---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strong support per A1candidate. That comment from QG was beyond the pale. Considering his long list of blocks for the same type of behavior, I would hope such a block would be longer than a day or two. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A1 and WV please pay attention - above an admin has already said they took action for that comment. That incident is done. A1 I understand you both would love to get rid of QG b/c he fights quackery but. In any case this attempt to pile on and override an admin is as unseemly as QG's remark. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC) (amended per Winkelvi's objection below. my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    • There's nothing wrong with QG fighting quackery, except that he does it while violating a series of well-established behaviorial guidelines. His attempt to enforce a topic ban on me does not give me much hope that he will ever change his behavior. -A1candidate 22:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jytdog, HOW CAN YOU EQUATE A SLUR with a call to sanction a slur?! It's entirely appropriate to debate whether a stronger sanction is warranted given the repugnance of what QuackGuru said; it is nauseatingly out of bounds. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Middle 8 I'll answer although the question seems more rhetorical than actually looking for an answer. I agree the comment was out of bounds - I was the one who hatted it. I also agree it was foul. I disagree with calling what he did a "slur" as he didn't insult AF based on his disability - instead he called AF a liar. It was a low blow, stupid, personal attack based on nothing; very bad judgement on multiple levels, especially in this context. I do see whipping up hysteria over a stupid comment, and trying to use that to gain momentum for a block, in the midst of a very badly framed case, as cynical and manipulative. So yeah, as unseemly as QG's remark, on a different vector. You may recall that I voted in favor of your RfC/U, even though it too was malformed. I think QG is very vulnerable to topic or even site banning based on a very clear record of bad behavior. he functions as kind of a "beserker" on fringe topics where you have alt med or other kinds of POV-pushers opposing sound MEDRS usage, and he goes right up to the line all the time, and over it, not infrequently. Just like he does at the e-cigs articles. I don't like to edit where he is working and leave ... but when he shows up things are pretty far gone already. Anyway, if you look at how this thread started, the case against QG is even more badly formed than your RfC/U, and that one failed too. (I said so way above, before you joined the discussion here) This one does not cut it. I am baffled as to why someone hasn't framed a clear case against him already. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jytdog, yes, rhetorical. You see it as bad and I see it as terrible. Calling someone a liar about their disability is for sure a slur ("an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation"), and it was gratuitous, dickish and cruel (see my comment below to Ched). We'll have to agree to disagree on the import/properness of A1C highlighting it here; my view is that it's not just about this case: given the well-known context of QG's long and checkered history, it's unacceptable, mean-spirited. In any context on WP it's an 8/10 on the NPA scale (where 9 is the N-word and 10 is falsely calling someone a pedophile). A line was crossed. One just doesn't do that to people.... especially in a situation where collegiality is expected. I agree with your other comments, and if/when a stronger case is brought, I am pretty sure that said diff will feature. I may bring it to Jimbo's attention anyway. One does not screw with someone over their disability, including accusing them of lying about it ("disability policing" is corrosive); disability is hard enough as it is. Revolting. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 20:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC) edited20:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I understand you both would love to get rid of QG b/c he fights quackery" Jytdog, what the "eff" are you talking about? I haven't encountered QC before seeing this AN/I (that I'm aware of) so I have no idea what kind of "quackery" he fights (I'm not even sure what that means). Your accusation is out of line, but certainly not as out of line as QC's comments about AF. He has a long block log that testifies to his history of bullying and harassment. Your comments imply he's performing a necessary service to Wikipedia that we should all be grateful for. The truth is, Wikipedia is a WP:CHOICE and would do just fine without any of us. AGF and NPA, however, is not a choice -- it is required. In my opinion, your attempts to dismiss what he said by trying to assign ulterior motives to those who are supporting a block based on those comments are disgusting to me personally. I hope we never have to connect in WP again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Winkelvi my apologies for lumping you with A1. That was sloppy of me and I apologize. I struck above accordingly. Again, my apologies. We actually have crossed paths briefly. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine, I accept the apology, Jytdog. For the record, the crossing of paths comment was in reference to QG. I appreciate you striking the comments that included me, however, I still am not okay with your defense of QG and the reasons for said defense. It seems there is a suggestion that QC's contributions should outweigh the fact he questioned and mocked someone's disability status. Not acceptable, in my view. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks that is gracious of you. i think you are still misunderstanding my perspective - pls see my comment to middle8 above. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (oy, forgot a crucial "mis". additional note. i do agree that the remark was disgusting. really i do. Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
• Support - I completely agree with weeding out quackery, but there are enough people willing to do it without QuackGuru's uncooperative, bullying style of editing. It looks like he's had plenty warnings and chances to improve his behaviour, but he clearly has no intention of doing so.--37.201.58.102 (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block per John Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future -- making clear my priorities. !vote changed, preceding comment added, QG-specific parts of below comment struck 05:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Set aside the other complaints; John is right that accusing someone of lying about their disability deserves an immediate block. It's a gratuitous slur, and worse than a lot of people probably realize: "disability policing" is real and corrosive. This cuts deep in ways that perhaps only people affected by disability can fully grasp. While QuackGuru may not have been aware of "disability policing", he damn well should have known his accusation was afoul of NPA, especially with a long block log and eight years of editing. Still, o Our standards should reflect growing disability awareness. Some may dismiss my comments as cynical since I've clashed with QuackGuru, but I find this triggering and it transcends WP politics. I apologize to Bishonen (who declined John's suggestion to block) and others for suggesting below that merely warning QG shows softness and callousness, and am hatting my (largely) hot and ABF comments just below. Still, John is right and we shouldn't tolerate such attacks. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 23:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

collapsing excessively hot and ABF comments made in reaction to personal attack
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
*Great -- now Wikipedia is going all callous about NPA and slurs based on disability. Apparently NPA means nothing as long as the attacker is well-liked, the attackee is not, and the attack is on a relatively invisible, disadvantaged group. Quackguru just insinuated an editor was lying about having a disability. Are you people that tone-deaf? If ANY editor had said what QG said about race or sexual orientation or gender, they'd be blocked or banned in a heartbeat. The only thing worse is outright stereotyping. Disability rights, as a movement, isn't taken seriously compared to other rights movements; we see this everywhere, great job Wikipedia. If SOME of the other editors here had said what QG said -- especially to a "favored" editor -- they'd be at least blocked, even though QG has a longer block log than the large majority of editors whose conduct comes up for review. And should know better, has edited for over 8 years.[6] WP's double standard on NPA is now de facto policy, as is the "ends justify the means" attitude. As if the antidote for "civil POV pushing" is incivility, no matter how offensive it gets. Yes, I've been on the other side of content disputes with QuackGuru but this goes way deeper than that because it's about disability. I have direct experience with it (in multiple ways; it's intense, exhausting, takes away opportunities every day -- it is what it is but at least show some respect). And I've seen how damaging it is when self-appointed "disability police" challenge others' disabilities. Being disabled is hard enough without all the cluelessness and bullshit people lay on you. Nauseating hypocrisy: a warning is all that's given [7] despite the magnitude of NPA violation, and in spite of the block log and years of editing. (And as usual, QG removes the warning right away [8][9].) At least User:John gets it; [10] from your comments, most of the rest of you admins don't. OK, enough. The double standard is sickening, and the tone-deafness to disability just makes me numb with rage. Great job, people. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC) copy-edited 13:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Striking; my intent with hatting was to strike the whole thing, but now that I'm striking so as to be exactly clear about my intentions, I'll leave one part.01:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@ Ched - I too had the impression that QG was fundamentally benign for some time until I saw his mean side. For example, WP:DICK, mocking other editors: Mallexikon: "I think you clarified this very nicely.'; Quackguru: "I think I clarified this very nicely.". He's also held a grudge toward me that started after I co-signed an RfC on him (which was concurrently brought with a thread at AN). Since then it's been POKE and BATTLEGROUND (below) despite multiple olive branches attempts [11][12][13][14] (which he just deletes from his user talk).

• Wikistalking: 10 petty examples [15]
• GAME-y/KETTLE accusations: characterizing edits I made as bad when he did the same thing [16]
• Repeated, baiting, disingenuous "questions" about COI despite an explanation right in my signature line (Middle 8 (contribs • COI)) and multiple good-faith answers: (asked | answered twice); (asked); (asked | answered).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose I said it above and I will say it again here. I think a good, PAG-based (not emotion/rhetoric-based) case could be pretty easily made, with about a couple hours of work finding difs. This case, is not that case, and thinking about a closer looking at !votes above, it does not appear that there is PAG-based consensus for a block here. In my view, the notion of punting his case to arbcom is just that - punting. The same work would have to go into it then, to make the case, so why not just do it here? (Arbcom cases don't happen by magic - diffs have to be brought, etc) So withdraw the mess above, and start a new, clean, well-formed thread, if it really matters to any of the supporters. (AlbinoFerret is the one who brought this: I believe he is the only who can withdraw it) Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that there is reason to block him but it needs to have a pretty bow on it. AlbinoFerret 12:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlbinoFerret your reply is of a piece with your general lack of alignment with, and understanding of, how WP works. The community doesn't take action based on emotion, and we don't edit or resolve content disputes, based on what somebody likes or doesn't like. This isn't facebook. We have policies and guidelines that express the community's consensus on things, and we strive to edit based on them, behave based on them, and resolve disputes through reasoned discussion based on them. Reasoned and discerning WP:CONSENSUS is the very heart of this place. Hand-wavy "he's a dick" complaints don't go anywhere, and don't deserve to go anywhere - they don't provide a basis for rational discussion of the issues.Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

A stupid comment? It was an attack. A low blow, and it follows attempts to discredit and harass me elsewhere. I should be surprised that anyone could come up with a defence of his actions, especially the one here on this page. You and the two editors you mention want a slap on a wrist, but only for an editor who edits with you, and who's edits you agree with. Had this been a first time, perhaps but we are way past first time as shown by QuackGuru's extensive history of harassment, edit warring, and other violations. AlbinoFerret 12:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Has been warned [17] And has acknowledged. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Support Any derogatory comments about a person's health, or accusations that a person is lying about their health, is contrary to Wikipedia policy. As such, a block of some sort is clearly warranted - though I would find a lengthy one to be draconian, a moderate one is likely in order here. Collect (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) I am heavily involved in the topic at hand having spent a long time editing the e-cigarette article pretty heavily and having clashed with QG and AF. I think in the case of both editors the battleground that e-cig has become has brought out a negative side to their WP editing, in AF it's leaning towards ADVOCACY and leaning towards SPA as it becomes more and more a focus of attention, in QG this is found in WP:OWN and IDHT. The regularity with which QG makes edits without discussion on the Talk pages of e-cig articles, even though he knows that any edit on that page is likely to be contentious, makes it clear he's not looking for consensus but the article as he sees it. I also see competence issues in many of QG's edits which could do with a bit of copy editing for structure and repetition before they go live. A topic ban, in the short term, may make things better. I certainly think the page cannot improve with QG there. But the root problem is that e-cig, and the daughter articles, are battlegrounds where a lot of people are shouting, and nobody's [well not quite nobody] listening. I don't know whether ArbCom can do something to help in this matter but while banning QG from the page will reduce the amount of problems there it won't solve the root. SPACKlick (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef block or send to ArbCom. QuackGuru continues to make personal attacks, despite being warned as recently as a few days ago. In this edit of a couple of days ago QG attacks the conduct of several editors including myself and demands that answers be provided to them. WP:PERSONAL is quite clear that this is not allowed and that article talk pages are not the place for conduct accusations and smears. However, the worst thing about QG's conduct is the that they are not interested in consensus. Building 20k edits (about 1/3 of the article size) in relative privacy and then dumping them into articles without notification let alone discussion is consistent with this. Attempting to discuss matters with QG on their user talk page generally results in them suppressing the discussion by archiving or deleting it (or parts of it that they don't like), e.g. [diff1] [diff2]. QG of course has a very long block log and has also had been sanctioned by ArbCom in the past so has been given numerous chances to improve their conduct and shows little signs of doing so. I considered whether to make this post at all given that I am a highly involved editor. However this doesn't seem to be an issue for other editors, some of which have supported QG. As I have indicated I would have no issues with ArbCom taking a look at the wider picture.Levelledout (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • really baffling to me. The first dif you provide is just a Talk discussion (QG arguing against the bizarre claim that MEDRS says only reviews can be used and excludes statements by major health organizations); the 2nd is fine (per TPG it is OK to delete others' comments from your own Talk page) as is the 4th (people can archive their talk pages as they wish). The Arbcom diff is old history (that should be brought up in any carefully brought case and has already been mentioned above). I really don't understand why folks are not framing a clear case showing violations of behavioral policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

The case against QG is rather clear cut in my opinion Jytdog and I respectfully disagree with you. Yes the first diff is an article talk discussion, that's my point. Content is irrelevant here as is whether QG is right or wrong about any content claims he makes. QG makes conduct allegations on the article talk page such as accusing editors of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Some of the language they use is just plain rude and actually borders on a breach of WP:CIVIL. Whether or not QG is technically allowed to delete individual comments from their talk page is hardly the point. Remember that they do not own their user talk page and that part of its purpose is for legitimate discussion of their conduct. I have only ever had two discussions (as far as I can recall) with QG on their talk page and on both of those occasions they have either deleted or archived the discussion or parts of it in order to prevent it from continuing. I was fully aware that the ArbCom diff had been mentioned, doesn't mean that it isn't relevant to the point I was making.Levelledout (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Summary: QuackGuru made an extremely stupid remark that he should never have made, he was roundly chastised for it repeatedly by parties from all sides, and an admin warned him not to do it again on pain of being blocked. The End.

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

• Just to clarify, not everyone who !voted "support" is a e-cig advocate or a fringe science advocate, obviously, but the campaign to ban QG and the hysteria surrounding his remark is indeed the work of those advocates. No collusion is implied concerning the actions of those advocates - I'm certain there's no need for them to discuss between themselves taking out one of their primary antagonists. AlbinoFerret started the ball rolling, and his colleagues joined in. BMK (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original complaint was made by Albino Ferret against QuackGuru alleging personal attacks. Therefore that's what was being discussed at the top of the thread and would seem the natural place to put the Proposed Block for QuackGuru. To claim that the thread not being in exact chronological order is going to affect the way that people vote is well, ridiculous. People might see one or the other first but it doesn't matter. Also, you argued particularly passionately that the proposal for AF was not driven mainly by involved editors and yet apparently QG's block proposal is an "advocacy-driven hysteria" "campaign". Strange.Levelledout (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each of your responses in this section and the one below adds to the clear conclusion that you are not the neutral party you claim to be. BMK (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK well that is a baseless accusation that uses weasel words (I'm not the neutral party I claim to be because... just because). It's one way of neglecting to respond to reasoned argument of course, but not one that I appreciate or that I will be engaging with.Levelledout (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

You need to provide evidence for serious accusations, not unsubstantiated insults. You should probably also read WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT.Levelledout (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Disability policing" is real, and damaging, and an issue on Wikipedia: see the unsolicited comment on my talk page from an editor concerned about that exact thing. For obvious reasons, I wish someone other than me had posted about it (or that someone other than QuackGuru had made the offensive comment). I'm done commenting in this thread on the merits of a block but "disability policing" needs to be taken seriously on WP. ... P.S. Just to make my intentions clear I've changed my !vote above to "Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future". [18] --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 04:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC) added P.S. 05:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are blocked when bad behaviour needs to be prevented; editors are not blocked as punishment when there is very little chance of a problem being repeated. QG has acknowledged the error, albeit not very clearly, and there is no reason to debate the issue—if there is a repeat, QG will get a lengthy block; if there isn't, a block for a single bad comment is not warranted. The comment is not part of a series of similar issues. Johnuniq (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnuniq -- I read WP:BLOCK specifically before commenting. In a case like this, per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT, #3 would apply: some offenses are so bad that we block automatically. (#2 could also apply when an editor has a tendency to push the envelope: they may not make this mistake again, but a block may get their attention. But #3 is the main thing.) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your considered opinion as an independent editor with a good understanding of Wikipedia's procedures, or as an acupuncturist who is very keen to have QG removed so you can promote your product unimpeded? Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very much the former, which I think should be obvious in light of my !vote change to: "Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future". [19]. Look just a little bit above and you might even see that I mentioned this previously. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 11:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Middle 8, I'm not sure if you've seen the conversation starting after this comment by AlbinoFerret [20], but it does appear that AlbinoFerret is trying to justify their focus on e-cigs because of their disability (or extremely misunderstanding BMK's point). I'd prefer the topic of disability never even entered the conversation and focus solely on behavior here, but this kind of justification really concerns me. This is very different from questioning whether someone actually has a disability, so are you suggesting we shouldn’t question this kind of behavior I’m describing, or moreso not do what QuackGuru did specifically? This becoming a really strange situation. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingofaces43: Not all that strange, really. The case against AlbinoFerrett as a SPA and civil-POV-pushing advocate is quite strong, and he's feeling the need to counter it with whatever he's got. So, even though he called for sanctions against QG for bringing up his physical disability, he obviously feels no compunction about using that physical disability as an explanation for the amount of editing he's done on e-cigarettes. What he seems not to understand is that by comparing oranges to oranges -- i.e. by dealing with percentages of his own edits as opposed to comparing the count of his edits against those of other editors -- that factor is eliminated, and has no bearing on the question. Whatever his physical disabilities are is irrelevant, because they exist when he edits an e-cig article and still exist when he edits an article on any other subject. So when I report that 67.07% of his article edits and 85.08% of his article talk page edits are on the subject of electronic cigarettes, there's no way in which any disability enters into those stats. BMK (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi Kingofaces43 - QuackGuru's insult/innuendo that AlbinoFerret was lying about being disabled was completely gratuitous. All AF had said was, essentially, that their post count in the e-cig area is high partly because they're disabled and thus at home and in front of the computer a lot. There was no reason to dispute this and it was dickish and invasive to do so.

Note: I think AF's volume of posting by itself doesn't require apology, so their disability is actually irrelevant in terms of examining their edits. What matters are the kind of edits and where they are made. Re the kind of edits, I've expressed concerns over AF's persistently not grokking MEDRS. Re where edits are made, BMK is correct that what is germaine to SPA and WP:ADVOCACY is not how many total posts AF has made about e-cigs, but rather what percentage such posts comprise of his total mainspace edits. ... That said, even if AF's disability is ultimately irrelevant to this inquiry, the baseless accusation that they lied is still wrong. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Meta-comment, seed for possible essay: Disability among editors on Wikipedia needs to be addressed with common sense and respect; it should neither be used for twinkie defenses nor as a way to discredit people in any way -- including suggesting that a person is lying about it. As lie-accusations go, this is an especially bad one. When a person is simply asking for a reasonable accommodation, and not attempting to justify gross incompetence -- or is simply mentioning their disability by way of explanation of their editing style (as AF was, in above case) -- the burden they are imposing is low. Therefore it would be stupid to demand proof, and more stupid (and dickish as well) to accuse that person of lying about their disability, with no basis and with such low stakes; cf. "disability policing" (which may be one of those things, like getting called an epithet, that sounds bad but which you have to experience to know what it's really like). I hope that our norm becomes one of rejecting "disability policing" in any form. Demands of proof are bad and outright lie-accusations worse. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, I pretty much agree with you entirely. No reason to ask of actual proof, but in cases like these I'd prefer not to even worry about disability and just chalk up relatively innocuous editing quirks as just that, and if something truly disruptive, it's disruptive. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose QuackGuru questioned a personal comment made by AlbinoFerret which he should not have done. But, in my judgement, this comment does not rise to the level of a block/ban. For the record, QG did not reveal or attempt to out AF in any way. Counsel him to use caution and move on. JodyB _talk 12:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose block, but QG should face some admonishment for the disability-questioning comment. This is probably something that should be referred to ArbCom. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as it looks like QuackGuru was fairly neutral in what he added, and all of it was well cited. I agree that that was a very offensive comment he made, but he already received an admin warning for it, so I would consider it closed. If, however, QG does continue with personal attacks, especially of that nature, I would support a block or a referral to ArbCom. Iwilsonp (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

User:AlbinoFerret is making a lot of comments and edits to e-cig related pages. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/AlbinoFerret&offset=&limit=500&target=AlbinoFerret See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:AlbinoFerret for previous behaviour issues. AlbinoFerret tried to hide Environmental impact section from a reliable source from the page. He eventually tried to delete some of the text.[22][23][24][25][26] AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] AlbinoFerret claims "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[35] But AlbinoFerret has not given a specific reason to exclude relevant information about safety. WP:COMPETENCE is not the issue IMO. AlbinoFerret has turned the e-cig pages into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. AlbinoFerret is not the only problematic editor at these pages. Some of the e-cig enthusiasts are not here to improve the e-cig pages. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#E-cig_editors for background information on this. Something needs to be done to prevent this from happening over and over again. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hatting discussion no longer relevant with indef blocking of sock BMK (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
comment removed per WP:EVADE @InfiniteBratwurst: So, you took your 56 edits and your vast 9 weeks of Wikipedia experience and went looking into other editor's block logs in order to come here, !vote oppose, and poison some wells with the dirty little secrets you uncovered there? (How does an editor with 56 edits find out about block logs, anyway? I was here for quite a while before I heard about them.) You complain that the editors supporting the topic ban are involved in a content dispute with AF, but you don't mention that the article you have edited the most. with more than double the edits of the next-most article, is Safety of electronic cigarettes, that its talk page is the one you've edited the most, the seoncd-most being Talk:Electronic cigarette -- but I assume you'll tell us that, unlike the other editors commenting here, you are uninvolved, you are totally neutral, and your vote is in no way influenced by your personal views. Everyone else's is, of course, but not yours. BMK (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] comment removed per WP:EVADE Wow!!!! 9 weeks here, less than 60 edits, and you cite an obscure essay from Meta. The closing admin should note with pride what an extremely knowledgeable newbie InfiniteBratwurst is!!!! BMK (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] comment removed per WP:EVADE Oh, I think pointing out your very interesting, if short, history is quite constructive indeed. BMK (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] User:Beyond My Ken, InfiniteBratwurst is actually CheesyAppleFlake. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:CheesyAppleFlake. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] comment removed per WP:EVADE QuackGuru if there is a case to be made, please make it at WP:SPI and post here. Otherwise please don't add distraction. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Yup once you have SPI confirmation you can discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] BMK, you've been around since 2009 (aren't you an admin, and weren't you an Arb?) At any rate why are you still this rankly clueless about commenting on content not contributors? Is NPA just deprecated? You've done this before [36] -- what is your problem? You know very well that some editors make CLEANSTART accounts and that is their business. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Middle8. Wrong on every count. I've had an account here since June 2005, started editing shortly before that as an IP (see this for the thumbnail of my history). I've never been an admin (perish the thought!), don't want to be an admin, will almost uncertainly never be an admin, and would be an absolutely lousy admin if someone forced me to do it. And, of course, I've never been an Arbitrator. I have no idea who you are thinking of, but it ain't me. Comment on content, not contributors? Sure, in general, great concept, but this is the place where the community examines behavior, and not just the behavior of the subject of the thread. If someone pops up to comment with an editing history that looks very much like they're a SPA, or have a COI, edit with a distinct POV to push, are someone's sock, or were canvassed on- or off-Wiki to participate, those are facts that need to be brought forward, because they can (and should!) mitigate the value of that user's comment. It's completely valid to point that stuff out, and as long as people continue to take advantage of Wikipedia to promote whatever it is they're promoting, whether or not they're paid for it, I'm going to keep pointing it out. BMK (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] BTW WP:CLEANSTART may be one of the most abused Wikipedia policies around. Any user who is making a clean start should be obligated to say so when questioned with good reason about their editing, and to report to a CU of their choice the name of their previous account to be checked to be sure they aren't evading a block or are a sockpuppet of a banned editor. A clean start should never be a license for serial misbehavior, which is what I'm afraid it most probably is utilized for. BMK (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] I must have you confused with some other editor, sorry. Yes, an editor's history matters to an extent if counting !votes, but otherwise their comments rise or fall on the merits. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 04:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

again hatting squabble between 2 main antagonists here Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, this is not clearly a content dispute as A1candidate suggests. A1candidate is repeatedly making blanket reverts of reputable organizations and reviews.[37][38] This disruption of blanket reverts by A1candidate should not be allowed to continue. A1candidate, I recommend you take a voluntary short-term topic ban from the page. A1candidate, are you going to continue make blanket reverts? QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] One might want to look at the size of the edits (18,711 characters) trying to edit in sources that were the topic of a (still ongoing) RFC. That at the time was almost 1/2 the size of the existing page. The comments on the edits were directing people to the talk pages. This wasnt blanket removal, this was a few editors (QuackGuru, CFCF, and Cloudjpk) trying to force a mammoth edit on the page during a discussion of the sources used. Looking at the history makes it all the more clear. This is purely a content dispute. Where one side wants to discuss things, and others just want to get it in. AlbinoFerret 18:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Remember the talk page discussion? I wrote "User:AlbinoFerret, you were asked "Are there issues with the sources or the summary of said sources?" So far you have not specifically explained which new sources are a concern to justify your blanket revert and there is a clear consensus for the the positions of the organisations."[39] You repeatedly deleted a number of sources including reviews without any logical reason. User:AlbinoFerret, do you agree you are going to stop making blanket reverts? QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] @QuackGuru, please stop making these baseless accusations against me. I'm surprised that you would want to enforce a "voluntary short-term topic ban" on me, given that I have made minimal contributions to this the article so I am not sure what that would achieve. -A1candidate 18:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] @QuackGuru, This is a constant problem, WP:IDHT. I answered you why I thought a press release was not usable. link and that sources that are WP:Tertiary should not be used for medical content. These sources (the subject of your second set of diffs) were already on a sister page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Where they are appropriate, this isnt removing content and blocking, but a discussion on the location WP:ONUS. This is a fine point of WP, and I dont think you get. Your link to a blanket revert is part of the mammoth edit I posted on a reply ago, You made an almost 20000 character edit to a controversial page with no discussion, after planning it for almost a month in a sandbox without discussing it at any time. Again taking WP:Tertiary sources from the sister page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Where they have never been removed. If you look in the edit comments, you will see I quoted WP:CAUTIOUS and noted that no discussions have happened. There is even a talk page section started by me on the topic. AlbinoFerret 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only warring originates with you Jytdog, as demonstrated by your behavior here and now with a PA against me for expressing an opinion where I'm supposed to be expressing an opinion. Unfortunately, your biotech POV is imposed on editors wherever you go. Please try to understand WP:FRINGE is a guideline, not a policy. Atsme☯^Consult 13:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I understand what you're saying, Jytdog. (And it's interesting how many of the editors who contributed so tenaciously to the loss of focus in the QG RfC are suddenly so able to stay focused on AF, yet lose focus when it comes to QG. One would almost think there was systemic bias afoot.) Looking at the merits: Which diffs? Going from QG's thread-starter, the two links to ANI threads are weak [40][41] Re QG's other diffs: Just because AF removes stuff QG added is not prima facie evidence of misconduct -- far from it; I see a lot of UNDUE. AF's removing the WMA however is not good. And I see a pattern of OWN in both QG and AF, worse in QG. Is that it? Where can I find a good, concise summary of the most obvious diffs? Or maybe you or someone could just paste in the five worst ones? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 16:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jytdog, your example (of AF writing about pharma companies lobbying to have e-cigs treated as medical devices) would indeed be a compelling instance of twisting a source [42] (just as Mallexikon showed QG did with GERAC, which you were one of the only editors to grok). Except: AF explains [43] (supported with diffs) that the passage they wrote was originally sourced to a different source [44] that the passage indeed summarized accurately. (I don't care for his ABF-ing and calling your characterization "twisting" of what happened, but they wouldn't be the first to run hot under pressure on a drama board.) I'll keep looking. If there's a smoking gun -- besides fighting over including WMA, which is bad, but alone not imo worth a ban either -- I'm not seeing it. I see general TE (which is at least as bad with QG); I don't see it as over the top: is this a situation like QG where those who know AF well gnash their teeth in frustration but have so far failed to build a strong case? If not, can you help, and point me to the good evidence? It's a lot to go through. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 20:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

yeah the thing about lobbying was really frustrating. [[45] his original source] was an opinion piece and of course we prefer straight reporting over opinion pieces (he could have cited the opinion piece, attributing it, yes). but what we really got my goat was that the NYT reporting (the more reliable source) was unambiguous in emphasizing the victory of the e-cig lobbyists. so twisted. and adding the rhetorically self-righteous stuff about the COI of pharma with their lobbyists... when all lobbyists are nakedly self-interested. just... argh. on that whole thing. But of a piece with the pattern of relentless pro-e-cigarette editing. its the pattern. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

side discussion that went sideways and has become distracting in-fighting Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Middle_8 Am I perfect, No. Have I made mistakes, yes. Have I learned from them, I think I have. What you have here is two examples Jtydog has found. What he doesnt have is a pattern of me repeating those mistakes. The first diff is from October 2014, I had taken almost a year off from editing wikipedia, and almost 6 years since I was active. I had never editied a page with medical rules. I made a mistake and replaced a source and edited out a comment. I learned from that experience and have not done that again. As for using WP:TRIVIA In November of that year, well the reason Jtydog can find it so quick is he was the one who misused it on me first. Was it a mistake to not research its use first? Yes, have I done the same things again? No. AlbinoFerret 23:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] But there is a pattern, cf. the diffs QG has at the top, and they're not only undue weight (though I agree this has been a problem and commend you for pushing back, within reason). QG's first diff after "AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources": [46]; those are MEDRS, and you really should know that by now. Sorry, but MEDRS is one thing I don't IAR on. Take a break (short I hope) and come back, and grok MEDRS and try to take to WP:OPPONENT to heart and lung. Wishing you well. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 00:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Middle_8 You may want to look closely at the World Lung Federation, at the top of the page is a gold bar clearly labelling it a press release. I am not the only editor that was against using WP:Tertiary sources for medical claims. There is even a ongoing RFC on the subject. Until that edit they had only been used on the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes sister page, both of which were one time part of the Health section of Electronic cigarette, split off at the same time by Doc James. Up until QG's edit there was a defacto standard/agreement of only using reviews for medical claims on e-cig pages (read the first link), thats why the RFC was started. AlbinoFerret 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] There NEVER was a consensus to use only using reviews for medical claims on e-cig pages. We don't have different rules for e-cig pages. There is a long standing WP:CON to include other sources including WHO, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the World Lung Foundation. See Electronic_cigarette#Position_of_medical_organizations. Also see Electronic_cigarette#Harm_reduction for other sources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that are not reviews. User:AlbinoFerret, claiming that only reviews can be used for medical claims runs against WP:MEDORG. The RfC resulted in WP:SNOW. See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Positions. You also deleted other sources including a formal policy statement. After you could not delete the reliable source you then added context that was inappropriate.[47][48][49] See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_1#Original_research_2. You, User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, and User:Levelledout appeared to be against using the formal policy statement written in a peer-reviewed journal for medical claims. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_21#Policy_Statement_from_the_American_Association_for_Cancer_Research_and_the_American_Society_of_Clinical_Oncology. Your last edit to the safety page was to delete even more sources including a number of reviews. So what is your reason to make a full revert back to an old version while delete a number of sources including reviews? We want to know the WP:TRUTH. QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] The facts are clear as can be, if anyone looks at the article when it was copied over from the Electronic cigarette article. Before you started editing it on your own because of the activity on the main page kept us busy. You started adding non review quality sources for medical claims. You will notice that reviews and formal policy statements in peer reviewed journals (review quality) are all that existed. AlbinoFerret 02:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Let's review according to your diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625 See WHO: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-WHOPosition2014_8-0 See US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-FDA_nitrosamines_13-0 See The UK National Health Service https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-nhs_17-0 These sources are not reviews but they are reliable according to WP:MEDORG. QuackGuru (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indefinite topic ban from e-cig related articles. Per Bishonen, I see obvious advocacy. Assuming good faith, I feel that both the articles and AF would benefit from him spending his wiki-time on other topics for the foreseeable future. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose action against AlbinoFerret or QuackGuru via ANI - This should go to Arbcom. Considering the e-cigarette dispute keeps popping up at ANI and has apparently gone on for so long now, and also considering there have been concerns raised regarding conduct of multiple users, this should go to arbcom where evidence can be carefully evaluated by those uninvolved. Seems binding solutions are needed at e-cegarette.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is focused on AlbinoFerret's behavior. We can manage this at ANI if people bring clear cases and responders focus on the question at hand. Here, it is AF's behavior. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Procedural oppose There are two main culprits in this current shitstorm. If the community lacks the cojones to sanction QG, who is the main culprit, and is content to let him off with a weak "warning" (how many warnings is that now?) it is against natural justice to sanction AF. I tend to agree with the view that arbitration will be the way forward here. A lynch mob at AN/I probably won't do it on this occasion. --John (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: I see several people opposing a topic ban on the ground that the whole QuackGuru – AlbinoFerret thing should go to RFAR instead. Is anybody actually planning or working on an RFAR submission? John, BoboMeowCat, Robert McClenon, for instance? This question is not meant as criticism, as nobody is obliged to spend time on anything on Wikipedia beyond what they want to, and filing RFAR's is a bugger, with the diffs and so on. Just, it would be convenient to know, and may affect the outcome of this thread. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I have the same question, and I don't think any of the "procedural opposers" have any intention of filing on ArbCom. I do not think this issue is a QG/AF issue, but rather the immensely problematic editing history of AlbinoFerret, whose entire edit history since September 2014 is the most egregious example of relentless disruptive WP:SPA advocacy I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban for at least six months to a year. His edits and endless disruptive discussions on the subject are simply far too POV and tendentious, disrupting the progress of the entire subject and the articles it encompasses. It does seem like blatant advocacy. Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a draconian solution at this point - especially since the air is rather full of smog because of misbehaviour by QG at this point. Suggest that such issues at that point be addressed to the Arbitration Committee, which will slow down everything in all likelihood. Collect (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs are all presented and the question is clear, with respect to AlbinoFerret. Please take the time to focus on AF's behavior, which is the topic of this discussion. Thanks. There is a separate (malformed) section for QG above. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) I am heavily involved in the topic at hand having spent a long time editing the e-cigarette article pretty heavily and having clashed with QG and AF. I think in the case of both editors the battleground that e-cig has become has brought out a negative side to their WP editing, in QG this is found in WP:OWN and IDHT, in AF it's more ADVOCACY and leaning towards SPA as it becomes more and more a focus of attention. The large proportion of AF's edits being on the Talk pages of e-cig articles rather than the article themselves reflects, in my eyes, his attempt to bring some form of consensus to article improvements rather than riding roughshod over the opinions and policies of WP. A topic ban, in the short term, may make things better. I certainly think AF taking a vacation from the article may be good for AF's stress levels. But the root problem is that e-cig, and the daughter articles, are battlegrounds where a lot of people are shouting, and nobody's [well not quite nobody] listening. I don't know whether ArbCom can do something to help in this matter but banning AF from the page will not reduce the amount of problems there. SPACKlick (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per InfiniteBratwurst. I used to be involved, but haven't edited any of the articles in several months. I've been slightly active on their talk pages, though. EllenCT (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitebratwurst's !vote was not based on looking at the diffs of AlbinoFerret's behavior and thinking about them in light of PAG, so that !vote should not count for the closer, and neither should this one. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, should not be commenting like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Note. It's been a problem previous times that this has come up that those involved in the dispute separate into obvious camps but are pretty vocal. Out of curiosity I checked the history of the users posting in this section and their edit count on whatever e-cig talk page had the highest edits (doesn't indicate time of involvement):

AlbinoFerret: 1641; QuackGuru: 630; Cloudjpk: Not available but has edited at the article a bit 141.; Doc James: 490; BMK: 0; CFCF: 151; Jytdog: 91; Bishonen: 0; Levelledout: 233; InfiniteBratwurst: 10 (relatively new w/ 77 total edits); Johnuniq: 13; Robert McClenon: 0; Formerly 98: 148; Winkelvi: 0; Kingofaces43: 3 (RFC and RSN post replies); AniMate: 0; Cardamon: 0; JzG: 0 ; A1candidate: 22; Kevin Gorman: 0; Two kinds of pork: 0; Cullen328: 0; Atsme: 0; Zad68: 203; Middle 8: 0; RexxS: 0; BoboMeowCat: 0; John: 0; Softlavender: 0; Collect: 0; EllenCT: 84.

Obviously I'm not suggesting to ignore those involved, but I always lose track of who's actually been involved in the article whenever this comes up here, at RSN, etc. Figured it might be helpful for others trying gauge the situation too. If not, just more text and numbers for the wall. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

AlbinoFerret: 1641 QuackGuru: 630 Doc James: 490 Levelledout: 233 Zad68: 203 CFCF: 151 Formerly 98: 148 Cloudjpk: 141 (note: fixed) Jytdog: 91 (note: fixed) EllenCT: 84   A1candidate: 22 Johnuniq: 13 InfiniteBratwurst: 10 (relatively new w/ 77 total edits) Kingofaces43: 3 (RFC and RSN post replies)

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

---

Proposal 1: 3 month block on Wtshymanski

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

• Support - as proposer. W has a well documented, long term pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing by indiscriminately reverting IP edits. Demonstrated by block log and diffs above. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - as complainant. Previous block for this behaviour was one week and achieved nothing. A longer block is needed to try and get the message across. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Heres a better idea: block or interaction ban Dingley from bringing Wtshymanski to ANI again. Hes the one who has the problem. There are just three editors here who keep complaining about Wtshymanski: DieSwarzPunkt, GuyMacon and Dingley. Theyre the ones who are causing this. Wtshymanski reverts bad edits - whats even wrong with that? To find things to complain about they dragged up a RFCU case from three years ago. No one else has trouble with Wtshymanski so leave the guy alone. 82.132.234.182 (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: "DieSwarzPunkt, GuyMacon and Dingley": ...and Binksternet, and Bratland, and Deucharman, and Dicklyon, and EdJohnston, and Floydian, and Hasteur, and Jytdog, and N5iln, and NellieBly, and North8000, and Northamerica1000, and P-Tronics, and Rdengler, and RichardOSmith, and too many IP editors to count... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As Wtshymanski himself said, "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC) The new proposal 2 is better. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sadly. The evidence speaks for itself. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The complaint states that "W has a well documented, long term pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing by indiscriminately reverting IP edits." But the "evidence" posted by DSP shows only five such incidents "in the last three weeks". That's five edits out of over 700 made by Wtshymanski in that time. That's quite a standard W. is being held to. Regarding the list of previous incidents so painstakingly compiled by GuyMacon, many of those were closed without action. Since the current proposal is unsupported by sufficient evidence, this turns into "let's punish him more for the past 'pattern of behavior', even though we've provided no evidence that it's continuing." That's not how AN/I works. Jeh (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you are prepared to cite 700 more or less mechanical edits adding a "no" to the "living=" parameter on biographical talk pages (that do not actually seem to change anything), as justification that Wtshymanski can revert IP address editors, contributions. Unless, the is, that you yourself do not approve of IP address editors editing. Guy answered the conclusions in his missive. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I won't comment on past history, but those 5 diffs at the beginning of this section are problematic as evidence. For example, the Feb 25 edit does not refer to the IP edit just before it, but to an earlier IP edit. The Mar 2 edit was clearly subtle vandalism from an IP whose only edits have been vandalism. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This point was addressed. The IP resolves to a whole college in India. These have been problematic for a long time. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per difs provided by Jeh which refute the accusation. Edison (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And have been shown to be non- evidence. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I see the case as clearly proven. I see Jeh's posting of diffs of other peoples' edits as not proving anything about Wtshymanski's behaviour at all (How was that even supposed to work?).

However I don't want to see Wtshymanski long-term blocked (or Alan Liefting, where something similar and equally counter-productive happened). We have several clear policies, one of which is AGF, others are about crediting merges, discussion with others etc. and Wtshymanski has a long, long history of ignoring any of them he feels like. However what I want to see happen instead is for him to just start bloody well behaving himself, same as the rest of us have to. I don't want this to be at the cost of excluding him altogether (if at all possible). Maybe over-optimistic, but I hope something is possible.

As an imposed action today, I'd be much more keen on some narrowly worded restriction. "Not describing non-vandalism as vandalism" would be a start. Simply not reverting IPs at all, if that's the smallest that can stick. I can't support a three month block on an editor though, even Wtshymanski. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Per Andy above. Just because Wtshymanski does not assume good faith doesn't mean that we should not give him a chance to correct himself. A temporary ban from reverting any IP edits may even be better than this. Epic Genius (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, I proposed this as an alternative to the 3 month block, but got shouted down. (See edit history for more). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not reasonable. I advised you to withdraw a competing recommendation; you freely agreed without protest and suggested I delete the whole 2nd proposal; which I did. You just lost all credibility with me. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

short story

OK, I have a stalker, userlinks above, who is accusing me of bad faith actions and COI across multiple Talk pages, so the issues are WP:HOUND, and WP:AGF/WP:NPA. He is also WP:CANVASSING about the "biased POV of the GMO articles". On his userpage he makes it clear he is a community activist, and it appears to me he is using such tactics here in WP and is violating WP:SOAPBOX via WP:ADVOCACY.

At this point I am seeking a 24 block for canvassing, and a strong warning for this inexperienced editor to stop these behaviors and to focus on content, not contributors. If David persists after a formal warning, I will seek a topic ban. I believe he is well-intentioned but does not understand WP. He appears to be WP:NOTHERE but I am not bringing that case, at this time.

longer story

WP:Canvassing

David entered the GMO topic by canvassing 4 editors on their Talk pages.

• 08:51, 13 February 2015 dif
• 08:54, 13 February 2015 dif
• 09:02, 13 February 2015 dif
• 09:08, 13 February 2015 dif

These messages are identical, are on pages of dissenters from the consensus on the GMO articles, and are decidedly not neutral, citing a "a pattern of corporate manipulation" and other bad behavior by "small group of watcher with a particular slant on the subject" and discussing the "bogus" and "blatant falsehood" of the scientific consensus statement. (Note: the scientific consensus is that currently marketed food from GM crops is as safe to eat, as food from conventional organisms. That was subject to an RfC that upheld the content with the consensus statement and its sourcing. That statement in the GMO articles really bothers anti-GMO activists. Continual problem with drive by editors, and some editors who are active here.)

I provided David formal warning of canvassing here. I also made a note on the Genetically modified food controversies Talk page and added a recruiting template to the article.

• After the canvassing warning, in this discussion on another user's Talk page, David used his concerns about my removing a personal attack (see below) to again vent his general concerns with the POV/COI going on at the GMO suite and my behavior. (again, with an editor he thought would be sympathetic) - which is canvassing, in my view.

David's canvassing led directly to a posting on Jimbo's talk page by one of the canvassers. Thread is here, which grew directly out of David's canvassing of the OP, one of those already linked above.

• David contributed this to the discussion there, discussing "COI problems that are happening with pharmaceuticals, and are now an equally big problem with GMO articles which lack of NPOV." This is just a continuation of the community activist campaigning and canvassing.

• And then, David left a message on another editor's Talk page tonight that I consider to be canvassing, that started with said "Anyone who tries to balance any of the GMO articles is immediately reverted and is often threatened like this." and discussed more below), and is what prompts me to call for a 24 block for canvassing.

• WP:NPA / WP:TPG

• David has now twice added content to article Talk pages, to "introduce" new users, with POV and attacking messages about contributors, not content:

first with this beauty, which i removed per NPA and provided David with a warning on this Talk page

and just now, this, which was also removed per NPA by another editor.

• Most recently, a new editor came to the articles wanting to add UNDUE content with messed up referencing to the Genetically modified organism article, which i reverted. I provided that user with a Welcome template, and I added another note informing the editor in a neutral way, about how the suite of articles is set up and explained how to add a reference. That editor used what I taught him to edit war the content back in (with proper reference formatting), without talking back at all, so I provided an edit war warning. (am not going to do all the editing diffs in this part. they are here if anybody wants to see them)

Today, David followed my note and warning with two messages on that editor's page. This first started with "Don't let these threats scare you off. Anyone who tries to balance any of the GMO articles is immediately reverted and is often threatened like this." Which is a continuation of WP:CANVASSING and violates NPA... and is also bad advice, because the editor was edit warring. David then wrote a message to me on that editor's page, critiquing my introductory note. This is just hounding, and this, along with the canvassing, is what prompted this posting.

• In the two or three weeks since all this started, David has engaged in only two real discussions about content.

• one about "substantial equivalence" which is here: Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Substantial_Equivalence
• the other, trying to add content about a 14 year old primary source discussing cellular engineering (not genetic engineering) to the genetic engineering article. Discussion is here.

In both cases, he was wrong about the topic (law/regulation in one and science in the other), and after he actually read the sources or had them explained to him, he acknowledged he was wrong. All this agita appears to be based on a very strongly held position that "GMOs are bad". He does not appear to be WP:COMPETENT in the subject matter.

• The behavior is all, classic WP:ADVOCACY. I deal with a lot of editors like this in the GMO suite and do not bring them here or create drama.

I am bringing this case, because David is different. With him, there is a new stalking element and really wrong focus on motivations and on contributors (namely me) not content, that is, to me, really icky, and a set of "community organizing" activities that is very unwikipedian.

deeper background here, for anyone who wants it Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Closing. David believes he has The Truth here and that his behavior is justified, and I reckon he will try to turn this into an examination of my behavior. I know that and expect it. I had a very long interaction with David in the leadup to this, (which was prompted by my noticing one of his canvassing messages b/c it was written on a page I watch; I became aware of the others only later). In that interaction I explained how the GMO articles came to be as they are, discussed how COI is and has been discussed and dealt with by the en-WP community, discussed how concerns about behavior are handled in WP, and urged him many times to focus on content, not contributors, nor their motivations - that this is what we do in WP. I grew increasingly worried by things that David wrote in that interaction, and my worries were realized in this message on my Talk page, which to be honest, freaked me out. I realized I had a stalker who a) does not understand how WP works at all (we identify reliable sources, craft content from them based on PAG, and discuss them - we do not speculate endlessly on what motivated this or that editor to do or say what... and that message was the fruit of, and 100% committed to, analysis of (guessed-at) motivations of contributors, all explained with great confidence. yikes.) and b) was really, really committed to his conspiratorial, convoluted POV about me. I replied appropriately (and I meant it) that I would be more careful to welcome new editors going forward. I then struck my interactions with him on my Talk page, apologizing for having bothered him (which I meant). And I archived my Talk page and reduced my User page to a minimum. And went to his Talk page and likewise struck my remarks there and apologized to him again. I have never had a stalker before; it is a weird feeling.

• I ask that, if this turns into an examination of my behavior, that this be done in a separate thread. This thread is focused on David's behavior demonstrated above, which is out of line.

• Anyway, as I mentioned above, I am seeking a 24 block for canvassing and a warning for David to stop these behaviors. I would like the warning to include instruction to discuss content, not contributors.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (added a bit per note below Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Have you first tried to engage with David in a meaningful discussion? If so, why did initial attempts to solve the issue fail? I'm asking this only because I can't make any clear inferences about that from your long post, so it may be a good idea for you to state that clearly. -A1candidate 01:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, as i did describe above. added some Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see lots of accusations thrown against David Tornheim for allegedly stalking you, and that may indeed be occurring, but if you don't want him to come to your talkpage, you may wish to tell him to stay away from your talkpage (in clear language) and see if that works. You said that you apologized to him, but I don't consider that a good way to deal with unwanted attention. -A1candidate 02:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your advice but you are distracting from the point. I have not disinvited him from my Talk page, as that is the first place for him to bring concerns about my behavior. Per WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, this board is next, as I have told him.

But this is about david's behavior. I believe the canvassing is sanctionable and the discussions of content, not contributor, need a warning. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also chime in and say that Jytdog seems to try to help out new editors relatively well. However, some terseness is needed in controversial topics when someone comes in with a strong viewpoint of their own. This seems to be a case more so not of a new editor being bitten, but someone coming in from an advocacy perspective with a fringe viewpoint and coming in a bit too hot to really realize the problem with that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support warning. Support temp block and warning. I'd weakly support a temp block, but it's really the warning that would hopefully help the situation. I've been involved in some of the content in this case, but haven't been targeted by David Tornheim like Jytdog has with this hounding behavior. There's really no excuse for this behavior and it's just poisoning the well at the related articles. The canvassing is very apparent (also to a t as described by WP:Votestacking) as Tornheim has been selectively recruiting from editors who appear to hold his viewpoint or have been trying to further WP:FRINGE viewpoints in the article. If it was just a new editor reaching out to one of those folks, that could be construed as someone just learning the ropes, but not this many people. The WP:TRUTH behavior seems very apparent where Tornheim came into the article hot as a new editor and just doesn't seem to get WP:GEVAL in this topic (similar to climate change, evolution, and other science articles where other editors with fringe POVs run into trouble). Overall, this just seems to be lashing out for not understanding how Wikipedia works (not for a lack of others trying to help) from trying to move too fast with a certain POV. The advocacy is tricky to address at this point here and maybe could be resolved without need for ANI, but it does seem to be leading towards the personal attacks and hounding that is not appropriate in any case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also tack on there has been some battleground behavior/edit warring:

• [90] David adds content, removed due to sourcing issues by Jytdog.
• [91] David reverts content back in " please do not undo without presenting your reason on the talk page. "not accurate" is not a reason"
• [92] Reverted by Jytdog asking, "per WP:BRD please do not edit war, but rather open a discussion on the Talk page."
• [93] David reverts again directly copying Jytdog's edit summary "per WP:BRD please do not edit war, but rather open a discussion on the Talk page."
• [94] I reverted David's 3rd revert asking him to justify his new addition on the talk page at this point.
• [95] At which point, David posts a 3RR warning on my talk page after my single revert.

This shows a tendency to edit war rather than come to the talk page and seemingly not understanding that if you make a change and it gets reverted, you then need to gain consensus for it on the talk page. The snark involved in copying Jytdog's edit summary about BRD is also problematic and the warning on my page seem pretty retaliatory in nature. This user is still relatively new, so I do hope changes occur, but this is looking like a difficult case that isn't just due to being a new user. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose temp block and warning. I am working on a response, which I intend to post tonight. I would appreciate a chance to respond before any action is taken. David Tornheim (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Calling for a block based on a single incident involving canvassing of four editors which occurred nearly a month ago seems on its face unreasonable. Jytdog is an involved editor in this issue, and as such, Jytdog's behavior in this lengthy interaction should be subject to scrutiny as well; "this isn't about me, this is about them" arguments are specifically discussed and dismissed in Wikipedia:Boomerang, and "anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny."Dialectric (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting Dialectric, I am sorry my complaint was not formatted more clearly and that I missed your response. I am not making this report based on the 4 initial canvasses. I warned him for that. I am seeking the block because of the subsequent canvassing that I bulleted above, here and here, with that post on Jimbo's page here in the midst. He shows no sign at all of stopping and appears very committed to continuing to "community organize"?canvass around these issues. And I am seeking the warning for his continued comments on contributors (me) in, inappropriate venues, and following me around. ( this message to me on another editor's talk page... just ick. I hope that clarifies. I wouldn't have brought the block request based on the initial 4 canvasses - I agree that would not be reasonable. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this would be for Jytdog to clarify, but I didn't see a clear it's not me it's them demarcation in his post, but rather him asking that if someone really wanted to discuss his behavior, it be brought up in a different section so there could be some clarity rather than a jumbled mess. The canvassing though is only one of the problems experienced at the articles (though maybe the most actionable). Advocacy really seems to be the core problem here though, so this isn't based in a single incident. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say there is nothing to do at this stage but it's clearly important to watch David Tornheim's input in relation to these articles, as he seems to be of the school that believes that anything not anti-GMO is pro-GMO, an easy mistake to make but not one that Wikipedia should fall for. For example, this edit states in Wikipedia's voice that an experiment that led to genetically modified human children in the US was unethical and illegal "there" and in other countries (in fact it should say "in the UK" as it is not illegal in the US, where ti happened); this is attributed to "British scientists" but the story makes it clear that the criticism comes from some British scientists and is nto a considered corporate view of any British scientific body. It would have been much better to attribute the actual quotation in the source by Lord Winston, whose criticism was much more measured. But in any case this is a 2015 edit based on a 2001 story about a technique (ooplasmic transfer) that has been covered much more recently, and is intimately bound to the three-parent baby debate. As a criticism of genetic engineering, it represents nothing more than a random interjection. In short, the edit represents a simplistic and partisan view of a complex topic, within a mature article. many of David's edits are similar. I think David now understands that he needs to discuss such edits in advance and achieve consensus before making edits that may be controversial. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*note, created separate section for comments on my behavior below. this section is for David's behavior. I imagine this is going to get separated as new comments come in. This is the point in the thread where David added his comments below. Jytdog (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JzG I am not making this report based on the 4 initial canvasses. I warned him for that. I am seeking the block because of the subsequent canvassing that I bulleted above, here and here, with that post on Jimbo's page here in the midst. He shows no sign at all of stopping and appears very committed to continuing to "community organize"?canvass around these issues. And I am seeking the warning for his continued comments on contributors (me) in, inappropriate venues, and following me around. ( this message to me on another editor's talk page... just ick. Jytdog (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't support. DavidTornheim has indeed attempted to inject content that was not supported by RS and has been looking for support. I'm not enough of a WP policy maven to weigh in on whether he's been violating the many policies cited here. However, he has in some cases responded appropriately to specific criticism and backed down. I think attempts to continue working with him are appropriate. I do wish he'd stop with the allegations. Lfstevens (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding a block: Oppose (will not solve the issue); regarding a warning: support; regarding a topic ban from GMO and organic subjects: support. I have first hand experience with the rather bullying way Jytdog applies to get things his way with the effect that the neutrality and reliability of articles is impaired. That, and his behaviour, needs to be stopped. The Banner talk 13:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Wrong place The Banner talk 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section is about David's behavior. Thanks for your support the warning. Blocks are meant to be educational, and I think David has no concept that his canvassing/campaigning is wrong. if you want to comment on me, you would probably best do that below. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It is my opinion that the allegations raised against me by Jytdog are a direct result of my attempts to address Jytdog's behavior. Please see my response and reply to the allegations incorporated into the discussion below about Jytdog's behavior. David Tornheim (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • • yes it is clear that you believe you are doing The Right Thing. The problem is that you do not understand WP nor its behavioral guidelines. This is not a place for the tactics of community activism. It's just not. In any case, this thread has zero traction. All three of our posts are TLDR and we are not going to get community feedback nor admin action. Ah well, I screwed that up. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog's behavior

(note - created separate section so this has its own focus, separate from the above, which is David's behavior Jytdog (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Response to Allegations: I have been on Wikipedia since July 2008 [96] and have worked on a number of different articles.  I have never been taken to an ANI board before and have never been blocked. I have never taken anyone else to an ANI board or any other notice board. I am used to working things out on the talk page of the relevant articles.

I do understand Jytdog has put quite a lot of effort into revising all of the GMO articles and so it is not entirely suprising there is resistance to new people making changes. However, Jytdog's treatment of new users does not follow WP:DONTBITE, especially those that raise WP:NPOV concerns, which I explain below. In 2004, Jytdog said:

"There is a suite of related articles on GM matters. A few years ago these articles were a complete mess, with much overlapping content (most of negative anti-GMO stuff). A group of us went through and cleaned them up ..." here

Unfortunately, during this massive rewrite, as indicated above, the voices of GMO critics/consumer advocates (renamed pejoratively "anti-GMO") were compromised and the revised articles took on a Pro-GMO slant. "Anti-GMO" is an unfair label for the consumer groups, because people can be conerned about GMO's and want more testing before widespread release, without being opposed to all GMO's. This is an example edit where GMO critics' concerns are watered down to be almost unrecognizable here.

Jytdog is correct that I believe there are serious issues with lack of WP:NPOV for all of the GMO articles, and my good faith efforts to address them and work with Jytdog and the others are met with these kinds of accusations--just look at my talk page.

The 'scientific consensus' issue is simple--there is none, and other editors have pointed this out:

• Unmismoobjetivo (talk) here
• LesVegas (talk) here
• user:Arsenal lb here
• Gaba ^(talk) here.

English language Wikipedia is supposed to reflect a worldwide view of the subject, and there is widespread mainstream diversity of opinion in Europe, at least, especially ENSRR here. Reliable sources explain the lack of 'scientific consensus' here and here. Jytdog and others insist that reliable sources that do not conform to their view of the subject are fringe/advocacy groups here. This is POV pushing.

Jytdog, especially, but also Kingofaces43 and others have shown owernship behaiors WP:OWNER (or WP:GANG) towards the GMO articles, especially when changes are proposed that might address the NPOV concerns. For example,

User LesVegas identified the WP:NPOV problem and put an NPOV tag on an GMO article here and the tag was removed only 5 minutes later by Jytdog here. The user attempted to put it back here, and again Jytdog removed the appropriate NPOV tag only 2 minutes later here, despite the fact that the user did discuss the NPOV problem on the talk pages (here) and had good reason to tag the article that continues to have WP:NPOV problems.

Shorly after Jytdog engaged me on my talk page and I explained my concerns about lack of NPOV, he wrote, "You appear to be charging full steam into things that you don't know much about. If you don't move more carefully, this is going to be much uglier than it needs to be..." here.

Viriditas (talk) wrote about this WP:BULLY behavior as well on my talk page here with this edit.

After Jytdog bared his teeth, I was still able to find some common ground and establish some rapport with him/her. However, I felt it necessary to explain the problem of intimidating new users, as gently as possible. I did so here. The situation I explained is that user Alexlikescats explained the same lack of NPOV here at 21:45, 29 March 2014 (another user:107.2.182.250 chimed in, in agreement here). Only 32 minutes after Alexlikescats said the article was biased, Jytdog accused Alexlikescats of having a single-purpose-acccount here, which violates the rule of WP:DONTBITE, especially the section, "Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute ". That was the last thing the user did on Wikipedia. See Alexlikecats, contributions.

When I had confronted Jytdog with the problem of intimidating new users, Jytdog admits in the box (show more detail above), that s/he 'freaked' out and struck out ALL the correspondence between us and archived all discussion. I don't think that is a mature way to address the very relevant concern I had raised.

Another example of Jytdog's similar treatment to a new user is here

This behavior of Jytdog's is what Viriditas describes here as “poisoning the well”, scaring off new users who do not share Jytdog's POV.

When I saw yet another new user (MaxwellBarr) who tried to make good faith edits to address NPOV in a GMO article getting hit by accusations by Jtydog here, I did indeed tell Jytdog again I saw that as a problem here, here and here, while urging the user not to give up on editing the page here. Unfortunately, this user appears to have been scared off as well and has not made any further contributions to Wikipedia confirmed here. Again this is a problem with WP:BITE. This last incident pushed Jytdog to bring me to this forum claiming this confrontation was "canvassing.". I am happy to accept advice from 3rd parties on what I should do if I see a problem like that. I continue to be concerned about Jytdog's behavior of treating new users like this and having ownership behaviors like reverting any new additions and refusing to take seriously new ideas, but I am not sure what I should do about it.  Even though I have been on Wikipedia for quite a while, I don't really know much about resolving disputes in the forums.  I generally just try to talk it out with the people involved. Until I tried to add sourced material to articles in the GMO suite, I had never encountered such vigorous and tendentious opposition.

The incident Kingofaces43 describes was resolved here and here. I said on the talk page, that I intended to add material another user had suggested here, for which neither had specifically objected except for a blanket rejection here. The two working together reverted my inclusion without discussing on the talk page and without giving a valid reason of reverting (too old and "not true" [an opinion not backed up with WP:RS] are not valid reasons for rejecting material IMHO), which to me seemed like edit waring and unnecessary obstruction on their behalf as part of a WP:TAG team to accomplish 3RRR.

In summary, I think there are some real WP:OWN and WP:GANG behaviors on the GMO pages, and serious problems with WP:NPOV that can not be addressed because of that. I have tried in good faith to address those problems and am looking towards 3rd party admin(s) who have no investment in the GMO articles to give some guidance on how I might address the problems.

Instead of a block or warning for me, I think the deserving person for sanctions should be Jytdog for biting (WP:BITE) new users who do not share his/her POV and thereby "poisoning the well." David Tornheim (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's unlikely to happen, because the allegation of biting relies on the idea that anti-GMO views have parity of esteem with the mainstream view. The articles right now reflect the neutral point of view as a result of many years of debate between people of all shades of opinion. I understand that some people are not familiar with a lot of this, and you perhaps you don't know about the practices of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry that historically plague contentious articles. Your best bet is to offer new users advice on policies and how to stay on the right side of them (though I have to say I'm not convinced you know, fomr a sample of your edits in this area).

We do know that people cast themselves as "consumer advocates" not anti-GMO. Antivaxers, climate deniers, creationists and many other activists opposing the scientific consensus, do the same, with some success, in that in recent years some segments of the media have fallen into the trap of believing that science and cranks are valid opposing views. Recent outbreaks of preventable disease have seen some changes here and it's becoming slightly less common to interview an antivaxer and put them up against a lone scientist representing the tens of millions who support the consensus view. The nature of a scientific consensus is that it encompasses all known facts and valid opinions about those facts.

Wikipedia notes that there is no good evidence to support most of the harms claimed by anti-GMO activists (a few of the economic ones are entirely valid but that is a different debate). I'm a fan of the precautionary principle, but I've had to accept this view of GMOs over time. They are actually in many ways safer and less environmentally damaging than non-GMO crops: less pesticide, less fertiliser, less preservative, less chance of toxic breakdown products in the produce. It doesn't help that much anti-GMO activism comes from scientifically illiterate "chemophobes" like the Food Babe, or from the organic movement, which is prone to all kinds of irrationality due in no small part to its Steiner "biodynamic" heritage.

This is not Wikipedia's problem, it's the anti-GMO movement's problem, they need to find better arguments. Obviously we also need to patiently explain the facts, but in general we already have, in talk page headers and the articles themselves. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

articles under discussion here. broadly stated, are:

Genetically modified food controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Genetically modified food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Genetically modified crops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Genetically modified organism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Glyphosate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Monsanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Organic food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Organic farming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

OP of this subthread, making a complaint, is David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am the one against whom David is complaining: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The complaint is: violations of WP:OWN and WP:BITE

• some of what David writes above is about content; this is not the place to discuss content disputes so I will not respond here.
• With regard to claims that I WP:OWN the subject matter...

It it true that I watch them (I watch ~2500 articles) and in all my editing, I am keen that content be sourced from reliable, secondary sources per VERIFY, OR, RS, and MEDRS, and that content be NPOV. The GMO suite is no different.

And it is true that I am the biggest (or one of the biggest) contributor to most of these, and that they dominate my editing, if you analyze my edits by article. Here is a breakdown. i am aware of this.

but I don't believe I do the behaviors described in OWN, here. i ask myself the questions in WP:TENDENTIOUS all the time. But some things come close to the OWN behaviors, like

*the "qualifications" thing (the subject matter is technical - science and law etc.) If an editor is calm enough to actually listen, those things generally can get worked through, as they have with David twice now when he slowed down enough to actually listen - you can see that in the two examples I linked to in my complaint (here and here.

*The "comments on other editor's pages" thing comes close too. I think I have generally stayed within both the spirit and the letter of this place in talking with other editors and especially new editors, but I could see how someone could have an issue with some of what I do there. I acknowledged that to David already and am thinking about this going forward.

• to state the obvious, GMOs are a subject matter where people come to the article with very strong emotions and views and make changes that violate NPOV, OR, RS, etc. We get lots of "driveby" edits adding bad content (violates NPOV, OR, etc) in the articles because of that. The new editor Maxwell discussed above is very typical - editors come, want to add some UNDUE matter, and never talk back. it is not my fault if people do not understand WP and do not talk back. WP:BITE does not say that "anything new editor adds is OK." It just doesn't say that.
• That said, I try very hard to engage in civil, PAG-based discussions with editors who are willing to talk on these pages and have received several barnstars, specifically for my efforts working with people on controversial subjects, (and this is just some of the feedback along these lines):

this from 7%266%3Dthirteen

this from Yobol

this from Brangifer

this from DocumentError

this from IRWolfie-

this from Epipelagic

this from SandyGeorgia

With regard to "engaging with new ideas" I am very happy to hear new ideas and see them implemented, or implement them myself. On the GMO suite, most people who come by are not bringing up anything new. Maxwell's edit, for example, was about the Seralini affair, which was worked on vigorously as it is unfolded and is now integrated into the suite and has its own article. I'm always happy to discuss re-arranging things and have offered to discuss with David, which he has taken up.

I am really proud that ~in general~ these articles have stayed off the drama pages, and we have not gone to Arbcom. (although there was a really bad period back in August 2013 when it got to so ugly (especially with unfounded claims of COI on my part that I took myself to COIN (none of my accusers had the sense or graciousness to even bring a case in the proper forum) and I revealed my RL identity to an oversighter - results of that are here.... and that it looked like this might go to Arbcom. We avoided that.

I have interacted with lots of folks over the past three years on these articles. I've attracted some haters. For the most part these are folks really committed to an anti-GMO POV. I will ping some of them here, to be sure they are aware of this. Viriditas, Petrarchan47, Canoe1967, El duderino, The Banner, I would say are key people who have said I am a bad presence here and might like to comment. There are other editors whom I know have strong concerns with my GMO editing, for example Gandydancer and Groupuscule, but have generally not personalized it (especially not groupuscule who is always a paragon of elegance and civility). There are other editors who have generally had different perspectives from me and have really engaged in Talk discussions over the years, like Semitransgenic. IjonTichyIjonTichy and Dialectric have shown up more recently.

Lfstevens is fairly new to the topics and recently went over the GM Controversies with a very fine-toothed comb (thanks again for that) and may have input on this. Guettarda also recently came by.

Then there are those who have really collaborated on building the articles - Sunrise (not so active on them anymore), Aircorn (not so active on them anymore), SylviaStanley too, and Kingofaces, who has already weighed in above. (the article analysis tool is broken or i would list more)

Tryptofish (away on personal matters) has been invaluable in mediating some of the conversations. I wish he were around as his feedback is wise.

What I am trying to say, is we have managed to keep the conversations civil enough, and focused enough on PAG based discussion of content and sources, that we have been able to resolve issues on the Talk pages or through RfC. David - a newbie, community activist - is breaking that. Making personal attacks of COI etc all over WP, trying to whip up opposition, instead of simply dealing with the content and sources in the article.

I am glad David finally brought this here, however. This is, finally, the proper forum for raising his concerns, especially since RfC/U is now dead. . As you can see, I am taking the initiative to open this up wide. Let's get this dealt with.

finally, i ask myself the questions in WP:TENDENTIOUS all the time. I am human and fuck up sometimes. When I do, I acknowledge the mistake, apologize for it, fix it, and move on. If there is consensus that I am acting badly on this more meta-level, I look forward to hearing that. I do expect some strong accusations that I am acting badly. I do not expect that to be the consensus, but am opening this up, since we are all trapped in our own limited perspectives on the world; feedback is good. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged to this discussion. Which is such a mess I can't tell who is saying what about whom.

As a tangent/rant, I don't know why we did away with RFC/U, and instead get these long rambling incoherent threads on ANI, where everyone with an ax to grind piles on with little regard for subsequent readers or relative actionable evidence requiring admin intervention. There are frequent references in here to a "David"; for readers who don't know this "David", how about using usernames?

One thing that stands out to me in this discussion (because I've seen it now twice in just a few days, reference the recent thread about Formerly 98) are these two statements:

This behavior of Jytdog's is what Viriditas describes here as “poisoning the well”, scaring off new users who do not share Jytdog's POV.

and

Viriditas (talk) wrote about this WP:BULLY behavior as well on my talk page here with this edit.

Both Viriditas and Petrarchan47 are mentioned several times in this discussion, which is not surprising considering that both of them have long been grinding an ax with medical content (ref threads about a year ago on marijuana, and recent threads about Formerly 98-- they both seem to show up whenever controversial medical content is involved). That Viriditas wrote negatively about a medical editor on someone's talk page is not evidence of anything, except, well ... that Viriditas frequently does that. In spite of a long-standing ax-grinding with me, Viriditas nonetheless posts to my talk page when he wants to go after another editor.[97][98]

Is any admin action required? I don't know, because I haven't read through yet another long incoherent discussion here that would have been better served at RFC.

I do know that something should be done about Viriditas and Petrarchan47, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I asked for a short block and warning for David Tornheim way above, which is still an open matter. He responded by making a complaint about me, which is in this subsection. I expected this, and made my original request in part to provoke this, to get David to finally raise his concerns in the right place. I do want the short block and warning, however and think it is warranted - my posting was not POINTy. Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the subsequent clarification. But more generally, I just do not understand how ANI is supposed to result in anything productive in the absence of RFC/U. Multiple RFC/Us are long overdue on several editors, and yet, we no longer have such a forum. I agree with you that ANI is now the only place to raise issues, but don't think engaging here is likely to be productive. It will result in useless section headings and drahmaz like the section just below this, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see the offensive section heading has now been removed-- thanks to whomever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia's concerns

SandyGeorgia, I have no idea what you are talking about. With that said, I would like to clear up some of your glaring misconceptions:

• Petrarchan47 retired a year ago from Wikipedia. My understanding is that she recently dropped in and made several comments and then went back into retirement. I fail to see what she has to do with any of this.
• David Tornheim recently left me a message on my talk page, and I responded to him on his talk page in regards to his dispute with Jytdog. I also commented about Jytdog's treatment of David Tornheim on Jytdog's talk page. However, I have not edited in the GMO topic area since 2013 and I would ask that you stop trying to bring me back into it.
• As for your extremely bizarre claim that I am involved in some kind of "long-standing ax-grinding" with you, I'm afraid you flatter yourself as I have no idea what you mean. You appear to harbor deep grudges and then project them on to other editors.
• Your claim that I post to your talk page when I want to go after other editors is simply absurd. Your diff shows that I was offering you support in a conflict with another editor that I had the same experience with, as I felt I could offer a corroborating opinion. It shows nothing about going after anyone, and I've never pursued the matter.

Now, please stop drawing me into your petty squabbles and role-playing fantasies. I have not edited in this topic area since 2013 and I have no desire to be pulled back into it. Viriditas (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in, in any case, V. I won't ping you since you don't want to be involved. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, I'm not involved. And yet, SandyGeorgia has created this fantasy world where I'm somehow the evil ringleader lurking in the shadows. This is bizarre behavior. Viriditas (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and you are the 2nd person who is unhappy with David for having tried to drag them back into this. I am sorry for that. I've seen some of the work you've been doing since you stopped being involved, via watching Trypto's Talk page. happy editing to you. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, I've criticized David Tornheim's methods on his talk page. I think he needs to take a rest from the GMO battlefield for a bit and focus on improving one article. He's scattered all over the place and that makes it seem like he's less interested in improving an article than in fighting the good fight. On the other hand, he's had a lot of trouble editing in this area because of the guardians. It might go a long way, Jytdog, if you could offer to work with him on a single article in a collaborative manner. Viriditas (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt straight and clean with any objections or ideas he has had, on specific content or sourcing, and will keep doing so. There is no way to respond to Big Global Statements, as you pointed out. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Jytdog and KingofAces43 both revert too much in my opinion and Jytdog has done so to some of my edits. The intense emotions that accompany the GMO controversy pushes everybody involved to their limits. That said, when I identified RS material that suggested a problem with glyphosate, Jytdog added it to the article unbidden. I'd just like everybody to spend less time on this controversy and more time on the articles. Lfstevens (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that feedback. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My name was included in the above sections, so I guess I ought to respond. In my opinion, the GMO articles were a mess before Jytdog reworked them. Often they were eye-wateringly one sided, the same information was repeated in several places, poor English, poor references, information out of date, and so on. Jytdog has made a marvelous job of re-writing them in a neutral factual tone in Wikipedia style in spite of massive attacks on him. He has reverted several of my own insertions but I can always see the logic behind what he has done. I congratulate him on the vast amount of excellent work he has done.SylviaStanley (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC

• Regarding a block: Oppose (will not solve the issue); regarding a warning: support; regarding a topic ban from GMO and organic subjects: support. I have first hand experience with the rather bullying way Jytdog applies to get things his way with the effect that the neutrality and reliability of articles is impaired. That, and his behaviour, needs to be stopped. The Banner talk 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Moved from section above, wrong person[reply]

• Oppose Block/Ban Having read through the supposed "bullying behaviour" of new editor MaxwellBarr, I find it not to be any sort of bullying at all. The editor (MaxwellBarr) first puts in a spam link to gopro.com that is bot deleted. Then the editor immediately puts in a bunch of material that is unref'd. Jytdog reverts but fully explains his (proper) reasoning. Then the editor inserts a random citation at the bottom of the article, and Jytog civilly removes and explains. That is how this is supposed to work. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am preparing further response.David Tornheim (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC). (It is now posted below. David Tornheim (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

If you do I suggest you keep it brief. We have both already left WP:WALLOFTEXT here, which is probably why we are getting so few responses. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I appreciate your desire for brevity and to avoid worsening the WP:WALLOFTEXT. I wish you had considered that before creating the problem by posting a wall of text. I am glad you said something here, because it is indicative of your attitude in the general case: Your contributions are held to be more valuable than other people's contributions. The rules do not apply to you as much as they apply to other contributors.David Tornheim (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Based on my own experiences, I feel obligated to acknowledge that Jytdog does demonstrate behavioral issues that require an admins attention as other editors have noted above. I included a few diffs which will help confirm the bullying behavior mentioned above:
• [99] <---Bullying?
• [100] <---passive aggressive bullying of a newbie with mention of ARBCOM because they disagreed?

Despite Jytdog's good intentions, he has a rather skewed interpretation of WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI guidelines in that he believes those guidelines supersede policy. I imagine there are quite a few editors who have been targeted under the pretense of WP:MEDRS and WP:PSCI, and would gladly provide more diffs to demonstrate same, but I see no reason to include them all here. It also appears we've been getting a snowjob as it relates to the ongoing abuse of WP:MEDRS by the same select few.

• [101] <---reverted (Undid revision 650497838 by 2602:306:836F:A3E0:A17D:786E:1D03:BE85 (talk) revert content based on WP:PRIMARY source per WP:MEDRS) Excuse me, but the passage he reverted was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and according to WP:MEDRS, Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals..... [102]. How is that revert not an abuse of the guideline to control article content?
• [103] <--- reverted (Undid revision 646440329 by AmiLynch (talk) revert addition of content based on WP:PRIMARY source that violates WP:MEDRS) Same song second verse. The excuse that the passage violates a guideline is not cause for a revert. How does one violate a guideline anyway? Furthermore, the passage came from the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine 26 (2014) [104] Again, it appears as though he is controlling article content per WP:OWN which actually is a violation of policy.

Granted, there are vandals and CAM spammers who need curtailment, but some of Jytdog's targets have been GF editors, including newbies who actually added passages citing RS in adherence to WP:PAG. In most cases, all it requires to become a card carrying bullseye of the quack-watch cabal is to express a little opposition or criticism of certain interpretations of mainstream views regarding WP:PSCI, WP:MEDRS and/or related categories. It reminds me of the trials and tribulations of Judge Roy Bean and his sheriff's posse, only now we're subjected to a 21st century mobocracy which actually determines what information will or won't be allowed in articles regardless of PAG. Hello WP:OWN and WP:NPOV - is anybody home? I don't doubt that the majority of editors on both sides of the isle have good intentions - most are highly intelligent experts in their respective fields - unfortunately (and representative of what happens when power corrupts), innocent editors inadvertently fall victim to the demands of the cabal, and open collaboration is replaced by censorship in a "police state" environment. Quite frankly, few editors survive such an onslaught. The result is an encyclopedia that reflects a one-sided view via censored topics.

In the interim, Jytdog says whatever he wants to say, apologizes to those he has offended whenever he gets around to it, strikes what he says, hats and archives it, resumes bullying and his normal pattern of tendentious editing, attempts to baffle admins hoping they will swallow his BS diffs and misinterpretations of MEDRS because they're inundated with work and are less inclined to analyze the material presented. [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110]

I can't help but believe it's part of his baffling exercise which usually precedes the dazzling. For example, it may be difficult for some admins to see his strikes as a tactical measure. If there were only a few, I might be inclined to believe he was being sincere, but are the strikes a true representation of regret for the right reasons? Admins will only see the one or two diffs he might provide in his own defense with a statement something like, I thought about what I said, realized it was wrong so I struck through it. The admins and/or reviewers may think, "Ok - he acted in GF by striking through that comment." Are you sure about that? I think it requires a little more research to see just how many strikes are involved in his repertoire. I find it hard to believe such behavior is a common practice among GF editors. Perhaps I'm wrong in my evaluation. If I am, I will gladly strike through my comments and archive them. Atsme☯^Consult 21:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• These observations are in alignment with my own, and with several others. For example, in the midst of a year-long, intense debate at BP, Jytdog joined the discussion and essentially tried to take over the process. Here and here he apologized, exactly as Atsme describes above, and then left the page. In the comments on the page I've linked, Coretheapple said this about Jytdog's approach: I notice that you tend to characterize editors who disagree with what you're doing here as people who are "arguing" with you, in contrast to the nice people who are producing a "positive vision." and some of the editing has bordered on the tendentious and violative of WP:OWN, especially the hairtrigger reverts that I've seen. But the solution is not for one editor to appoint himself as impartial editor, "negotiating" an "apportionment" agenda[as Jytdog categorized his role].

I do agree that his tactics deserve an impartial look from *uninvolved* admins. It is my opinion and personal experience that Jytdog come across as a bully/dictator and may be inadvertently working against WP's goal of retaining editors. I had an experience similar to David's in that I was editing here for a few years and hadn't seen the inside of a noticeboard aimed at me until I had the misfortune of editing a GMO-related article. This is a tactic Jytdog and his buddies use unabashedly. It serves to scare off editors who question the neutrality of his work, if nothing else, and the articles go ignored and remain unchanged. (It is not a done deal that the GMO articles are perfectly NPOV, and the claim is ridiculous on its face.) Even when no action from an ANI is warranted, the editor's reputation has been sullied - with David in this instance being lumped in, sans evidence, with the "anti-vaccers" (read: crazy and not to be trusted). petrarchan47tc 01:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: And excuse me, but the most damning evidence you can find is Jytdog reverting the addition of primary studies? We don't use the thousands of primary studies published daily peer-reviewed journals; we use the secondary sources, and you already noted that according to WP:MEDRS, Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals. If you don't understand that publishing a single trial in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make it a literature review or a systematic review, you shouldn't be criticising the actions of editors who do. Jytdog was absolutely right to remove Escitalopram and venlafaxine for the prophylaxis of migraine headache without mood disorders, One hundred and twenty cases of enduring sexual dysfunction following treatment, and Persistent sexual dysfunction after discontinuation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors because they are case studies - primary studies and not of value for making medical claims on Wikipedia. The only "BS diffs and misinterpretations of MEDRS" are yours above. --RexxS (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: no, it wasn't the most damning, there are way more, but those two were enough to demonstrate behavioral issues. FYI - the 1st revert sourced a published article that was cited in 2 different reviews - 1 systematic review - Migraine in Adults: Preventive Pharmacologic Treatments and 1 PubMed Central article Italian guidelines for primary headaches [111]. The 2nd revert sourced an article that mined data from 120 reports and summarized the findings in a report published in The International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, a book published by IOS Press, [112] which would fall under A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Atsme☯^Consult 06:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's complete and utter nonsense. Two of the three sources are clearly primary and the other is dubious. If you even bothered to look at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19667978 you'd see "Publication Types: Comparative Study, Randomized Controlled Trial". Studies and RCTs are primary sources. http://iospress.metapress.com/content/1021h330k91qv844/?genre=article&issn=0924-6479&volume=26&issue=2&spage=109 is a report by the authors based on a website they set up to collect self-reported data. It's neither a systematic nor literature review - PubMed doesn't even classify it - see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24902508. If you read the third source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18173768 it says "Publication Types: Case Reports". Case reports are primary sources. Jytdog was absolutely right to remove them. If you think these are the sort of sources that should be in our medical articles, you need to be banned from ever touching a medical article article again. Competence is required. --RexxS (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense is believing dubious justifies a revert, or that the suggested guidelines in MEDRS must be followed explicitly, or that they should be treated the same way we treat BLP violations. Let's not forget that today's mainstream science was yesterday's fringe. WP:MEDRS reads: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. It further explains: The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. You don't revert just because it doesn't follow MEDRS. Who came up with such a nonsense idea? The most important aspect of editing is having the freedom to do so in an open editing environment. Bottomline, the passages Jytdog reverted in the examples I provided above were not themselves considered policy violations as was Jytdog's WP:OWN behavior. DS, blocks and topic bans are not initiated because an editor wants to add information to improve an article and didn't cite a particular source Jytdog determines to be a RS. If other editors question a source, we have a citation needed template for just that purpose, and I'm pretty sure Jytdog knows how to use it. If I may recommend the following passage in the quote box at WP:FRINGE: ...This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinized. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries." I find the latter to be valuable information to keep in mind before your next revert. Atsme☯^Consult 21:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you've shifted your stance again. This time it's "give us the freedom to stuff articles with today's latest fad as illustrated by this single case study". Well, no. Here's what the opening line of WP:MEDRS states: "Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." (my emphasis) That has to be the first and foremost consideration for including content in any article that has medical claims. MEDRS has the consensus of the community and it spells out that it is vital to base our articles on secondary sources. Not "optional", not "preferable", but "vital". So of course the proper action is to remove dubious claims sourced to primary sources. And yet you want to pillory Jytdog for simply insisting that we only use the best quality sources for medical claims. I've seen far too many SPAs trying to undermine MEDRS to sit back and watch you try to do the same as them. MEDRS is the bulwark that prevents every pharma shill from stuffing our articles with "subtle" advertising; or every "true believer" from promoting their peculiar view of medicine - all based on readily available primary sources. Bottomline is that the edits that Jytdog reverted were clear breaches of MEDRS and he not only had every right to revert them, but a duty to Wikipedia to do so. --RexxS (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply by David Tornheim:

I am glad that Jytdog is reflecting on his/her behavior that I raised about new users, when he said above:

"comments on other editor's pages"... I could see how someone could have an issue with some of what I do there. I acknowledged that to David already and am thinking about this going forward.” (posted here)

I do feel harassed by Jtydog and this feeling continues from these allegations and the vigor which he continues to fill my talk pages even during this ANI (here and here)—he has put more than twice as many edits to my talk page as I have. (see)

How can I be stalking him/her, when s/he keeps showing up on my talk page with endless allegations like those lodged here? This is not about me: Jytdog appears to do this to anyone who tries to edit the GMO suite of articles in ways that he does not approve of, in particular new users who can be scared away. The only reason we are here (in ANI) is because I have been editing on Wikipedia for a while, and cannot be accused of WP:SPA, and have not been intimidated in letting Jytdog WP:OWN the articles.

I disagree that a determination of whether WP:BITE has occurred is dependent on the outcome of a content dispute. New users should be welcome even if other users think correctly or incorrectly that the new user's POV is WP:FRINGE. Please note that a consensus can change, but organic consensus can be stifled by WP:BITING people who do not agree with a consensus achieved at one point in history. Also, a consensus can be achieved that does not adhere to other Wikipedia policies: For example, it may be based on inaccurate information, use of unreliable sources, original research or insufficient use of all reliable sources, WP:UNDUE, etc.

It has been stated that that some GMO articles are “mature” articles. However articles on Wikipedia are never “done” (WP:PERFECTION and WP:EDITING). I am not aware of any policy that says a “mature” article requires a higher threshold for changes or improvement than a brand new article, and Wikipedia policies make it quite clear that users should be WP:BOLD and correct articles that have problems (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM). That an article has a long history is not a reason to avoid correcting errors and problems with it (WP:PERFECTION). WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM includes “adding other points of views to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced."

To Guy (Help!): you said, “Your best bet is to offer new users advice on policies and how to stay on the right side of them (though I have to say I'm not convinced you know, fomr a sample of your edits in this area).”

Jytdog has accused me of canvassing by talking to new or existing users anywhere but the article talk page (although sometimes my attempts to do that are censored by Jytdog here and/or KingofAces here). Jytdog has said I am stalking him/her if I interact with a new user after Jytdog scolded them and I have tried to encourage them not to feel intimidated.

What do you propose I do if I were to see this behavior of WP:BITE from Jytdog or any other user? I noted this WP:BITE behavior in Jytdog and all attempts on my part to address it only made things worse. I am very open to any suggestions about the proper way to address it in a way that would not cause the reaction I witnessed from Jytdog, which is to accuse me of canvassing and stalking.

I think the behavioral problems here are likely to go away if Jytdog learns that his WP:OWN , WP:BITE, and POV pushing behaviors are in violation of Wikipedia policy. I think he is a good editor who sometimes forgets that we are all here to make an encyclopedia, not to be the 'guardians of Truth” WP:The_Truth

-David Tornheim (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to close

• Support as proposer per the excellent comments by Lfstevens above. This thread no longer serves any purpose. There are problems with David Tornheim's edits in as much as there are issues with Jytdog's behavior. Dispute resolution is the best way to handle this, as ANI is not setup to deal with this current issue. Use the RFC process to resolve content disputes on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There is a distinct imbalance between the evidence of problems with David Tornheim's edits and the evidence of Jytdog's behaviour. In fact the evidence adduced by diffs of Jytdog's behaviour was a completely unfounded misrepresentation of WP:MEDRS as I've shown above. You can't simply brush away the clearly documented problems with David Tornheim's edits by calling them equal to Jytdog's policy-compliant actions (that Atsme tarnished through Atsme's lack of understanding of the difference between primary and secondary sources). --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read my response to you above regarding primary and secondary sources, and what guidelines are applicable to the actual passages that were reverted. Sometimes verifiable requires more than a click and a revert. Atsme☯^Consult 06:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it and it's clear you have no clue what a primary source is. If you can't tell the difference between case studies or RCTs and secondary sources, you have no business criticising someone like Jytdog who can. Your intervention here is spurious at best. --RexxS (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again. You are confusing a suggested guideline with adherence to policy. Bullying people into using RS you and a few others consider acceptable is not acceptable, and neither is reverting another editor's contribution simply because you don't like the source. I think it contributes to the reason we are here now. Atsme☯^Consult 21:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You read it again. There's nothing "suggested" about Wikipedia guidelines. They enjoy the consensus of the community and you'd better have a damn good reason to claim your edit gets to be an exception to them. What was so extraordinary about the edits that Jytdog reverted that they shouldn't be subject to MEDRS? It's the community that agreed MEDRS, so it's you and your tiny band who find MEDRS inconvenient who are pushing the limits to see what they can get away with. It's not my judgement of what's acceptable; it's the judgement of the community. It's not a dislike of a source; it's a dislike of POV-pushers who try to make medical claims based on feeble evidence. If you make a habit of pushing dubious medical claims based on primary sources - assuming you can figure out what they are - I predict you'll be back here soon enough. --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, guidelines are guidelines, and they are suggested best practices. No matter how good the intentions of MEDRS are, it's a guideline that can be abused to promote biased views. The same is true of the FRINGE guideline. Neither of these things are policies nor should they be treated as such. What tends to happen is that editors like yourself yell "MEDRS!" and/or "FRINGE!" when there is the slightest bit of criticism against a medical view or perspective that has substantial opposition and or alternative views. Often times we find that these so called "establishment" medical views are corporate-funded and distorted, such as AAAS uncovering the manipulation of NIH health guidelines by the sugar industry from 1959-1971.[113] Sorry, but medical content is not immune from corporate bias, and both MEDRS and FRINGE are abused to perpetuate this bias, which is why we rely on the NPOV policy above and beyond any project-promoted guideline. It is of note that GMO critics have made the same claims about corporate bias in the "established" GMO literature. MEDRS and FRINGE are frequently cited to prevent other perspectives from being presented. Merchants of Doubt covers the specifics of how this works in the real world. This is why, at the end of the day, this is a content dispute, with some editors trying to falsely elevate guidelines in order to bypass the NPOV policy and filter out critical viewpoints outside the consensus established by Big Pharma. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing contrary about it: guidelines are indeed documented best practice, as agreed by the community. There's nothing "suggested" about guidelines; they are not optional to be disregarded at will as you seem to think. Don't bother deflecting by going off on tangents, just concentrate on your campaign against MEDRS and your attempt to criticise an editor who followed "best practice" by removing claims that cited only primary sources. Let's be clear: do you support the notion of using primary sources to insert medical claims into Wikipedia? Yes or no? Then we can see what your agenda is here. --RexxS (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will not belabor the point that guidelines are not policies because the tone of your responses is somewhat elevated, so I will end my participation in this sideline discussion by suggesting that you review WP:MEDRS wherein it clearly states: The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see: Wikipedia:No original research). I try to adhere to policy and use guidelines for...well, guidelines. You might also want to read: Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Enforcement and WP:IAR. To keep reverting and/or deleting the edits of others simply because you think the passage isn't properly sourced according to a specific guideline could very well be considered disruptive. Not following a guideline isn't the same as violating policy, the latter of which is subject to enforcement. Atsme☯^Consult 00:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to close and move to more appropriate venues such as dispute resolution, per Viriditas. petrarchan47tc 02:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is WP:Dispute resolution. Look at the page -> the box on the right -> third heading: "Conduct disputes" -> first entry: "Administrator assistance (Request)". That's here. The only other venue for conduct disputes is RfArb. Is that what you want? Are you going to file the case? If not, perhaps it's better to let the community come to a conclusion here, even if it takes a few days. --RexxS (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop the badgering, RexxS. You know very well that DR in this context refers to "civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages" about content. ANI is not the place for that. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Don't accuse me of badgering when that's exactly what you're doing. ANI is one of the only two venues left for DR of conduct issues and you're simply trying to close down a discussion that's not going the way you like. This isn't a content issue, it's a conduct issue and it's disingenuous to pretend it's not. --RexxS (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's a content dispute about GMO. You are badgering people who disagree and I and others see no purpose or reasonable outcome to this discussion, which is why I've proposed closing it. I have zero involvement in the GMO debate. The extent of my involvement is from two years ago, when I covered the protests that took place where I live and when I wrote about the larger movement from a journalistic perspective. Get a grip. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's a conduct dispute about David Tornheim's behaviour, although I can see you'd like to pretend it's something else. Here's a clue: the title is "Canvassing and hounding with allegations of bad faith on GMO". Canvassing, hounding and allegations of bad faith are not content issues. So you can stop your badgering and attempts at deflection. If you want to talk about content, clear off to the article talk page and let those who understand the difference get on with discussing the behavioural matters. --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

guys, fwiw, you have each made your points and are unlikely to convince each other. Whoever closes will take your arguments into account. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in agreement with DR. Atsme☯^Consult 06:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; overdue. It is not the function of ANI to sort out which of several problematic editors is more problematic than the other. I encourage all parties discussed here to reflect upon their own behavior and take steps to address the concerns raised, and worry less about the shortcomings of others. See The Mote and the Beam. NE Ent 11:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I would be fine with a close if folks feel that there has been enough discussion. However I disagree that this is a content dispute. I do not raise ANIs spuriously; I think David's canvassing and NPA behavior is at least warn-able. I came here looking for that; continued accusations of COI are DISRUPTIVE and I feel I am being stalked. David is doing these policy-violating behaviors because he believes I am corrupt (which is out of bounds) and that I have problems with WP:OWN and he doesn't know how to address problems in WP, and instead seems to be resorting to the kind of community activism tactics that he uses in the RW (per his user page). His attempts to raise BOOMERANG issues is normal, and I expected it and indeed hoped for it, so that whatever might be legit in David's concerns could be addressed in the appropriate forum, which is indeed this forum. There is no other place where it could be addressed. I am interested to get community feedback on OWN ( maybe the community will judge that I have issues with that - just because David doesn't understand WP doesn't mean he might not have a point, and we can all be blind to our own faults. I do think my behavior is OK. but I could be wrong. I expect random haters to pop up here and add garbage to the thread). I would appreciate if folks focus on the issues actually being raised and examples provided, as hard as that is with the TLDR posts, off-topic stuff, and our busy lives. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can pretty much consider that David has received a warning here. But in all of the above, do you know if anyone pointed out the proper channel's where David might get assistance, instead of canvassing? Like adopt-a-user, the teahouse, and what ever? If not we could gather up a few links to what ever and give them to them.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Serialjoepsycho I explained to David how concerns about COI are handled at the bottom of this (in response to David's question about how COI is handled in WP). Dialectric gave more advice about dispute resolution here and here. The canvassing warning I gave David points to Wikipedia:Canvassing and that article explicitly tells you how to bring up concerns in various forums as well. One can lead a horse to water... I don't see that anybody pointed David specifically to Teahouse or adopt-a-user.Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think its wp:teahouse and WP:ADOPTif he's not.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, Serialjoepsycho... responding to what you wrote above ("You can pretty much consider that David has received a warning here"). David pretty much views my posting here as "bullying" - so while i might take what has been said here as a warning for David, what I would like, is that David take at least a warning from this - a warning from the community, not from me. The closer will judge if that is warranted or not, of course. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. I agree with alot of the positions you have highlighted. I only mention the above so that if he does canvass again this can be pointed to. Also so that he can be informed about these places where he can seek help, whether or not he's banned.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support close with part of the resolution being that David seek help through either WP:TEAHOUSE, WP:ADOPT, or Wikipedia:Co-op, or some similar venue regarding matters of policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support close. This has gone on enough and is looking to just be a drama-fest for those with a chip on their shoulder. A formal warning at the close for David could still be helpful if it doesn't seem like the point is getting across that his behavior was problematic (not sure where he's sitting currently). It's hard to deal with folks pushing WP:FRINGE ideas into articles, and they often don't react kindly when they come in strongly with their own point of view to get it rejected. There are always going to be people that get ticked off about that in science topics especially, and I don't think there's much we can do about that unfortunately. Doesn't seem like there's anything more to do here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This is really confusing. Yesterday, I saw this was closed. I mistakenly read that to mean it was like a court case, that it was closed, over, final, done, resolved, a decision was made, etc., and I (and others) could continue other more productive work without having to monitor it. I mistakenly also believed that if a new case or issue was to arise, I would get notice and new arguments would begin there. I am really glad I looked again, or I wouldn't have known that the resolution had unraveled and that a whole new set of voices have appeared shifting the balance yet again with old voices taking new positions vying for a resolution more to their liking hoping the new voices would side with them and those who disagreed might lose interest. To be honest, it seems pretty chaotic. I like the legal system a lot more where you have a non-partisan neutral judge who is an expert in the law and is supposed to give decision based on the law, work on specific time constraints and limits on the amount of material submitted and the relevance of that material rather than this chaotic free for all that is very partisan that seems to keep going on as long as anyone doesn't like the result... That said, I guess I need to respond yet again...David Tornheim (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) (struck word "partisan" per request by Atsme here and my response here. My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
• As you can tell above, I am frustrated this was re-opened. However, there may be some value to that. I have done some more research and learned some more things. I carefully read the WP:BRD, and see that I misunderstood it and that Kingofaces43 (talk) interpretation is more correct than mine, that it is indeed okay to revert without going to the talk page. I did go to WP:TEAHOUSE, WP:ADOPT and Wikipedia:Co-op and utilized all three as recommended above. As I said above, partisanship seems to be compromising the resolution process. It seems Jytdog and his supporters want me punished/warned and Jytdog to not be punished/warned, and my supporters want Jytdog punished/warned and me to be off the hook. (struck word "partisan" per request by Atsme here and my response here. My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)) From looking at what Jytdog wrote here, it looks to me like both Jytdog and I will be willing to admit responsibility for the problems between us if the other does the same. I will be willing to go there if: either:[reply]

(1) neither of us is punished

(2) or both of us is punished/sanctioned/warned equally.

It would be grossly unfair if one was sanctioned and the other not sanctioned. That will only infuriate the side that loses and cause more drama down the road. I am hoping there is a way so that we can all be on the same "side". This does not need to be a "war" or a "battlefield". (struck word "partisan" and suggestion of "sides" per request by Atsme here and my response here. My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

SO INSTEAD I PROPOSE THIS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES HERE:

(1) Everyone who has been partisan stops adding material and arguing with each other, including my supporters (<<<THANK YOU!)and Jytdog's supporters:

Kingofaces43 (talk)

Dialectric (talk)

Guy (Help!)

The Banner talk

Viriditas (talk)

SandyGeorgia (Talk)

SylviaStanley (talk)

Capitalismojo (talk)

Atsme☯^Consult

petrarchan47tc

RexxS (talk)

-Serialjoepsycho- (talk)

John Carter (talk) (struck word "partisan" per request by Atsme here and my response here. My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

(2) No new users come into the discussion except by mutual agreement of Jytdog (talk) and me.

(3) Other than Jytdog (talk) and me, only those who have shown a strong middle ground (i.e. noting problems of both parties) stay:

Lfstevens (talk), A1candidate, NE Ent. In fact, I would be okay with just a discussion between Jytdog (talk), NE Ent and me

(4) The goal of further discussion per NE Ent "is not...to sort out which of several problematic editors is more problematic than the other." Indeed. That will not accomplish anything. However, I also think that to "reflect" on behavior will not make the problems go away.

(5) Instead, the goal of continued discussion here will be to IMPROVE COMMUNICATION between Jytdog (talk) and me, using a NEUTRAL 3rd PARTY. I propose NE Ent for that.

Jytdog: What do you think? With the help of neutral third party (NE Ent) and possibly also Lfstevens, A1candidate, I think I could answer the question you asked me here.

David Tornheim (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David, there are many things wrong or just odd about what your write above. Generally, you just don't understand how this place works, and you haven't listened to the advice that people have given to you. I won't address everything, but I really object to your (again, and wrongly again) guessing about my motivations and what I will do; you speak only for yourself when you write "That {namely one of us being sanctioned and the other not} will infuriate the side that loses and cause more drama down the road." And there is no competition here; nothing here is about "winning" or "losing" and I am sorry you view it that way. I have brought up issues with your behavior; the community will decide if those are real issues or not, and if so what to do about them. Your behavior is yours, not mine. The same thing is true the other way around. All that said, if you want to talk with me through some third party - if that would help you somehow - I would be open to that, as weird as that is. I recommend that you do not try to work with A1 on that, as A1 and I are often on different sides of disputes over alt med health content. But this is not a content dispute where mediation would be helpful. The two times you have actually raised content issues at articles, we have worked through those fairly well; we don't need DR/mediation. My issues are with your campaigning/canvassing, and your following me around accusing me of COI. You think I have issues with OWN. Those are things the community can and should look at it and make decisions about. Jytdog (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really need to talk to me in such a condescending manner? That is not helpful saying "you just don't understand how this place works" and "you haven't listened to the advice that people have given to you". I have listened to plenty of advice and used it, even in this discussion. Guessing about motivations? What about you and all your claims here that I am an "activist" and that I am applying activism to the articles? While you are a self-admitted biology scientist working at a University in real life and are practicing your slanted views of the science of GMO's in the articles, and trying to convince everyone you are neutral and objective when many can plainly see that you are not? You said to me that at Wikipedia "we don't care what you do in real life". Well, if that is so, why did you bring it up? It's a double-standard.

I have not gone around accusing you of COI. You don't need to have a COI to put PR materials supporting GMO's in the articles any more than those who put Arturo's work on BP into the BP article. The people who did that might think BP can do no wrong and that everyone else who has something negative to say about BP is an "activist", a "charlatan", "crank", "Luddite" or WP:Fringe or anti-BP, anti-Oil and part of the conspiracy of the "War on Oil". If you believe the PR materials from industry are true and incorporate them, that doesn't mean you have a COI. But the article becomes slanted if it is composed of PR work from the industry. That's what I said on Jimbo's page--that the articles are slanted and pro-industry. I have never accused you of COI. I said the material is slanted. And when new users try to add material critical of GMO's I tell that that you and your colleagues will oppose addition of material that is critical of GMO's, why and how, which is telling them the truth about what happens on the GMO articles. I don't see why the users should not be informed of what is going on, why they are going to receive unreasonable opposition to reasonable proposed changes, and why they are getting allegations, threats and hints not to be BOLD on their talk pages. I think they have a right to know that when you show up trying to scare them off.

"Your behavior is yours, not mine. The same thing is true the other way around." You speak as if the two are *completely* unrelated. They are not. That's why BOTH of us are here. I have said time and time again that my behavior that you call "stalking" and "canvassing", is my attempt to mitigate the damage you do in dealing with new users. Something quite a few others have noticed as well and brought plenty of supporting evidence for. I have asked others here specifically the best way to deal with that if you or anyone else treats new users inappropriately or condescendingly or with threats of ugliness as you did early on with me, and I am awaiting advice on that. Calling it "stalking" and "canvassing" is not useful feedback. I do not understand why that is not obvious. It seems to me you think you have a right to talk to new users on the GMO articles as you please, but if I talk to the same new user, that's not okay, then it is "canvassing" and "stalking". If rather than accusing me of stalking you said, "Yes, David, maybe I was too rough on the new user. I'm sorry for that", this entire ANI could have been avoided. But instead, you got mad at me for confronting you about it and can't see that the two are directly related.David Tornheim (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) here is David's post to the teahouse, which ends with "In other words, when we see the PR materials have not only infiltrated an article but have dominated the article, is there any hope of doing anything about it, or is Wikipedia been corrupted beyond repair to be just a new kind of advertising space for various industries?" And here is the new coop project David started - a project to "deal with industry slant in Wikipedia articles." Oy... more of the same campaigning behavior. But maybe someone will give good advice. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope they do give some good advice. Back when this was happening with the BP article, and if you were as new as me and wanted advice on how to deal with the WP:OWNers of the BP article who insisted on the BP PR materials, and you knew the owners were going to drag you to ANI accusing you of "canvassing" if you tried to talk to anyone but the owners about the problem of slant, how would you word it when asking for advice?David Tornheim (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, if i were inexperienced as you, i would be way more tentative than you have been, and would hold back from drawing big, strong, global conclusions. I would go ask at the teahouse, "I think article X is messed up and not NPOV...how do I fix it?" They would tell you to WP:FIXIT - the same advice you have been given many times, which is focus on content, not contributor. Deal with actual content, one thing at a time. If you think some content is missing from an article, or some content is being given UNDUE weight, try to fix it, one bit at a time. One bit at a time. If people object to your edit, listen to what they say, ask for the basis in policy or guideline. Go read the policy or guideline, and try to understand its heart. Go back and look at the source and content under discussion, and really consider it again, in light of PAG. Let the source and PAG and what other people say, speak to you. If the objection still doesn't make sense to you, ask (really ask) more at the article Talk page.' If the responses still don't make sense, start working WP:DR, which is usually to go ask at the Talk page of the relevant policy or guideline, or relevant content noticeboard, and try to understand, and really listen to what other editors say. Once you have done all that, and the objection still doesn't make sense, use whatever next WP:DR process makes sense, to deal with that specific content. One thing at a time. If in the course of that, you find that some behavioral policy or guideline is being broken, bring that specific behavior up to the editor at his or her talk page, focused on the concrete behavior, supported by diffs (not focused on their motivations- as I have told you, we do not do psychoanalysis here, we don't speculate about what motivates somebody - we focus on concrete behavior, and actual content and sources) and citing PAG. If the editor doesn't change his or behavior, and you are able to establish a pattern of that behavior, you can bring a case here, at ANI, about that editor's pattern of behavior, concisely, supported by actual diffs showing the behavior, and citing the actual PAG that is being violated. Simple, concrete, step by step. Without all the dramatic, global language. Simple. Concrete. That is how we work here. Instead, you have charged into this topic with a very strong, glaring even, pre-existing POV on GMOs, and have thrown around these big claims around about corruption, POV, etc. in every place you can find. You are a campaigner and you have made me the target of your campaign. It is ugly, icky, and profoundly un-wikipedian. Not what we do here, not how we act here. Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

responding to this above, at 13:15, 12 March 2015. david, you alone are responsible for your behavior, as I am for mine. I am not a Big Evil Thing that You Must Defeat and we are not locked in some mortal combat. I am a human, and an editor here, just like you. Your focus on me is bizarre and is your choice, and the way you are dealing with your concerns about my behavior, is not how we do things here. And you do not understand how WP works. I and others have kept asking you to deal with actual content to which you object, instead of running around making these big global statements and trying to whip up support to Fight Evil. And again, the only two times you actually have engaged with content, we worked through it, and you saw that you were wrong. I am getting close to asking for an i-BAN or topic ban; you show no signs of respecting the community and its norms, or allowing the community to judge and act, and instead you are continuing your campaign, full steam ahead. Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC) (note what this is responding to Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I was not continuing any "campaign". I followed the advice of two users above who said I should ask my question at the forums they suggested. "I am not a Big Evil Thing that You Must Defeat and we are not locked in some mortal combat." I never said you are. And neither am I. "I am a human, and an editor here, just like you." And so am I. Where did I suggest otherwise? You are imagining things. Talk about ascribing motivations to others. "making these big global statements and trying to whip up support to Fight Evil." I am not trying to fight "evil". I am trying to deal with the case where the WP:OWNers of the article, lead by you are unreasonable. the only two times you actually have engaged with content, we worked through it, and you saw that you were wrong. That's not true and you know it. We talked a number of times, and nearly every time you rejected anything I suggested adding using the same reason you almost always do, it's written by an "activist" organization. Therefore they should have no voice. Anyone who criticizes GMO's can't have a voice. So then, all you can get in the article is things filtered through the people who support GMO's. At some point we need to go to RS and/or NPOV forums to address that. I don't know enough about those forums to do that at this time. Anyway, this discussion is not productive. All you do is lodge more allegations as you always do. More intimidation and I'm really tired of it. I hope neutral moderators can see how difficult it is to try to talk to you. David Tornheim (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the links to the two actual edits that you have made. Two. And on the other stuff, your words speak for themselves: "in other words, when we see the PR materials have not only infiltrated an article but have dominated the article, is there any hope of doing anything about it, or is Wikipedia been corrupted beyond repair to be just a new kind of advertising space for various industries?", teahouse and see the difs and what you said in them, in my original post, way, way above. Really, go read them. Canvassing, campaigning, from day 1. This thread is about your behavior. It is not about content. You are not dealing with how bad your behavior has been - you just keep making excuses for it - and you keep doing it, even today at the Teahouse. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and you alone are responsible for what you do. Just like I am for my behavior. As always, I will be happy to discuss content with you, at the articles and their talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - David Tornheim, I joined this discussion as an uninvolved editor, and have never collaborated with you to my knowledge. I have collaborated with Jytdog, and will admit that we have not interpreted policy the same, but that does not make me partisan against him. The only partisanship I have or have ever demonstrated on WP is to WP:PAG, particularly to policies that affect BLPs. Your list gives the wrong impression of me as being partisan to a particular cause or editor, and I imagine others on that list may feel the same or similar. Please remove or strike my name from your list. Atsme☯^Consult 12:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Atsme☯^Consult: Sorry. Thank you for the feedback. You are correct, "partisan" was the wrong word, is far too charged and an unfair description of your participation and that of others. The idea of two sides is also equally problematic. I especially regretted my use of the word "partisan" shortly after I posted it and have since contemplated how to fix it to convey what I meant in terms of why resolution of the conflict between Jytdog and me would likely go smoother and be less charged if just NE Ent was mediating it without further evidence brought in and without new conflicts between various people who have entered the discussion making it even more complicated than it already is.

For simplicity, I will strike the reference to both partisan and sides. I thank you for your input into the discussion and apologize for using an unfair negative label to describe you and others.David Tornheim (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David Tornheim. I wasn't asking for an apology, and will humbly accept the one you volunteered. It was an extremely nice gesture considering a strike would have been adequate. I hope my typewritten words didn't sound harsh, but if so, I apologize to you. Happy editing! Atsme☯^Consult 20:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Jytdog I've been meaning to ask you to provide evidence for your categorization of me as "anti-GMO", or correct your initial statements to reflect your mistake, lest this branding follow me around WP masquerading as fact. You are now the first and only person, both online and IRL, to refer to me as anti-GMO. You already apologized for doing this at BP, when you became the only person to ever call me an environmenalist, but no lesson was learned. As Core suggested a couple years ago, "I strongly resent [Jytdog's] effort to pigeonhole editors in this fashion, while he in effect positions himself as a kind of Kissinger-like mediator who is the only fair party here." petrarchan47tc 19:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petrarchan. First let me say that I am sorry that David's canvass of you woke up all these old conflicts. I don't want to extend this already too-long thread, so I posted a response on my Talk page (you asked me not to post on yours, I think) Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have highlighted cases where I challenge industry slant in GMO articles, your control over GMO articles (with your thousands of edits), and where I show that the idea of "scientific consensus" has been called into question. None of this can be construed as having any idea as to my personal view on GMOs, but rather my view about NPOV on WP. I haven't come to a personal conclusion about GMO's, so I am sure that there is no evidence proving I have. If you want to categorize me as "anti" industry slant, I accept. But no, I am not anti-GMO. I am pro-NPOV. WP readers come here to read about all sides of the story, but instead we are engaging in censorship, as Atsme mentions above re MEDRS. The first time I heard of MEDRS was when I attempted to update the Monsanto article here, and was quickly reverted by you. At the noticeboard you suggested, I am told that MEDRS prevents this addition. MEDRS is meant to protect readers from bad medical advice - but in this case the only ones protected are Monsanto stockholders. Your opinion seems tethered not to WP rules, but to how GMO's and biotechs are described to the reader. I have observed that you use drama and bullying to distract from this fact (David's talk page is a good example). I hate that people have to deal with this, but I don't hate you, as you claim on your talk page. :) petrarchan47tc 00:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs on my page are plenty clear as to where you come from. MEDRS is about health, not just medicine, btw. And that Seneff article you wanted to add, that I reverted, that was shot down dead as pure flake science. As long as you keep wanting to push that kind of content into WP you are going to be frustrated. I am sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deny having an anti-GMO stance and ask again for you to strike that claim. From your edits previous to the above, I see you are ambivalent about how to avoid responsibility for your ad hominem label. First you decide it is about "scientific consensus" and compare me to Nazi'sWP:REICHSTAG(?) here. Then you decide that I had baited you and you are not taking the bait here wisely removing the Hitler reference. But you can't help but compare me to Nazi'sWP:REICHSTAG(?), so it comes back in here. Then you decide that the reason you can't be held responsible for name calling is that I am here to "right wrongs" and predict the future. here. An hour later, that all has to go, and you conclude these are not the real problems, that the real problem is that I'm helping Atsme with "conspiracy theories" and "Fringe" theories. here. petrarchan47tc 09:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC) (amended by Petrarchan47 in this dif, but changes were made without redaction marks; I showed redaction. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Errm - nowhere were you called a "nazi" and I strongly suggest you retract that accusation. I take it you are not familiar with WP:REICHSTAG? It has nothing to do with nazis. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REICHSTAG has just as little to do with Nazis as it has to do with Wikipedia. It is a joke essay and has no reference to this discussion. However, the Reichstag building is associated with Hitler's rise to power. I'm not sure how you know what Jytdog meant by his comment, nor why you seem to speak for him and, along with his other buddies, fight his fights. Your participation here and at J-dgos' talk page does little to help your friend fight the accusations of WP:GANG behaviour and bullying. Indeed, it exemplifies them. I will correct references to Nazis and assume that I misunderstood his motivations. I doubt that I will receive the same treatment for my simple request. petrarchan47tc 20:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

writing screeds on jimbo's page has been linked to that essay many times. i referenced it myself in my response to David's continuation of your most recent post on his page. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the level of cheap-shotting (citing comments I over-wrote as my thoughts/feelings evolved) and sheer ignorance, all twisted up into a self-destructive angry ball is typical and makes me sad every time I see it. it is just sad. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

would an admin please close this thread? it is just devolving. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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