. The inventor was a heavy smoker whose father died of lung cancer; they were explicitly designed as a safer replacement for lit tobacco. I think the summary of the safety issue is about right just now bearing in mind that no serious risks are currently known and the toxicology suggests long-term risks are likely to be quite small. There's a lot of additional info in the Safety article, although I do think that should be further streamlined without removing any actual information.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, he has a bit of a block log and the same issues - IDHT, tendentious editing, edit warring and incompetence - come up over and over again. He's even worse than me, and it's not even a case of him being a difficult editor who can make good edits. I'd be much happier if he was the subject of at least a 1RR sanction, and if you did that I'd voluntarily accept one myself to balance the scales.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As for the one month time out, as I said, I'm happy with that if the others agree.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

...although Doc apparently doesn't, as he's now reopened the whole section order argument again. Can you please make it an order?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) "... if you did that I'd voluntarily accept one myself ... " ??? Fergus, I'm not even an admin, and I rarely get involved in discussions of article or editor sanctions. I'm in this discussion now because you pinged my talk and asked me to revisit; not sure what I can add that admins more experienced in protracted disputes couldn't better handle.

I see we now have a Third RFC on the matter. Perhaps this time folks will give it the time needed for an RFC to come to any meaningful conclusion, and having the article protected in the meantime should help that happen. But seriously -- all of this over order of sections, when the actual content needs so much work still? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought you were an admin! Anyway Doc clearly isn't going to accept your suggestion. I'm going to get drunk and sing sea shanties at the cat. My faith in Wikipedia is at one of its lower points tonight. He just won't accept that these are not medications despite the FDA, EU, Health Canada etc. specifically ruling that they are not. There's no reasoning with him.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Lets look at the heading of WP:MEDMOS. It says "Drugs, medications and devices" Is nicotine the active ingredient of e-cigs a drug? And smoking is a top importance article at WPMED [24] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus. This like an idée fixe. Why do you keep bringing up MEDMOS? It is not even vaguely relevant. These are not medical devices. The EU say they are not medical devices. The FDA say they are not medical devices. Health Canada say they are not medical devices. The WHO say they are not medical devices. Only you, Doc James, insist they are medical devices. There's no gentle way to put this: You are obsessed with single-handedly reclassifying e-cigs as medical devices. Will you please, for the sake of Wikipedia, just accept the facts and LET IT GO?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never, as far as I am aware, said they were medical devices. Can you provide a diff? They are a drugs. Similar to caffeine Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If e-cigs are "a drugs similar to caffeine" I assume that, for the sake of consistency, you also describe a coffee machine as "a drugs similar to nicotine." If not, why not?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The comparison is more like a cup of coffee being a drug. Yes yes it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No. The comparison you are making is to the cup being a drug, which is of course wrong. Cups can contain a drug. E-cigs can contain a drug. However cups and e-cigs are not drugs. Do you understand this?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable. They are not drugs. They are devices. The liquid you put in them may or may not contain nicotine; the devices themselves, however, are not drugs by any definition to be found anywhere in the English language. I don't think you can contribute usefully to an article on a consumer product when you don't even know what it is.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah if that is your position, since this Cochrane review compared "e-cigs with nicotine" against "e-cigs without nicotine" [25] it does not support "One review found evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid". The article is about devices that contain nicotine with ones that do not as the control. You have not provided a diff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to disregard that because it was utterly irrelevant, to the extent that I don't think you understood my last comment. E-cigs are not a drug. They can be used to deliver a drug, but they are not a drug. Do you understand that? --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Emphasis added:

• These are not medical devices. The EU say they are not medical devices. The FDA say they are not medical devices. Health Canada say they are not medical devices. The WHO say they are not medical devices. Only you, Doc James, insist they are medical devices. There's no gentle way to put this: You are obsessed with single-handedly reclassifying e-cigs as medical devices. Will you please, for the sake of Wikipedia, just accept the facts and LET IT GO?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

But:

• They are not drugs. They are devices. The liquid you put in them may or may not contain nicotine; the devices themselves, however, are not drugs by any definition to be found anywhere in the English language. I don't think you can contribute usefully to an article on a consumer product when you don't even know what it is.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

But Doc James never said they were medical devices, and now the discussion is going in semantic circles. So, Fergus, based on the rhetoric and hyperbole you aimed at Doc James in that exchange, while he provided sources in response, I'm suggesting it may be time to push back from the computer and edit something else for a while. You're going in circles over order of sections, and the argument has been reduced to semantics. I'm still not understanding why anyone would consider the structure of cigarette as a valid example, not only because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but because it makes no sense to me that the known health consequences of smoking cigarettes are buried at the end of a long article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is he provided sources on how a medical article should be laid out, and this is not a medical article. His wording on the new RFC, which looks like IDHT, confused me and gave me the impression he was calling them medical devices. OK, he isn't, but he is calling them a drug and that's wrong too. In fact this is an example of why he's so unhelpful at getting agreement; he won't give straight answers, he won't take any account of other people's comments and he won't listen to anything he doesn't want to hear. This boils down to "Doc, they're not medical devices and this isn't a medical article." "Sure, but the article is laid out wrong; look, MEDMOS says it should be like this." The idea that the article doesn't fall under MEDMOS in the first place is something that he simply refuses to consider.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This would be a good time to take DarkFalls' suggestion, and pursue the semantic issues on article talk. Getting heated and going in semantic circles isn't productive. Usually, focusing on sources is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It is being pursued at the talk page. He's refusing to address comments about IDHT and misrepresenting the outcome of the last RfC, while continuing to insist that e-cigs are a drug and not a consumer product. This is a common pattern with him. He refuses to engage constructively, then blocks any change he disagrees with.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• The current protection appears to be adequate for now, although it may be lifted once a proper consensus is reached regarding the content of the article. In that respect, a 1RR sanction is unnecessary considering the article will remain locked. As further admin action appears unnecessary for now, I would recommend proceeding with the conversation in a more appropriate forum. However I should note that further discussion of the dispute should not be closed prematurely, please allow consensus to develop. —Dark 01:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

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

TheSawTooth behaviour

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

---

More than one editors agree that the behaviour of User:TheSawTooth fits that of a paid editor. It is one of the massive paid sockfarm at WP:COIN (plus some disruption on other articles under DS). Undisclosed against the TOU. There's ongoing disrupting at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electronic_Recycling_Association summary refusal to stop WP:IDHT(following previous disruption at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Minter, edit warring ERA as per previous report at ANI). Relisting due to ongoing disruption / unrepentant POV pushing at AfD. Widefox; talk 12:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

His disruptive behavior and edits are not limited with only ERA. Check Operation Dwarka, where he is edit warring over the new edits and reverts after saying "you have no consensus for remove", he don't even know what kind of sources he is using. I had described him about IPA(Arbcom sanctions on India/Pakistan/Afghanistan articles) and he went to misrepresent my message.[26] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Do not tag my name I have told you I am not paid. I have cooperated with other users Jytdog and Adventurousme. It is my first topic I did much effort I do not want it to be deleted but if it is deleted I will support delete decision I am not POV or COI. Sanction topics are not related to ERA much users disagree with Occult consensus is deciding. I am not misrepresenter he really drop me sanction message I also said after sanction message that I will be careful still he is coming here. If topic is deleted I will not mind anymore I move that I be given right to get my sources reviewed by AFD admin not by widefox and I move that he do not tag my name with COI without proof. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• To make everyone happy I stopped editing ERA page and asked users to approve edits case by case. Current revision was tagged for AFD after month long effort. What do I say?? I debated AFD. Is it wrong? See talkpage of ERA. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The case isn't just about the ERA page. Unfortunately from your behaviour at several Indo-Pak related articles, you seem to be engaging in repeated edit wars. On Operation Dwarka, you kept undoing an edit saying you have no consensus. Did you perhaps think about the fact that you may not have consensus for your revision? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision was stable then Occult change it I revised to first revision. No body has consensus on Indo-Pak there are much users disagreed I have put my remark on RFC too. Widefox real concern is with ERA. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No it wasn't until you had disrupted the page on 11 November. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• See this [27] I am not selling anything! I am not paid. I did 2 complete rewrite. It takes effort give me credit for it. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Widefox: Ideally, paid behaviour should be discussed on WP:COIN. SawTooth, just because this discussion was started about one thing, it does not mean other editing activities will not be looked at. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree, the overwhelming behavioural evidence is WP:COIN#Bert Martinez (2) and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 79#Bert_Martinez. (previously Electronic Recycling Association was locked for this editors edit warring). Widefox; talk 14:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

(re ERA) The bogus refs and relentless POV pushing and refusal to agree with consensus / even basics like dead/fake/PR ref at the AfD (and the puffery at the prev one) is a problem, yes. Widefox; talk 15:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Widefox, those COIN sections are rather lengthy and have a large number of diffs. Would you be so kind as to list the specific diffs that you believe show a conflict of interest? Likewise for the "More than one editors agree" claim; could we pleased have diffs so we can verify this, along with nearby diffs, if any, showing editors who disagree? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome the scrutiny Guy:

• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Behavioural evidence (where Electronic Recycling Association is linked) details 2 static IPs of ERA which edited the article (with diffs for legal threats made). Doesn't that warrant the COI and connected tags? I see you've removed them.
  • User:Nikthestunned describes legal threats (and COI of TheSawTooth) [28] [29]
• For TheSawTooth, there's info there, but I'll summarise at COIN and link from here. Widefox; talk 22:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Expressed opinions on TheSawTooth having a COI:
  • Disagree:
    • TheSawTooth
  • Agree:
    • Me
    • User:Nikthestunned [30] "Also, unless a massive coincidence is going on, you do have a conflict of interest which you're lying about repeatedly"
    • (sentiment, not explicitly) User:AdventurousMe "I've only ever come across this kind of behaviour in paid editors of one shape or form, disclosed or otherwise" Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Bert_Martinez
  • Filed a 2nd COIN independently, so Agree, then Disagree, then Withdraw (that was just looking at ERA, and deferred to my open COIN looking at multiple articles/editors):
    • User:Ctg4Rahat Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_79

(archive diffs not possible) Widefox; talk 23:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It was true withdraw of COIN he said I am genuine [31] Do not lie rahat deferred to talkpage debate not to your COIN. I have new advice from old editor I will not respond to old data because you are without evidence. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on the stylistic quality of his posts here, if people have been paying TST to edit for them I recommend they get their money back. EEng (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any actual evidence that TST is a paid editor. (Note to Widefox: actual evidence means diffs of edits made by TheSawTooth along with explanations as to why they are relevant.) Recommend closing this as being a content dispute and recommended that the participants start at the content dispute section of WP:DRR.

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

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

• 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 [32], 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 [33], [34], 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 [35]. 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 [36],[37], [38],[39],[40], [41], [42] vs. [43], [44], [45], [46] [47] [48] [49], [50],[51]. 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 [52]. 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)

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 [53] and [54], 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 [55], followed 11 minutes later by a notification of this ANI thread [56], 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)

Dispute between two users

• At 22:16, 19 December 2014‎ two users started a dispute with accusations in my user talk page, at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Report. See also User talk:Actionfanman. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Could someone close this please? The other editor's bogus warnings or deletions on several editors' talk pages have been reverted, and he has been indeffed as a sock. The next probable sock, User:Thekillerofmeters has already been indeffed for continuing the harassment, and his death threats against me and my family have been RevDeled from my talk page. If you don't want to take my word for it, check with the other editors who were targeted by or dealt with Actionfanman: User:HelloThereMinions, User:Avono, User:JamesBWatson, User:Kansas Bear, User:Worldexplorer2014, and User:Skylark2008.

I also suggest that User:Anthony Appleyard be a bit more careful about his wording at ANI. I didn't start a dispute on his talk page, and I didn't make any accusations there. I made exactly one edit to Appleyard's talk page. I simply responded to the other user making a bogus request for me to be blocked, with links to the correct places to make such a request (either ANI or AIV) here.

And if someone is going to drag me to ANI for something like this it would be nice if they gave the mandatory notification. I wasn't notified, and neither was Actionfanman. Meters (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If there's a problem, I'm sure Anthony can take it up with User talk:Actionfanman. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• The main discussion about this matter is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#Template:Infobox Song Contest. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I was not involved in that and Actionfanman was not involved in that. Neither was Thekillerofmeters, or the master Theshitman and his other known socks. This is getting very strange.

Again, would someone please look at this matter and close it. Meters (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Rubeus Hagrid

Hi, I have been trying to upload a photo I have taken onto this article but I have been directed here for help. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jack

What is your query?--5 albert square (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Jack, the way to do this is to upload the image without using the word "Grawp" in the image name. Because of an issue with a vandal account that often used this word in vandalism, the abuse filter will cause you problems if you do. Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for your help. I will try again and rename the file. Jack1956 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal abuse and anti-Australian slurs by User:E-960

E-960 (talk · contribs) is posting increasingly strong abuse of myself and other editors in a discussion over the infobox of the Allies of World War II. This has included personal abuse (including accusations that the editors who disagree with their position are some sort of cabal intent on seriously damaging the article), sarcasm and anti-Australian abuse. Requests that they provide sources to support their position and moderate their language have gone unmet, and E-960's abuse is steadily getting worse. Could an uninvolved admin please look in and take whatever action they consider appropriate? The discussions are Talk:Allies of World War II#"Allies" in other languages and Talk:Allies of World War II#Removing native names of the Alliance and diffs include [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62] and [63]. Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is under attack, the same group of editors that deconstructed the WWII infobox has migrated to the Allies of World War II, to remove detail form that Infobox as well. Using the same coercive tactics. First, they suggest that there is a exception to the rule as to how the subject matter is presented, then argue that this is "too complicated" an issue to properly illustrate on the page and then suggest that all detail should be striped form the section. All you have to do is look at the WWII Talk page and see that very same group of editors push their POV. They were nowhere to be found when the Allies of World War II was in sore need of clean-up, but now they show up and start to remove stuff based on their POV. Now, they are trying to use every minor infraction to block opposition. --E-960 (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

What constitutes "anti-Australian slurs"? In the diffs above, I see nothing that can be construed as such. Any better diffs? Doc talk 11:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The most obvious "anti-Australian" comment would probably be "The material add depth, something that the average Australian sorely lacks" from [64] which doesn't seem to be helpful.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) E-960 said here that adding the foreign-language names of the Allies would "add depth, something that the average Australian sorely lacks". To me this is a clear personal attack on an editor disagreeing with him, Nick-D, on racial/national grounds. When I advised E-960 to reconsider his tone and desist from apparently racist comments, he said "I'm confused a bit by your statement, what Australian race are you referring to?" —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a very slippery slope. I do expect that it will be handled accordingly. Doc talk 12:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, please notice how the same group of editors keeps trying to instigate a crisis. Then once they block me, they will take apart the article. Recently there was even a RfC to remove the infobox all together, now that it failed, they want to start to remove individual detail from it! --E-960 (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute. But you may be blocked for "anti-Aussie" leanings anyway. Doc talk 12:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to say that one joke in bad taste does not suggest "anti-Aussie" leanings. In any case, That group of editors who voted in favor of removing stuff from WWII page also, took shots at me sarcastically asking if english was my second language. Where was the outrage then, no one stood up for me, now they all close in rank and try to get me blocked. --E-960 (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not part of any "group of editors" as you seem to think and I'm not closing ranks with anybody. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any content dispute. I took issue with your comment because of what you said—racist, nationalist, whatever you want to call it, it's just not on—not because of differences in opinion or because it was made by you specifically. Your assertion that I reacted in the way I did for vindictive reasons is, frankly, an affront to my character. I have never said anything about trying to get you blocked—I advised you before, and I still advise you now, to acknowledge this remark was out of line and apologise for it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@E-960: I think this issue can be more effectively resolved if you acknowledge that your comment was out of line, apologise accordingly for it and refrain from making similar comments in the future. Or you can take the hard way out and risk getting blocked for it. —Dark 00:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@E-960: - can only echo the sentiments of DarkFalls here. As an aside, there are a few "classic" signs that for a particular someone, English is their second language. Confusion with regard to pluralisation is one such "classic" English-as-a-second-language struggle (having worked closely with foreign students). Whether it is for you or it isn't, you've made pluralisation errors twice in this discussion. Some proof-reading before hitting "save" might avoid such suggestions. I don't their suggestions along that line were "sarcastic". St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you User talk:Stalwart111 the comment. Such statements can be considered as a red herring. They are irrelevant to the actual debate. Also, i like to point out that in the middle of heated debates I've see users (who's first language was English) who also skipped words, missed plurals, and just formed lousy sentences. So, in respect to the talk page, such comments are petty and cynical. More importantly, you just made and example out of yourself: since I almost overlooked the statement form User talk:DarkFalls, because of the "proof reading" comment. And, this is my point… if there is a serious debate such statements can be used to distract, or divert the flow of the actual debate. --E-960 (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As I stated before the joke was in poor taste in regards to Australians in general as it was irrelevant to the debate. But, I do have reservations about making a direct statement to User:Nick-D regarding this issue. For the following reasons… I simply do not know who is standing behind this profile. And judging by the actions (edits) on the WWII article, I have serious reservations as to the motives of this user. When a few months back (Talk:World War II/Archive 49) there was a debate to use word "genocide" in a section title it was User:Nick-D who in the last minute jumped in to oppose this change suggesting that it would be more appropriate to use the term "mass killings" instead. When looking over this users edits this action blew me away, since how could anyone argue that Genocide was not a significant part of the war (down-play it); a planned and stated goal of some of the totalitarian regimes. This needed to be openly and clearly stated in the WWII article. So, by reviewing this users actions it became very apparent that there was a persistent effort on his part to sanitize the article (you can call it content dispute, but the above example is very hard to argue against, as simply an issue of different interpretations). And, after hearing about Wikipedia edits being done by special interest groups or individuals, paid editors, or even intelligence agencies. I simply do not know who or what is standing behind this profile. And thus, I will acknowledge my error in labeling the average Australian as lacking depth, but, I have reservations about make a direct amends. --E-960 (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take your mention of "the totalitarian regimes" in reference to Nick as fulfilment of Godwin's law. Please allow me to remind you again of the site policy on personal attacks. Incidentally, I personally find it hard to accept the argument that one "simply does not know who is standing behind this profile" when the person saying this is himself using a handle made up mostly of numbers. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's not hard to come up on Godwin's law, when there is a discussion regarding WWII. Also, regarding the comment about my user name and what may stand behind it as well… you can rest assured that I come from the ranks of the simple folk given my lack of proof reading skills and poor grammar. --E-960 (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

GentiBehramaj

User:GentiBehramaj made few hundred edits in the last two days. All of those edits are very problematic. Most of them are page moves and category moves made without any discussion and without posting any edit summary. Most of those moves deal with the names of the towns in Kosovo which is very controversial topic. Just to remind that this falls under the WP:ARBKOS decision. GentiBehramaj moved dozens of categories (subcategories of Category:People by district in Kosovo). Just one example: he moved "Category:People from Zvečan" to "Category:People from Zveçan" although the title of the corresponding article is "Zvečan" (not "Zveçan"). He did not try to discuss this, nor he wrote any edit summary to explain the move. "Zveçan" is the Albanian spelling of "Zvečan". This is just an example. He moved all the categories "People from ..." to Albanian names without any discussion and with no edit summary ([65][66] etc.). He also moved some articles about Kosovo cities to Albanian titles, again with no discussion and with no edit summary. He moved "Lipljan" to "Lipjan" [67] although the consensus was reached on the talk page of the article for the title "Lipljan" (I moved it back). He also moved "Mališevo" to "Malisheva", again without any explanation (I moved it back too). Since all those moves are illegitimate, I propose them all be reverted. I don't want to revert, as I don't want to get involved in the edit war. I ask administrators to revert those edits and to warn GentiBehramaj not to move pages and categories without discussion. This is very disruptive behavior and has to be stopped. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I also arived here to ask admins to restore original English commonnames for all of those. This was very bad nationalistic move, to rename everything to Albanian without any talk page discussion. Some admin must revert edit by edit back to established versions of articles. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Original English commonames ? It seems that you abuse with that generic expression . As per wp:burden you have to provide sources proving that those are the English commonames , yet you two seem to conflict each others arguments because one is claiming that those are Serbian commonames and the second user is claiming that they are English. What needs to be noted is that you accuse that user of reverting without giving an explanation yet i saw none of you trying to establish a consensus on the talk page ... Personally i more than agree with GentiBehramaj's reverts . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User GentiBehramaj is not alone, there have been other edits along these lines recently. I have been trying to mediate a content dispute at the Battle of Kosovo article regarding how to describe the historic battle's modern day location. If its not coincidence, then I have to wonder if this is a "group effort"? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there,
I am aware that i made a mess and I apologize for breaking the rules! I am a new Wikipedian so I don't really have much experience on this and I didn't know there exists a deal about the names of places in Kosovo. I reverted all changes I made before, except the moves of the categories that I couldn't move back (please somebody who knows how it works, do it!). That's all i could do to fix it! I want to make it clear that those changes I made earlier weren't with a nationalistic background. Almost every name of Kosovo cities is in Serbian so the consensus (whoever made it) is very unilateral. Please somebody explain to me how Kosovo Polje is in English and not in Serbian? Also Zvečan, if there a "ç" is not acceptable, why a "č" is? As far as I know the "č" letter isn't used in English! If you want to be neutral then don't use "č" neither "ç" but maybe a "c", like in the case of the name of Pristina where is used a "s" instead of "sh" or "š"!
I also want to make clear that I am neither part of a "group effort" nor I have any contact with other editors from Kosovo, so please don't start with conspiracy theories! I just want to contribute as much as I can in enriching the articles about Kosovo, by giving correct information and respecting the rules. Once again, I apologize for the mess I made yesterday, hoping we will find a new solution for the names of cities of Kosovo! --GentiBehramaj (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

GentiBehramaj, this is not a place to discuss the names of articles. We are here to discuss your behavior, and I'm very glad to see you reverted your edits. You have arguments, and that's OK, but you can't move those sensitive pages without discussing it with other editors. For example, there is an open discussion at Talk:Kosovo Polje about moving the page to "Fushë Kosova", so you can participate. Wikipedia is all about discussion and reaching wp:consensus. There is also a discussion at Talk:Peć. Take part in the discussion, state your arguments and see what other editors have to say. That is the only was to deal with this issue. Again, thank you for understanding. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Should I submit un-aired episodes on the lists of episodes?

Hi there. I want to know that should I submit un-aired episodes on TV shows with unknown description and airdate but with a reference? Minecraftseeds (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Likely better to ask that question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. This forum is suited for user conduct issues more so than content style issues... (and I honestly don't know the answer. If you can reliably source the anme of the episode, I'd guess it would be okay. But the Wikiproject folks know TV articles infintely better than I do.) Courcelles is travelling (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Sounds more like something for List of lost television broadcasts too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

He's probably talking about not-yet-aired episodes. --NE2 00:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Calidum is arbitrarily removing material up that being discussed on the Talk Page

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

---

User:Calidum is arbitrarily removing material up that being discussed on the Allies of World War II Talk Page. The editor has been notified that the text is being currently debated on the talk page, yet the user still removed it. And, started to use swear words against myself for informing him of that the debate is not closed yet. That kind of behavior is condescending and inappropriate.

• Is this a fucking joke? You've now reverted three separate editors. You're the only one edit warring. -- Calidum 23:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I ask that this situation is restored, as there were several editors including User:Calidum who did not comment on the talk page, yet decided to just remove the disputed material. A proper debate on the issue needs to take place on the article talk page.

Please do not remove this request, it is a valid item and should not be deleted as before form the Admin page. --E-960 (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You know there's isn't alot to go on here. Do you by chance have any diffs?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a debate on long standing material on the Allies of World War II Talk Page, and user User:Calidum goes in along with some other editors and just start to remove the debated material, no comment on the talk page or anything. Than starts to swear at me for reverting his nonsense. Can we calm the situation?

• (cur | prev) 19:33, 20 December 2014‎ Calidum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (95,527 bytes) (-62)‎ . . (Undid revision 638941401 by E-960 (talk) no consensus, no sources) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 18:10, 20 December 2014‎ Srnec (talk | contribs)‎ . . (95,527 bytes) (-62)‎ . . (no consensus and no sources) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 21:40, 19 December 2014‎ Nick-D (talk | contribs)‎ . . (95,527 bytes) (-62)‎ . . (Undid revision 638805793 by E-960 (talk) it's a clumsy exercise: did these countries all really call the allegiance the "allies" exactly in their native language? I bet they didn't.) (undo | thank)

This is completely uncalled for and breaks the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle --E-960 (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking I'm not seeing anything wrong. You don't have a consensus for what you want as they have pointed out on the talk page. Here's a link for you: WP:DR. This is about dispute resolution. It will list numbers of ways for you to handle your content dispute.RFC's. noticeboards, and a lot of things but not ani.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I would be more careful of you violating 3RR than the conduct of Calidum. Cease edit warring. —Dark 00:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Serialjoepsycho and User:DarkFalls Sine this material is long standing and one user suggested that I should find reference sources to back it up. I should be allowed time to do so and not have some other editor pull the rug from under me. This Talk Page discussion only open on December 20th. I have a feeling that some senior users are using bullying tactics to close this discussion before I have a chance to present my sources. --E-960 (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You can present sources on the talk page. No excuse for edit warring. —Dark 00:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Five people oppose you; none agree. It's time for you to back off, as consensus against you this time. You need to remove the content. Even if sources are found for the addition, you will need to get consensus, as some people objected on grounds other than the lack of sources. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@E-960: No one has revoked you talk page access. They have a concensus to remove it and if and when you get a concensus you can put it right there where it was. This is a content dispute. You're gonna win your content dispute on ANI. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threats from Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

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

---

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz (using IP 76.218.124.85) appears to be making legal threats.[68]

I consider the accusation that I wrote this entry, that it is an autobiography, or that it is self-promotion, to be libelous under California law, as it impugns my professional credibility. I consider the same about the claim that the entry is "a fan-page and, as is evident in Schwartz's active contributions to the article... a largely self-made fan-page."

My understanding is that he objects to:

• The {{autobiography|date=September 2014}} tag on the article page.
• The post by User:Bapehu at Talk:Stephen Suleyman Schwartz#Self-promotional autobiography lacking 3rd party sources to establish WP:NO or justify its lengthy

The tag on the article page was placed there because Mr Schwartz has a history of deleting content that he does not like and says is libelous. (Consensus over the last 8 years has supported Mr Schwartz deleting such material.)

He also believes that his comments should be in their own section, and should not follow standard indentation and formatting conventions.[69]-- Toddy1 (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not know whether some of the post at that Mr Schwartz objects to should be redacted, and do not have the authority to do so in any case.-- Toddy1 (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. —Dark 01:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Should I add the legal threats to the article about him? Jsharpminor (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC) (just kidding, of course.)

I have edited my section on the talk page. It was really just an error on my part to label the page's sources as self-published rather than auto-biographical. Of course, no reasonable person would ever believe my suggestion that they were self-published - even among the myriad of people who must have viewed that talk page. I apologize for any upset I may have caused. Bapehu (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

According to Talk:Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, one of the IP's principal concerns is the suggestion that the article subject would impliedly breach journalistic ethics by editing his own biography. We could argue the rights or wrongs of this view, but for the sake of moving along I've replaced the "possible autobiography" tag with a more generic "NPOV." Some additional points need addressing - some article content is unreferenced and some is referenced to primary or unreliable sources. There is also a potential issue with undue weight in the coverage of reviews of some of Schwartz's work. Will look at these later today if time permits.

On the ANI issue, the IP has now denied making an explicit legal threat, though it might still be reasonably perceived. Will leave it up to DarkFalls to decide whether the denial is sufficient to lift the block. Subject to any differing views, suggest this thread might be able to be closed with discusison continuing on the artcle talk page. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:DarkFalls has accepted the IP's assurance that no legal threat was intended and he has lifted the block on 76.218.124.85. In my opinion this ANI report can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

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

New editor claiming my photo as her own

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

---

New editor CeruleanSkye (talk · contribs) is claiming that the Bag Balm photo I took and uploaded in 2008 is their own work, taken with their phone camera. Since the picture's metadata shows that it was taken with a Kodak Easyshare, I suggest the editor may not be here to improve the encyclopedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

All this fuss over a photo of Bag Balm? Agreed the editor does not seem to be here to improve things and question why all the effort wasted over this photo when you are the one who clearly took it in the first place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

They've made all of 3 edits so far. Maybe try talking to them before coming to ANI with it? --Onorem (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Methinks that Knowledgekid87 and Onorem need to develop a deeper appreciation for copyright. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what administrator action is necessary here; very little in the way of communication has taken place with the editor before coming here and this could easily be a misunderstanding (referring to a different picture than what you assume, accidentally linking to the wrong page, etc.). Sam Walton (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there has not been any evidence that proves that CeruleanSkye took the picture before 2008. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeffing the account. The Pinterest site clearly states "found on en.m.wikipedia.org" so CeruleanSkye is a joe job troll. NE Ent 01:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that too: [70]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The description there also says that the user started using it two years before the post (46 weeks ago). Very conservatively that puts the posting around 2012. Even throwing an extra year in there only pushes it back to 2011. The image was uploaded here in 2008. Pretty clear who's wrong here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The claim of authorship has been proven to be a hoax: we do not tolerate hoaxers, and we block them if they persist. Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Or it could just be a person who has a woeful (and common) misunderstanding of copyright. I don't see much in the way of "persistence"... though I do see yet another swatting of a fly with a sledgehammer. I'm sure indefinitely blocking a clueless newbie feels mighty good, but maybe a little actual effort to communicate and giving these folks half a chance might be a better option. – JBarta (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, there's hard proof of a hoax, have you got evidence of their being a clueless newbie? Do clueless newbies generally claim to own things that don't belong to them, regardless of what their state of knowledge of copyright law is? And as far as that goes, where's your evidence that the blocking admin took their action so that they could "feel mighty good"? Seems to me all your AGF is going towards the person that there's convincing evidence against, and you've got no good will left over for the people who protect us from hoaxers, vandals and disruptive editors of all kinds. BMK (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

1) You'd be surprised what clueless newbies come up with... all sorts of weirdness due to their own misunderstanding of things and maybe a little immaturity thrown in. 2) Administrative sanctions, while necessary and welcome, should be used with discretion, moderation and (in these sort of cases) rarely as a solution of first resort. – JBarta (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Before we go too far with this I'd like to point out that the account wasn't actually blocked despite the threat of doing so. Sam Walton (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. I was under the impression he was blocked. I thought I checked, but maybe I confused him with another. If he wasn't blocked then I take back my slam of the (apparently non-existent) admin and apologize for getting frosty over (apparently) nothing. – JBarta (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree - per my comment above it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that the user is just mistaken. A block seems an incredibly heavy handed way of dealing with this; they were hardly causing disruption. Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

[71] This shows more than a mistaken belief in copyright. I'll leave the matter up to Ne Ent but I find it difficult to assume good faith given the evidence available. —Dark 00:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

So it appears that she wasn't blocked and just stopped editing out of her own volition. Now I'm confused. —Dark 00:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

DarkFalls, you are correct (and I was wrong), this is not a matter of copyright misunderstanding, this is a matter of two people claiming ownership of the same photo. – JBarta (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

At this point the person has been neither blocked nor warned... and she has neither repeated the claim on her talk page nor has she edit-warred over Sarek's reversion of the credits page. I suggest a warning and then see what happens. Neutron (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that the user should be warned, if it is a mistaken case then so be it, I have not seen the user continue to remove the image or push the discussion any more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for causing confusion about blocking; I didn't mean to make it look like I'd blocked CeruleanSkye. My point was that the user should be informed that we know they're wrong and warned not to continue; if this kind of thing continues, we should warn them; and ultimately, we would need to block if nothing else worked. My main point was that a block potentially would be warranted, that we shouldn't necessarily consider it a bad idea. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Re "claiming ownership" -- for the record, File:SarekOfVulcan with Bag Balm.jpg. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan Hmmm..... idk doesn't look legit, are those DVDs in the bottom left corner? I bet you have one all about how to make perfect replica's of bag balm tins. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid - If you don't have something useful or helpful -- or actually, you know, funny -- to say, please don't clutter up the boards with your posts. BMK (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible disruptive editing

After working on some pages that TheriusRooney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited, I began to notice a trend with their edits. TheriusRooney either creates or edits existing pages by adding both needed and questionable information. TheriusRooney adds to automobile and racing car articles, placing large lists of highly technical data in a "Technical Specifications" section. Some examples: I worked on the Audi A4 DTM and Audi A5 DTM pages, which is where I first noticed the edits, then I went to the contribs page and saw this, this, and this. Most of this user's other edits are along this line. TheriusRooney has just over 1800 edits as of now, without creating a user page or ever replying once to a post on their talk page.

My dilemma is:

1. This extremely detailed information is not needed in the body of the article, just in the infobox categories. Should it be removed?

2. Would this be considered vandalism? I considered posting on that noticeboard, but had second thoughts and decided this was a better option.

3. As far as I can tell, never once does this user cite a source for all of this information. This is clearly an issue, and most likely a copy-and-paste situation. I also considered posting on the original research noticeboard, since this probably falls into that category.

Is this grounds for some sort of review or inquiry? I haven't reverted any edits, just cleaned the aforementioned Audi pages up a bit, so there is no edit war going on here. I just want to get a more experienced user's perspective on this situation. I feel like Rooney is making all of these edits and going unnoticed for it, and it seems fishy.

Thank You! Cheers --Stratocaster27^t@lk 04:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Some help would be appreciated on this issue, since TheriusRooney is continuing to do this at this very moment.--Stratocaster27^t@lk 16:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. The user isn't required to make a user page. Have you attempted to communicate with them on their userpage? As far as content I can't say anything. If you think the material has no place in the article and it's unsourced then remove it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User 117Avenue persistent vandalism

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

---

User:117Avenue has been persistently flagging Smooth_Island_(Ontario) and Smooth_Island_(South_Australia) for deletion.

While I admit the pages are currently stubs, appropriate references have nevertheless been supplied to justify keeping the pages listed.

The editor made no effort to discuss the issue of deleting the articles with me in advance. Instead he insists on keeping the Request for Deletion banner listed on the pages.

The editor has still made no effort to discuss the matter with me, and instead has resorted to using a bot (Cyberbot 1) to keep the RFD notice listed.

These two geographical sites are legitimate and are a work in progress. They are not legitimate RFD candidates.

117Avenue needs to stop being so ruthless, discourteous and hasty with his edits, particularly RFD notices.

It makes it less appealing for volunteers like me to build pages with sophisticated content when he flags my pages for deletion just as I'm researching the topics further about to add more content.

117Avenue's behaviour needs to stop, or his administrative privileges need to be revoked. His behaviour goes against the general etiquette I've experienced from all other editors on Wikipedia. Jkokavec (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jkokavec: The articles have been nominated for deletion—in good faith, as far as I can tell—by 117Avenue. (Even if the nomination was quick, it doesn't mean it was bad faith.) Per WP:Articles for deletion, the headers need to remain at the top of the article until the deletion discussions conclude. This alerts all editors to the ongoing deletion discussion, so they can weigh in on whether they think that, per WP policy, the articles should be kept or deleted.

As a result, it is inappropriate for you to remove the AfD banners, as you have done.[72][73] to two articles. —C.Fred (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Update:

At the very least, the individual who posted the blackmail to my user talk page must be chastised, as I'm simply following the ANI instructions. This behaviour must be dealt with.Jkokavec (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What blackmail? It was a reasonable suggestion that you should file the ANI report before posting the notification (and then post the notification to the user's talk page, not their user page). —C.Fred (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jkokavec: you were notified that removing AFD notifications was wrong, before you persisted to remove them again. 117Avenue (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I am being told that if I include a link to Smooth Island (Ontario) at Smooth_Island I could be blocked from wikipedia without warning. How in the world is it "disruptive editing" to make the article more comprehensive. The only distruptive editing is coming from 117Avenue. I was happily working on these articles, trying to enrich the content before he decided to step in, disrupt the constructive work I've been doing, and abuse his power.

Several of my co-contributors will be watching very carefully how much support we get from moderators here.

It certainly appears to all of us that 117Avenue is just being disruptive and obstructing our efforts to write high quality articles for Wikipedia.Jkokavec (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, nothing about this or this immediately strikes me as disruptive editing (although the latter one is an error on your part, since you put the notice on their user page instead of their talk page). But you've also been repeatedly removing the deletion notice from Smooth Island (Ontario) while deletion discussions were underway, which is not allowed; you shouldn't do that. --Aquillion (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Jkokavec, I'd like to suggest that you give up on this witch hunt for tonight before it escalates any further with your being blocked. Just abide by the warnings you've been given and if you disagree with the AfD nominations, post your opinions there. Debate the content. Do not hide behind negative claims against other editors. Stop editing for the day. Come back refreshed tomorrow. Take the advice of others here and read up on the definition of vandalism.

Moreover I'd have to seriously suggest you not passively threaten the admins. (Non-administrator comment) ♪ Tstorm(talk) 07:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You are implying it's ok for User:117Avenue to threaten me with an ANI but, if visa versa, I become threatened with being blocked. This is nothing short of Authoritarianism.

I want others to realise that the comments under the heading of 'December 2014' User_talk:Jkokavec amount to blackmail and that User:117Avenue must be reprimanded for his/her behaviour. Blocking me for trying to bring awareness to the misdemeanours of this user will only make the matter worse.

I'd like a formal response from the management committee of Wikipedia about this matter, please.Jkokavec (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop removing AfD tags from the articles. Debate the deletion in an appropriate forum, with reference to relevant policy. This matter does not merit further attention as long as you follow proper procedure. —Dark 07:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue at hand is not the AfD tag deletion. The issue is that User:117Avenue aka User:Chris_troutman responded with blackmail. A formal response to this users behaviour by Wikipedia management is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkokavec (talk • contribs) 08:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Warning you is not blackmail. I suggest you drop the issue. —Dark 09:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I advised him that I was making a ANI (as per the guidelines), and he responded by threatening me with 'blocking'. This is blackmail. I will not let this matter rest until a qualified member of management mediates here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkokavec (talk • contribs) 09:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Jkokavec (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As you do not seem to understand subtlety, I'll make it very simple. If you do not drop the issue and keep up your current activities, by alleging that the editors are blackmailing you and advocating for sanctions against them, then I will block you for disruption. I've already told you that your allegations are not actionable. I suggest you listen. —Dark 09:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What position do you hold in the Wikipedia management structure, User:DarkFalls? There are a number of comments above which indicate a consensus has not been reached. Thus, if you are just a entry-level administrator, I doubt you have the authority to make a 'ruling' here.Jkokavec (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

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

User:László Vazulvonal of Stockholm (editing unlogged under the IP 213.114.147.52)

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Vazulvonal_of_Stockholm (editing unlogged under the IP 213.114.147.52), after repeated warnings: [74] on his talk page, continues to add unsourced data to biographies of living people: [75] [76]. This is the third report on this topic (first: [77], second: [78]), the first 2 were not answered. Administrators. do your job! 07:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.43.239.162 (talk)

I guess they're all OK with dubious additions made to BLP articles. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Greek genre warrior – TECHNO rampaging maniac .

This guy has been rampaging on Wikipedia, replacing trance and house with techno to everything he sees. Can you find the IP's and block them. Thanks JG Malmsimp (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Not without at least a clue as to which articles are affected, no we can't. Black Kite (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The only article I've been immediately able to identify, based on Malmsimp's contributions is Aiii Shot the DJ [79]. The IP there was 5.55.243.208 (talk), whose contributions all stem from today. The history of the article shows that this person was likely using 79.166.75.10 (talk) in late July. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:File:Revell Logo.png - unhide previous revision?

Given that File:Revell Logo.png is now licensed as PD-ineligible-USonly instead of as non-free content, would it please be possible to consider unhiding the previous higher-resolution revision of the image? Thanks. --Elegie (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User:LearnedElder citing antisemitic conspiracy theorist on Jesus

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

---

• LearnedElder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Jesus#Jesus_as_a_Judean_rather_than_a_Jew

User:LearnedElder has repeatedly cited a book by antisemitic conspiracy theorist (Benjamin H. Freedman) to assert that Jesus was not Jewish, and to try to distance the relationship between Christianity and Judaism.

When it was explained on the talk page that Freedman (who is not a historian) was not an acceptable source, he accused the editor pointing this out of antisemitism, claimed that Freedman was "Jewish" (quotes LearnedElder's), and so on. Even LearnedElder has to put "Jewish" in quotes when referring to Freedman, because Freedman not only left the religion but writing and campaigning against Jews and Judaism under the (thin) guise of anticommunism (which he regarded as synonymous). It is possibly less dishonest to claim that Richard Dawkins is (not was, is) a Christian, if only because Dawkins doesn't claim that Christians are deliberately involved in some malevolent conspiracy to overthrow the world's governments in the name of an unrelated economic system.

Overall, he's made it clear that he's WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but right the great wrong that Judaism and Christianity are depicted as related in our articles, and has every intention of "debating" for his claims and argue for WP:FRINGE views. He believes he has the "facts", or WP:THETRUTH. His edits are representative of his quote "personal beliefs".

Among his other edits include:

• adding "/Khazar" to Jewish ethnicity (in line with a bit of revisionist history favored used by antisemites),
• replacing "American" with "Jewish/Khazar" ("Jewish-American" wouldn't've necessarily been suspicious, but in line with other things, this edit is clearly meant to imply that one cannot be both Jewish and American),
• replacing the religion "Judaism" with "Talmudism/Phariseeism" (a dysphemism for Judaism).

Clearly, we're dealing with an antisemite. Maybe he just hasn't learned that he's filled his head with hateful bollocks, or maybe not. Either way, I really should not have to explain any further why LearnedElder deserves at least a topic ban from all topics relating to Jews and Judaism, including pre-Nicene Christianity (if not later Christianity). Although I have not suggested more severe measures, I would welcome them. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have already drawn attention to the username[80], which seems designed to refer to the notorious antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I too doubt that this user, who has requested a debate on Judaism and the merits of the Talmud[81], is here to build an encyclopaedia. RolandR (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in light of what you've pointed out, I think a site ban is in order instead. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

They are also clearly not here to work with others: see this diff. A site-ban seems like a good idea. -- The Anome (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That diff makes it quite clear that their main purpose here is to attack Jews. This person should certainly not be editing here. RolandR (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And to quote Tolkien, "if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people." Well, I guess I must still be a servant of the Zionist Occupation Government in his eyes, what with my belief in clearly antichristian ideas such as universal tolerance (except for intolerance) and socialism. Hell, I even worship a Jew. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Funny, I was just coming here to file my own report. I'll add, the user has only editted on two days, so see his user contribs for the following edits:

15:03, 21 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+7)‎ . . Daryl Katz ‎ (Giving Credit to Nation Definition in Dictionary)

15:01, 21 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . Lloyd Blankfein ‎ (Giving Blankfein Credit)

14:58, 21 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . Michael Dell ‎ (Taking care of Wikipedia Readers)

14:55, 21 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . Milton Friedman ‎ (Effective Reading Skills)

14:54, 21 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . Janet Yellen ‎ (Using Dictionary Effectively)

14:53, 21 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . Alan Greenspan ‎ (Using Dictionary more effectively)

14:51, 21 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . Ben Bernanke ‎ (Effective Reading Technique)

In each of these edits his sole contribution has been to add Jewish- to the businessman's or economist's article. Yet not a single edit summary accurately reports the actual change: they are all misleading. Given the editor's (unsigned) actions on the Jesus talkpage, advocating that Jesus not be called a Jew, but a Judean, which is historically false, an antisemitic POV becomes obvious. Businessmen and bankers are Jews, Jesus is not. I suggest this is not just a mistake or ignorance. New editors don't consistently lie in edit summaries to hide their actions. It's bad faith disruption, probably by a blocked user, and should be dealt with severely and summarily. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Block indefinitely. Clearly not here for any legitimate encyclopaedic purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Indefblocked. As far as I can see, all trace of their edits has now been removed from the bodies of articles; if other editors want to double-check that that has been 100% successful, I'd be grateful. -- The Anome (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Glancing through the histories of the articles he tainted, that appears to be the case, thanks mostly to an IPv6 editor. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

All the edits I listed had already been reverted. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Nice work. Kudos to all in the above discussion. Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• My deep and sincere thanks to every editor who acted promptly on this matter. Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• BTW, it's probably unrelated, but this edit at 17:58 on the 21st by 99.226.98.10 added Jewish to the Ayn Rand article. Her connection to Greenspan is well known. (It's amazing the blocked user seems to have had a prepared list.) μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

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

E-cig editors

See earlier ANI thread. SandyGeorgia (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 [82].

This user is a WP:SPA who only edits material regarding electronic cigarettes [83]. They were previously warned about edit warring here and were at ANI for incivility here [84] 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)
• "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."
• 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)

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)

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 [85] and have had previous unblock request declined due to incivility [86]

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 [87]. 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. [88] 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. SandyGeorgia (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. SandyGeorgia (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 [89]

You appear to even be willing to edit war for pay [90], [91], [92] 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 Terms of Use 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 [93]?

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). SandyGeorgia (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 or 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. SandyGeorgia (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.[94] 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. [95] Curious that. SandyGeorgia (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)

• Comment 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[96][97][98], 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

Per this and the evidence above,[99] 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. SandyGeorgia (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. SandyGeorgia (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 [100] 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 [101] 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. SandyGeorgia (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)

86.2.216.5

This individual has accused me of copyright violations, but after I have asked him where. He has simply ignored my questions. [102] He basically called me a liar [103] and has had a very rude tone with me in general. [104]

Ater I repeatedly asked him where my alleged copyvio's were he stated my userspace. [105]. I am sure that he knows that userspace isn't for copyright as he has fixed references on my userspace. He puts forth the claim that I am upset that articles I wrote had delete votes. [106] I have authored over 40 articles, and if someone votes to delete it, I don't take it to heart. What I find bothersome as per WP:HOUND is that this user has been going through wikipedia, editing a good number of articles that I am at, my userspace articles, and AFD's. [107] .

This is not his first issue of disruptive editing. [108] and warning to those who report him. [109] I asked that he stop following me on pages, insulting me, and editing my userpages. [110] CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I just looked through those links, what exactly is the behavior in question? It simply appears to be someone taking a contrary point of view and expressing concerns. If I am missing something please point it out. Chillum 07:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I am being falsely accused of copyviolations, called me a liar, etc. Also about 50% of his edits this month have been on articles I created or participated in or on my userfied articles. 30% of his edits from mid october are on my userspace, articles I created or userspace. I am not sure who (s)he is, but his recent behavior has caused me to become annoyed as per wiki hound. I ask that you have him stay away from me. I am only trying to create good articles. His name calling and otherwise rude behavior isn't helping my desire at doing this. CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "userspace isn't for copyright"? (A copyright violation is a copyright violation, wherever it is). Squinge (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Squinge, I have not copied any text from any website. I summarize information and place a reference on my userspace. CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I responded to your question re the copyvio and posted the relevant link at least twice. Two of the pertinent parts: "I linked the relevant details re the copyright issue when stated above, WP:CWW contributions to wikipedia are subject to a license which requires attribution, copying and pasting a whole article loses that attribution so is in breach of the license. " and "You cut and paste the whole article, the original article in your userspace has more editors than just you. Those users as per the link given licensed the text requiring attribution, that's where the problem arises.". If you followed the link WP:CWW it's about copying within wikipedia, cutting and pasting an article around wikipedia loses attribution. That is the case here (and another you recently have done into user space). That's a copyright issue. It's not the biggest issue in the world and in this case would be easy to fix, but it's an issue.

As for the rest of your claims I'd like you to back them up, I have presented a situation with the evidence, you are inferring from that various things and then attributing those things you've inferred to me. As for hounding you, that's laughable. I've engaged with you on two discussions both in the last few days, other than those (and this now) there is no turning up everywhere and making your life difficult. I noticed one article on DRV a while back and put some effort into fixing the citation into proper citation templates, something which was highlighted by others in the DRV and something others have spoken to you about. You know I did that because I half suspected if you stripped away the junk there might be an article there. If helping out constitutes hounding then I am at a loss.

In this overall case I have pointed out and instance where you have ignored the consensus in a DRV and gone ahead and recreated the article, I've fixed citations on a user space draft or two, I've fixed citations on a mainspace page and tagged it for questionable notability. Rather than accept that the recreation wasn't too wise and appreciate the effort spent tidying the articles you'd rather attempt to ban me from pointing out any future problems like the first one. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

One more thing with regards the mudslinging suggesting I've been warned before please see this. My user talk page was tagged with a warning by an obvious vandal since I'd tagged one of his hoax articles for deletion. Another user obviously not familar with user page policy decide I wasn't permitted to remove such warnings from own talk page. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I ask that you stay off of articles that I am editing in my userspace. The point of me using it is to create an article and move it to userspace. I neither invited you nor did I want your edits. You have followed me onto many articles for I am not sure what reason. you openly mocked me and have put me down on even this AN/I . How are over 50% of your edits this month on articles I have either created or interact on? You have been following me on articles since the middle of October. I created this article Latoya Hanson and you edit on it within two days? That is WP:HOUND . I am not sure who you are or what you want with me. If I have interacted with you on a username or an article before, please tell me so that I won't edit on that article. I am unsure why you are following me around. CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#User_pages the edits are valid edits fixing the citation style. I have not followed you onto many articles, I have edited that one in your userspace having seen it at DRV to fix citations, more recently I fixed a duplicate citation in another article you listed on DRV (I hang around DRV generally) and finally I fixed some citations on Latoya Hanson which I saw when reviewing your edits. That is 3 articles where I have fixed citation style, not many articles. I am not hounding you (You should read WP:HOUND "...and joining discussions on multiple pages..." as noted above I've engaged in two related discussions with your over the last few days and that's it, hardly following you around), as previously stated I could easily have gone to the AFDs which are running at the moment and just blindly voted delete if I wanted to annoy you. Your sole annoyance seems to come from the fact that I was willing to point out that you had recreated an article in direct contravention of the DRV consensus. If it helps I will voluntarily agree not to bother trying to fix the articles in your userspace. I will not be restricted from fixing issues on articles on mainspace regardless of who wrote the or commenting at DRV/AfD. If you want to avoid scrutiny I suggest you start reading and understanding the policies before acting, perhaps a mentor? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You can vote as you please. That isn't what bothered me. Following me around making inflammatory comments toward me is annoying. You stating that I am disingenuous and knowingly violating wiki policy is bothering me. I have not done this.

There are hundreds if not thousands of articles that you can go on. A large percentage of your edits are on my articles since October 14!

1. Latoya Hanson
2. User:CrazyAces489/Ron Duncan
3. User:CrazyAces489/Jorge Gracie
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiyoshi Shiina (2nd nomination)
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Duncan (martial arts) (2nd nomination) ‎

"Wikihounding WP:HOUND is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." I am telling you now that I am annoyed with you following me around. Please stop! Please!CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I highlighted the significant part for you and I'll do it again. joining discussions, which I haven't done, but you seem to think "you can vote as you please" is fine. You have this policy 100% the wrong way around. Of those you list one is a discussion I joined in (and one doesn't make following around), and one is a discussion where I made a minor tweak to not include fair use images outside article space where our WP:NFCC requires them to be. These are both in the last few days. Again your complaint of this on going hounding is nonsense. I've been fixing citations that is not some dark way to irritate people, it's a way of improving the encyclopedia. I've been doing this without any other interaction with your for a while, since the DRV where one editor pointed out " Needs work on the format of the references.", and another "the references are very poorly formatted.", I'll contrast that with your response to the DRV where people bemoaned the poor formatting, using unreliable sources etc. Your response - ignore the formatting and just pile in a load more trivial and/or unreliable references. I'm really wondering if there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue here. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment since we are here having this discussion and I don't want to now go to one of the AFDs and comment, can someone independent take a look at this and this which appear to be notes to two editors who previously opined keep and seems to be a WP:CANVAS problem. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the two of you only seem to be talking to each other you can do this on one of your talk pages. If you wish a response from an administrator then just wait for one. Chillum 23:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sydney Hostage Crisis Photo

I have doubts about whether the following photo can be used. Please clarify.

Sardaka (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I reformatted the image as a link, hope that's ok. Is the concern that the image is non-free? If so this might more usefully be discussed on the article talkpage than here, or potentially at WP:NFR. If not, please expand on your concern. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I notified RazorEyeEdits (the uploader) of this discussion, which you should have done with {{ANI-notice}}. Since each article in which it's used has a detailed fair use rationale, do you have any other concerns? All the best, Miniapolis 00:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about the OP, but I'm mildly concerned that one of the hostages is recognizable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that an article should not permanently show the face of a victim. Is there a precedent for someone to take that copyrighted photo and blur the face? Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Vejvančický refuses to change tack

I request some assistance again with respect to Vejvančický. On 13th December I had written here requesting suggestions on how to handle user Vejvančický who was repeatedly attacking me and refusing to back off despite my request. Jehochman suggested to Vejvančický to not refer to me again on Wikipedia, except to request arbitration, or to make peace. Vejvančický confirmed on his talk page that he would follow Jehochman's suggestion. Unfortunately, the very next edit that Vejvančický made after that, which was today on the talk page of an article in reply to some IP,[111], Vejvančický again has made a personal attack mentioning my name and various references of mine to again (and again) allege his allusion that the article was created (ostensibly by me) to show the subject in bad light. To the IP, Vejvančický chats up about starting an arbitration request (!!) and that these links alluding to me should be pasted on the talk page of the article for editors not familiar with the situation. I request help for some kind of a closure on this. If Vejvančický wants to file an arbitration request, he's welcome to do that. But he should, in my opinion, at least follow some decorum in the meanwhile. Any guidance to handle this will be welcome... Wifione ^Message 11:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Abuse by user FelixRosch

• Metropolitan (1990 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• FelixRosch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.31.249.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user FelixRosch has recently been responsible for some minor vandalism to the page Metropolitan (1990 film). When I initially edited the plot synopsis, it was vague and incomplete. User FelixRosch replaced it with a poorly written, incomplete synopsis which contains many grammatical and syntactical errors that make it sound as though it were written by someone with only a moderate grasp of the English language. Attempts to correct FelixRosch's summary resulted only in FelixRosch reverting the page to his own edits and demanding a discussion on the article's talk page. A request for protection resulted in FelixRosch's poorly written summary being protected, and user FelixRosch is now stalling discussion on the talk page unless other users validate him. A look at FelixRosch's talk page will demonstrate a pattern of abusive editing and combative behavior towards other editors and admins, and his edits to the Metropolitan article have themselves demonstrated a disregard for the article's quality versus his own desire for validation.76.31.249.221 (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute. The only conduct issue is the IP's personal attack, the claim of vandalism, in what is not vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User FelixRosch is refusing to engage in dialogue about the edits until other users "acknowledge" him. How is that not abuse? And how is it not abuse to revert an article to broken, grammatically improper language?76.31.249.221 (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

<>::Please refer to this exchange, taken from the talk page:

This page has been dormant for some time before I edited it. Not every single edit on Wiki requires a discussion beforehand, especially to delete poorly written information on a low-importance article. You have offered nothing in the way of criticism on the improved information other than you don't like the fact that it was changed without your approval. Your user page shows a history of disciplinary issues with other Wiki articles and a difficulty getting along with other editors. Unless you can provide a cogent reason for why the actual content of the rewrites done to the article over the past week shouldn't be posted, you have no basis for maintaining the old, poorly written, summary.76.31.249.221 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Please acknowledge that I am the one who initiated Talk discussion. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.249.221 (talk) <>

This appears to be a single purpose account IP-editor filing multiple reports. I requested Page Protection from User:CambridgeBayWeather for Metropolitan (1990 film) which was granted on the same day. User:EdJohnson also closed out one of the other disputes filed by this single purpose IP-editor with dynamically changing IP-addresses. I am supporting both of these administrators on their actions concerning this article. If there is further information needed, I can be reached on my Talk page for anything further needed here. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is now fully protected one week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. The anonymous editor seems to have used three different IPs in the edit war since 11 December (one IPv4 and two IPv6s). This article was also submitted in a 3RR complaint on 18 December. Continuing to file the same issue at multiple venues is called forum shopping. Each time gets the same advice: use the talk page to get agreement. Use WP:DR if you are stuck. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been following this conflict ....and have a few things to say. First we need to understand that in all likely hood (or assuming good faith) the IP editor probably has no clue about our procedures that all keep blabbing about. To be chastising him for things he/she has no clue about does not help move anything forward. In the future all just needs to be a bit more informative over being assertive. Being proactive of the bat with links to polices and not using Wikijargin shortcuts that mean nothing to someone new (assuming the IP is new as indicated by the edit history). Not one part of this post makes any sense. Then we have these nice responses all in an aggressive tone. The problem here is the interaction the IP has had thus far....again not one person even remotely discussing the content problem they have been talking about....even telling them to shutup when they are seeking help. This is the reason we are having editor retention problems. All I have to say is... everyone really drop the ball here. So anyone have any comment on the content??? -- Moxy (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:The Rapper Nyn T

The Rapper Nyn T (talk · contribs) has repeatedly shown that he does not have the minimum competence to be editing at Wikipedia. He has repeatedly created articles about himself, and then recreated the article content in Talk: space, and in his own User talk page. This edit shows him completely disregarding attempts to contact him, once again to create article content (about himself) in his user talk page. This edit shows him trying to create material about himself in the Wikipedia talk: space. I have asked him to stop, read the guidelines, and seek mentorship, but he apparently wants no part of that. I believe a temporary block will serve to stop his incorrect behavior and force him to learn the ropes. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked for 31 hours. I was tempted to indef this time, and I definitely will if the behavior resumes. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this worth concern?

WP:EMERGENCY followed, revdelled, nothing more to do here. --Mdann52talk to me! 21:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I routinely patrol the Special:PendingChanges and just ran across this rather random edit [112]. Is this something to be concerned about? It just seemed rather specific. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC) @Scalhotrod: WMF now aware, revdelling is probably best. I'll see who I can find. --Mdann52talk to me! 21:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by User:TMDrew

When I came across the B-theory of time, it was in extremely poor condition, and urgent need for re-writing, which I have done. The original article mostly contained information regarding A-series of time (despite there being a page on A-series and B-series), additionally there was a single paragraph on the physics support B-theory, and the physics potentially behind B-theory. The remaining (50%) writing on the page was several paragraphs on William Craig a somewhat Christian fundamentalist, theologian philosopher. The article described his opinions on the theory, and there are a number of problems with that.

The first problem is that most of the paragraphs did not even state that those beliefs were Craig or even that they were beliefs, for example, "B theory suffers a incoherence as all other theories, that time is illusionary. The Buddhist can consistently deny the reality of the physical world, since the illusion of physicality does not entail physicality, but this is not the case with temporal becoming", This was not quoted, or stated as an opinion of Craig's rather User:TMDrew placed it in the description of B-thoery section. Craig being of Christian philosophy and faith, you should note the dig at buddhist philosophy. Firstly that kind of aggressive bias material shouldn't be on a page about metaphysics and theoretical physics, secondly supposably this was supposed to be opposition to B-theory, why are we talking about Buddhism. The general persuasion of the article and the following edits by TMDrew have been of similar suit. The writings of Craig's despite being stead outright as fact rather than opinions were also, not necasrrily philosophies, but aggressive ranting. Some of the 'opinions' (stated as fact), actually contradicted themselves, others made no sense, some parts were opinions (stated as facts) from books on his critique of scientific support for B-thoery, a book which was highly criticised by the scientific community, showing Craig has no understanding of relativity and labelled as pseudoscientific. (Outside note: Craig has been criticised by all community for seemly pushing A-thoery and therefore opposing B-theory simply because otherwise it would conflict with his religious beliefs, and this was evident in the 'opinions' given of Craig's). Generally speaking, most of the information belonged on his biographical page not a page on metaphysics and theoretical physics.

I since have significantly changed the page, I have improved the quality of the article, removed irrelevant information (see above), quoted statements when necarry, finally creating a Neutral POV, and despite this User:TMDrew continuously vandalises the page with a personal bias and agenda (supporting Craig and A-thoery). For example, I quoted prominent research papers that stated, factually, thatA-thoery supporters were by far in the minority, and B-theorsits (the sister theory) has majority support from the metaphysics and theoretical physics community. User:TMDrew removed this information, and any other information regarding B-theory's favourbility amongst all, then inserted the above Craig quote (on buddhist philopshy) with a load of other Craig 'babble' stating his opinions as fact, such as 'B-thoery has many philosophical inconstancies', not Craig argues 'B-the.... You get the picture. Additionally he has continuously degraded the rest of the article, jumbling things around (so they are in wrong sections), removing the scientific evidence behind B-theory, (which also happens to oppose A-theory). The editing is pretty consistent in this sense, that User:TMDrew is serving a personal agenda regarding A-theory and William Craig.

I have added reasons for edits, left multiple messages on his talk page page, and the page talk page (which I will get too in a moment) and left him multiple vandalisation warning (which he has now surpassed his final warning - hence here I am). BTW: I originally posted this on 'Admin intervention against vandalism', though they believed it would be best suited here.

You merely need to read the version that user:TMDrew put in on Craig, to understand how awful it really is (be sure to notice the deliberate degrading of the rest of the article aswell in his most recent edit, though slightly less vandalous than previous vandalisations).

Other random points that may add to your decision:

• He frequently wipes his talk page, looking back you can seek numerous vandalism accusations and warnings by various users. User:Mojowiha, not only also had an issue with vandalisation from User:TMDrew but on the B-theory of time page specifically. (it seems he gave up)
• In the B-thoery of time argument, I believe he logged out and posed as his IP address, then did the exact same thing, wrote an extremely similar wording as explanation. This revert and minor discussion on whether the Craig info should be included, amusingly was this IP's only edit, and after I called him out, no further edits have been made with this IP. (I could of course be wrong, but see it for yourself)

Either way, I'm getting sick and tired of this user, and I believe the feeling is mutual with number of other editors. There have been numerous examples from numerous different editors with disruptive editing and violating Neutral POV and serving a personal agenda. e.g.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Process_theology#Neutrality_dispute
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TMDrew&diff=624866980&oldid=624866887
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TMDrew&diff=609261906&oldid=609229609
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:B-theory_of_time#Support_by_physics

Thanks. DocHeuh (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please. This guy recklessly edits the B-theory of time page, gets warned[[113]], continues to persist in edit warring, and now edits against consensus. After being sent to the 3RR boards again, this user retaliates. I hope that this investigation does a WP:BOOMERANG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMDrew (talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because my precise reasons on what and where you vandalised just reeks of recklessness, while you reverting days of contributions to a page, decreasing the article quality significanting doesn't? Firstly, as I have said before, I was warned for entering an edit war, instead of reporting you (which I should of done & I am now), not for the edits themselves. "After being sent to the 3RR boards again, this user retaliates." Actually you recently WRONGLY filed a report for 3RR and edit warring when then was/is no warring going on. I do not need to argue with someone who simply wants trouble. The edit history over the last few days, the attitude and way in which you edit, and the sheer number of people who have problems with you (to the extent you have to wipe your talk page on a daily basis) speaks for itself, let along the number of rules you are breaking when you edit; disruptively, while serving a personal agenda, not providing a neutral point of view, etc. DocHeuh (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Renault dispute with 83.157.24.224

This is my first involvement with ANI so apologies if I'm getting anything wrong.

There are some issues surrounding the editing of the article Renault with the user 83.157.24.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (heretofore referred to as Mr. IP).

There has been a content dispute regarding Mr. IP's addition of awards information for Renault car models [114] to the main article and lead.

A talk page discussion was started in an attempt to resolve the issue here and subsequently an RFC was opened.

During these debates Mr. IP has engaged in the following:

• Incivility: accusations against vrac, Urbanoc, Warren Whyte, Mr.choppers of vandalism [115], sock puppetry, dishonesty, bias, "malevolence", bad faith (see RFC for details). Calling three of us "gangsters" and saying we should be banned from Wikipedia here [116]
• Threatening to disparage Wikipedia in the press (Mr. IP claims to be a journalist) here [117]
• Threatening to engage in sockpuppetry here [118], although I suspect Mr. IP already has this sock engaged in the debate: 193.252.173.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (another IP from France who displays strikingly similar linguistic quirks to Mr. IP).
• Canvassing for the RFC here [119] and here [120]

Attempts to engage and educate have not been successful. Lately the dispute has degenerated into edit warring. The content dispute we can deal with, however I feel that the incivility has passed the threshold and needs to be addressed by an administrator. Vrac (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Addendum: This is interesting, Mr. IP appears to be engaged in a cross-wiki crusade against Volkswagen, see this entry [121] on the Renault article talkpage on fr.wikipedia in September. Note the last line where Mr. IP says there is a "Volkswagate sur[on] Wikipedia", just like they said there was a "Volkswagate scandal on Wikipedia" here [122] on the en Renault talk page.Vrac (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Long-term pattern of edit warring

I listed this concern here originally, but another editor recommended I list it here instead. I'm concerned about the pattern that User:Jimjilin has established. I'm requesting advice specifically about that. There is a lengthy record (going back about 2 1/2 years) of reports of edit warring and blocks from the same on Jimjilin's user page, and Jimjilin appears to be edit warring now at Jesus (although I'm not raising that directly as an issue here). If Jimjilin doesn't understand the policies regarding edit warring and 3RR at this point, no one does. Yet Jimjilin continues to engage in edit warring. Is there a longer-term solution for this? Perhaps a longer block with a request to review Wikipedia's policies and a stronger warning to cease future edit warring? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I pointed out that no consensus exists on a certain page and Airborne84 keeps threatening me. His actions seem inappropriate.Jimjilin (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Range block genius wanted for dealing with Tamaulipas vandal

Hi admins, a Mexico-based IP keeps vandalizing articles and hopping IPs. This has been going on for the better part of 2014 (I first noticed them circa April/May 2014.) I believe they are the same operators who were disrupting Ilion Animation Studios and United Plankton Pictures, which resulted in both articles being protected. Most of the IPs geolocate to the Mexican state Tamaulipas, and I think most of them are from the ISP Uninet S.A. de C.V. There has been a recent flurry of activity at Peep and the Big Wide World.

List of problematic IPs

Some of the older IPs used are: 189.235.128.48 - Possibly the earliest IP used? 189.250.245.222 189.250.231.38 189.250.210.201 189.250.224.222 189.235.143.210 189.235.178.206 189.250.213.120 Some of the more recent ones are: 189.235.143.101 (added Dec 2014) 189.235.223.202 (added Dec 2014) 189.235.25.178 (added Dec 2014) 189.250.242.110 (added Dec 2014) 189.235.24.23 (added 12.21.14) 189.250.213.172 189.235.213.238 189.250.229.19 189.235.24.23 189.250.242.110 189.235.25.178 189.235.223.202

Anyhow, it's clearly disruptive, so if anybody can come up with a plan for dealing with this user, it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The subranges are 189.235.0.0/16, 189.250.192.0/18. I looked as a CU, and both of them have significant logged-in editing, as well as a small amount of productive logged out editing. There is also some account creation. If we were to block them, it would probably be best to start with a short term and see efficacy, and then extend length if necessary. Also, account creation should probably be left enabled, at least at first, to minimize collateral. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Any other thoughts are welcome, if nobody else has an opinion I'll action it in a couple hours. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @NativeForeigner:, thanks for looking into this! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble loading some WMF tools today, so can't view the range contributions to see if other pages are also being targeted. The article Peep and the Big Wide World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had just come off a 3-week semi-protection that expired just over 24 hours ago. Due to the considerable IP disruption today, I have extended the semi-protection for an additional 3-months. If this article is the primary focus of the disruptive user behind the IP, then range-blocks may not be necessary if there's risk of collateral impact. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the extent of the editing--I mentioned Ilion and United Plankton above, also Peep. Dragon Tales is another. I don't get the sense that they are interested in too many articles, but they are persistent, and as soon as a protection expires, they come back fairly quickly to damage the article, as you already mentioned with Peep. Another example, here they returned within 3 days of the protection being lifted. I hadn't linked specific logged in users to this IP vandal, so depending on what those accounts are editing, a different story could unfold. Grazie. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As a result of this I'll do some fairly extensive semi=protection, and we'll see how that holds, or if he gains new interests. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Scratch the above, I'll look into it in some more detail. Not all of it is pure vandalism. The following articles have been edited by the IP ranges, and are in the same subject area: Dragon Tales, Cubeez, Fetch the Vet, Peep and the Big Wide World, Engie Benjy, Oggy and the Cockroaches, Henry's World, ¡Mucha_Lucha!, Franklin (TV series), Zoboomafoo, and maybe a couple others, this is just the last three months. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Requesting interaction ban with User:Beyond My Ken

An editor who goes by the name Beyond My Ken has been following me about for a couple days. It is the equivalent of harassment. Personal attacks continue. I have done nothing to him. Instead, he disagreed with one of my own actions, which is fine. However, that does not justify stalking and continual assault. I'd like to request that an interaction ban be placed on me and him, so that this does not continue. It is disruptive, and inappropriate.

• Origin of the stalking at an AN thread about my own behaviour. Perhaps it was poor, but that does not justify his stalking and attacks. He made false accusations about "restoring discussion to a state more to my liking", amongst other things, including attacking me for a proposal I put forth at the Village Pump.
• Comments at a deletion request unrelated to him, where he explicitly acknowledged following me.
• Comments at an arbitration case request unrelated to him. He is targeting me personally, rather than bothering to deal with the dispute, which I am not involved in.
• Final personal attack.

I'm tired of this. There is no reason I should be subjected to stalking by a vindictive editor. I will not engage in a long-drawn out AN/I slugfest, so I hope he doesn't try doing that in the same way that he is trying to derail and ArbCom case that has nothing to do with him. Regardless of your opinion about my actions at the Cultural Marxism article, that does not justify badgering or harassment from an editor such as BMK. RGloucester — ☎ 00:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the "hypocritical liars" edit remark is beyond blatant. I myself warned BMK about personal attacks only a few days ago. He simply blew me off. I don't know if he just doesn't understand what the guidelines ask or is just refusing to comply. But given the defiant tone, I suspect it's the latter. User:Msnicki 00:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

If it is the case that Gloucester denied editing the article, when he actually did edit the article, what's a better way to say it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No "lying" involved. My only edits were copyedits at the moment it was created. I have not edited it since the start of August, and again, my only edits were copyedits, and two reverts. None of that has anything to do with the present dispute. Regardless, nothing I did justifies being stalked. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's possible to disagree with someone's claims and even to criticize their behavior without making it an attack on the person. Fundamentally, if you'd like to express an opinion, you need to find a way to express it within the guidelines – which prohibit personal attacks – or not at all. Msnicki (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm less concerned with personal attacks, and more concerned with the fact that he has been following me around to matters that he otherwise would not have been involved in. The only reason he has done this is because he wants to "look into my edits", which hardly seems appropriate. He is editing to make a point, and to harass me. RGloucester — ☎ 01:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Understood. WP:Wikihounding is prohibited but it's not nearly so cut-and-dried because all of our edit histories are public and anyone can look at them. It's not such a bright line we can say he's crossed as there is when he utters the magic word, "liar". Msnicki (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Both are prohibited, there are rules that describe the elements of each, and the history that supports a finding of either is discoverable by looking at edit histories and diffs. Of course, editor analysis is required to make a determination of an infraction, in either case. Some cases of hounding are actually clearer than some cases of personal attacks. I gather that Msnicki feels that there is a clear case of a personal attack, while RG is most concerned with putting an end to what he feels is ongoing hounding (and no doubt if he were not followed, that would serve to decrease the possibility of personal attacks in the future). Epeefleche (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: A block for the personal attack seems justified by the bright line violation, especially given that he's been recently warned, and might end both problem behaviors. Msnicki (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• RGloucester has the habit of claiming to be unbiased and non-partisan in various disputes, when his actions show quite clearly that this is not the case. He also regularly misinterprets Wikirules and policies, as in his attempt to close an RfC on Talk:Cultural Marxism despite being an involved editor, and then to overturn an uninvolved editor's subsequent close. [123] This behavior did indeed lead me to take a look at his contributions, to see if there were other instances of his misapplication of Wikipedia principles, which lead me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Carnation murders. As I remarked there, I took a look at the article and the sources, read the comments from other editors, and then posted a comment based on that evidence, a comment which differed from RGloucestor's view, which caused him to accuse me of vindictivemess, with the threat to "take action" against me.

  My going to the ArbCom request concerning Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 had nothing whatsoever to do with RGloucester, as I regularly monitor that page, and comment on requests with moderate frequency. However, I did find there that RGloucester was once again claiming to an uninvolved editor with no stake in the article, so I questioned him about it, politely.

  As for Msnicki, she is an editor who is virulently adamant about Dangerous Panda being desysoppped in his ArbCom case, a view I have opposed, and her comment can be ignored for that reason.

  So, this claim of me "following him around" hangs on an AfD that I admit I went to because I saw it on RGloucester's contrib list, and a Arbitration request that I saw because I watch the page regularly. I also watch AN and AN/I, where there have been other interactions with this editor, none of which I got involved with because I was "following him around". I suggest that if RGloucester doesn't want his editing to be examined that he correctly follow Wikipedia policy, and not misrepresent his position in regard to disputes he is involved with.

  I'd also like to point out that it is not only my observation that he claims to be uninvolved while, in fact, acting in a partisan manner. The admin Dark Falls also expressed that view in re-closing the Cultural Marxism dispute, when he responded to RGloucester's claim that he was "merely doing what is required by Wikipedia policies". Dark Falls wrote:

  Oh I was not aware that policy mandates you to open an AfD straight after a merge discussion ended with no consensus, when you are fully aware that it will achieve nothing besides make a point. You are hoping that by complaining about the matter loud enough, you will be able to change the result to your liking, yet try to shroud this under a cloak of neutrality and a pretence of not caring about the result. [124]

  BMK (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Now, if someone wants to say "RGloucester, you don't have to be non-partisan and uninvolved in order for your comments in a dispute to have legitimacy, so just stop misrepresenting your position as being uninvolved and disinterested and go about your business," and "Beyond My Ken, you can't change a person by annoying them about their perceived faults, so please give RGloucester the space to edit without your pointing out his deficits", I could live with that. BMK (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not under any "cloak". Feel free to examine my edits. I do follow Wikipedia policy, and I do state my position as it is. If you don't believe me, that isn't my fault. That's no excuse for following me around to matters you are not involved in and targeting me. I am not involved in the Malaysia Airlines dispute. I have never been. You can examine it all you like. It is clear that I'm not involved. I'm not going to play that game again. As far as "Cultural Marxism", I did not say I was "uninvolved". I said that whether I was "involved" or not was irrelevant. I also said that I did not care about the result. These are true statements. I don't care about the result. What will happen, will happen, and that's that. None of that justifies you following me and making a mess. RGloucester — ☎ 01:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry, your scare quotes around the word "cloak" seems to imply that I wrote that word somewhere in my comment, but I don't believe I did. BMK (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Try Ctrl-F. You quoted it in bold in this edit. I presume you did that because you agreed with that quote and thought RG should answer it. Msnicki (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, I see. I did not write it myself, but quoted it, which is why it felt unfamiliar to me. Thanks for the correction. BMK (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

BMK -- how about if someone were to say "BMK, inasmuch as you've indicated you've followed RG's edits, which matches what the editor interaction diffs indicate, perhaps it is best for you to not do so to confront RG, but agree of your own accord to rather let other editors and normal editing processes address it?" You point out above that an admin shared a view you had ... perhaps you can rely on that sort of normal process, and eschew following RG? Voluntarily? Without any community or admin action? Epeefleche (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I indicated that I "followed RG's edits" to one AfD, period. The rest of our interactions occured in the normal course of my editing. That's not stalking, or harassment by any definition, and it's barely even "following".

But to answer your question, yes, I could allow the normal Wikipedia community process -- which is sometimes like trying to turn a fully-loaded container ship -- to catch up to RGoucester's foibles in its own time. BMK (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My "foibles"? What are your foibles, BMK? I have no foibles. As I indicated before, it seems you've taken a disliking to me, and I've taken the brunt of it. Please stop this emotive and irrational rage against me. RGloucester — ☎ 02:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My dear sir, all God's children have foibles. BMK (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That we do, BMK. However, I have none that you've seen me exercise here. I've seen yours. RGloucester — ☎ 02:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've made it abundantly clear that I thought RGloucester's conduct in regards to Cultural Marxism was dishonest. BMK, I am sure you have done the same. However continually mentioning it will not elicit a positive response, as you can see. It is up to RGloucester to see faults within his conduct. I suggest that you avoid mentioning it in the future. —Dark 01:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Dark Falls: Yes, I stand corrected and will alter my behavior accordingly. BMK (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

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.[125][126]

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.[127] [128][129] 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".[130] 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".[131] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:28, 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)

Undisclosed writing of articles for pay

We have a bunch of accounts that are writing articles for pay. This is just the first of many. One of the most recent articles is here Jerome Katz which I have nominated for deletion.

What are peoples thoughts on this? Do we allow someone to pay to have their CV or business put on Wikipedia and if we do not what measures do we put in place when we discover it is happening? What should be our response when sock puppets are involved? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:COI covers this pretty well. That said, unpaid advocacy by ordinary editors is a much bigger problem in my opinion. Far too many editors wouldn't know a neutral point of view if it fell on them and are perfectly happy to push Wikipedia and its articles in whatever direction they personally think is proper. The only difference is that a very small few have managed to get paid in cash for it while the vast majority simply get paid by thinking that they're doing the noble deed of "fixing" or "improving" or "protecting" Wikipedia. Through that lens, the few who are getting paid for it are a minor problem. And while there are certainly smarter and more sophisticated efforts to shape Wikipedia articles via paid agents, the best are probably never found out. As long as Wikipedia is influential there will be efforts to "make it work for us", and making a big show of busting a couple small fry here and there probably won't make much difference in the big picture. – JBarta (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The article Doc has nominated was already nominated for deletion once tonight, and passed as clearly notable because the subject holds a named chair at SLU. I'll note that I haven't received any money for it but have already declared it on my user page, so as far as this particular article is concerned I don't see any real transgressions.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROD is alike but different than WP:AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree when you call them "small fry" if more editors are encouraged to edit and get paid for it then it will become an issue. To be paid editing undermines what Wikipedia is about it being a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That being said there is also the possibility of the paid editor doing real harm to things such as BLP articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone ask for edits to a BLP page, although it might be worth looking at Freelancer.com; it's pretty low end and there are some very dubious jobs on it. Here are today's requests for Wikipedia edits from Elance.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is a pretty interesting read, considering you are a more or less a publicist if you accept money to put someone's CV or company on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:For publicists publicizing a client's work. Even a 2-second glance at Elance reveals enough to churn your stomach. There's someone asking for two pages to be written, and they say they want it to be just like Zeus Mortgage, which they probably paid someone else to work on in the past. That one leads to Blueskymorning (talk · contribs) and further down the rabbit hole. --Laser brain (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. When they say they want it to be "just like" some other page it usually means they've trawled for examples and picked one they like. It happens with web page content too; they'll say "I've seen this awesome site, can you do me one just like it?" The obvious answer is "Copy it and change a few words, you lazy sod," but meh. I have bills to pay.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes exactly. So we have lots of concerns. The next question is how should we respond? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that depends on what you mean. I don't like you very much, Doc, as you know, but I'm here for now. If you mean how to respond to me I'll leave you to it. If you mean how to respond to freelancers in general, well, you have one right here who has nothing to gain or lose, and if any of you have any questions fire away. Frustrating as you all are I do generally like Wikipedia, so why not?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No this section is not about you specifically, it is about paid editing generally. Your friends have sent me lots of your tweets so I am clear on your feels. Happy to hear what suggesting you have wrt "frelancers in general" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I'm almost touched. No, I'm not really. I still don't like you at all. However. I don't personally see anything wrong with paid editing if the result is a notable, neutral article. If good content is added, what does it matter? What you need to stop is advocacy and malicious attacks on company websites; people request that. They're against Wiki TOCs, so that means posting them is against Elance TOCs and if you ask them they'll take the jobs down. As for paid jobs that comply with COI, add a note to the create article screen mentioning the disclosure rules. I really didn't know about that because it's not exactly prominent.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Because you never know, but if you ask nicely I might just have something that can help you :-)--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A better question might be... how or why is WP:COI and current remedies insufficient? – JBarta (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

In theory they're adequate, as long as editors abide by the rules. Here's a problem; I genuinely didn't know I had to disclose the paid articles. Obviously that doesn't excuse the fact that I tried to hide one, but that doesn't matter. Some freelancers are going to make genuine mistakes like that and end up in the crap. Some, and they will be the ones who advocate or vandalise (probably company) pages will not.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't like Elance you're going to hate this.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And of course I'll mention again all the advocacy work going on by folks who don't get paid in cash and are arguably an issue a thousand times as large. That Zeus Mortgage was written or edited by someone who was paid a few bucks is an infinitesimally small issue that has zero impact on the integrity of Wikipedia in any pratical sense. You could add a thousand more articles like it and the impact would be the same... zero. I think WAY too much emphasis is placed on "paid in cash" editing. As if somone getting paid is going to have any more potential to be a POV editor than any Tom, Dick or Harry on a mission to "fix" or "protect" Wikipedia. Or that a paid editor is less likely to follow policy and guidelines. Just look at most any talk page to see all the editors not getting paid a thing and variously disregarding the rules. This just smells like a savior with a solution desperately looking for a problem. – JBarta (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Shrug. I wrote a few that got deleted because I didn't understand WP:N well enough to know I should turn down the jobs. I really wish I hadn't taken on the one I tried to hide, because it was advocacy. But if someone writes a notable, NPOV article that actually adds worthwhile information I don't personally see an issue. But I think you're underestimating the scale it's happening on. Elance and Freelancer are the tip of the iceberg. There's oDesk, Fiverr and a bunch of other scummy sites like that. Elance has fairly strict TOCs. Freelancer does in theory but never enforces them, especially not on cheating clients. The rest are a free for all.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes exactly there are a ton of sites out there offering these services. It is fairly easy to pick up the cases in which it has occurs. And many of these people are using sock or throw away accounts because they wish to stay undetected. Only a very small minority is above board. I guess there are two question:

1. Should we care about paid editing
2. Even if we do care is there anything we can do about it Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

See above. But if the article meets N and NPOV, no, why should you care? I disagree that only a minority of paid editors are above board; most mean well. The problem is the clients have no idea about notability and neither do most editors. I've had people ask for an article, I say no, not notable, and they're like "What if I put out a press release?" I said yes a couple of times, which is how I learned about WP:N.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Which leads on to: It is fairly easy to pick up the cases in which it occurs. It's not, really. I was doing paid edits for nearly 2 years before anyone noticed, and that's only because VMS had my Twitter handle on her site. And I haven't exactly been a low-profile editor.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

But then, if you don't notice a paid editor is there actually a problem that needs solved? A lot of the time, probably not.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

But that stuff is small potatoes. Of more concern is the unpaid advocacy of more important topics, like major political, major events, divisive issues, etc etc... even down to medium importance stuff. A dozen highly motivated unpaid editors can do a whole lot more damage to the integrity of Wikipedia than a hundred people getting paid to whip up largely minor articles that are lucky to get 10 pageviews per week. And Wikipedia has a LOT of these highly motivated editors... all "legitimate" in the context of this discussion. Think of it as rigging a mosquito net while ignoring the tiger standing next to you. And keep in mind, that paid editor is on the clock while the unpaid one has all the time in the world. – JBarta (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I don't think paid editing is a problem as long as the content is N and NPOV. There are paid advocates though. The case I tried to hide, I got accused of running socks. I've never done that because I truly loathe sockpuppets, but I'm bloody sure the alleged socks were being paid by the same person as me. A group of motivated amateurs can do a lot of damage, but eventually they'll get weeded out by AN/I. A malicious client with enough cash can send in an endless string, and an SPI won't pick them up.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is that, as much as possible, you pick them off at the job sites before anyone is hired. Traditional freelancers won't touch wiki jobs. So a daily patrol of Freelancer and Elance would let you flag the egregious ones and get them delisted before anyone was hired. The sites have mechanisms to prevent clients talking to potential freelancers before hiring, so they don't take the job (and commission) off site.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree with User:FergusM1970 the best way to deal with this is at the sites in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you propose doing that? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this a bad time to suggest you hire me to do it for you? $25 an hour. Cheap at twice the price. No, really, it will take a small amount of manpower but you could potentially get quite a few. It won't work with the crappy little sites, but the problematic clients with more cash will be on Elance or Freelancer anyway. Nobody's going to trust a lot of money to Fiverr's payment system.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)