The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination pages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015.

For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

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

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

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

Edit March 10, 2015 (added 5 more diff's below)

• So not to get lost in the long discussion. QuackGuru on this page made another more serious harassing post towards me on my disability here. This is an ongoing pattern.
• Another link to the section in comments to discredit me diff
• Another link to the section in comments to discredit me diff
• Another link to the section in comments to discredit me diff
• Links to the old AN/I section and misrepresents the nature of it to discredit me. diff (note: 4 difs added by AlbinoFerret in this dif and this dif today Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

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

So the first dif is "User:AlbinoFerret claims "You have not discussed one edit in the 19k characters you inserted."[1] But I did discuss sources User:AlbinoFerret deleted.[2] The response was "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[3] That is not a specific objection for excluding relevant information. User:AlbinoFerret is not here to improve this page IMO. how is deleting numerous reliable sources improving this page? QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

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

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

• This comment "WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless" by User:AlbinoFerret makes me wonder if a topic ban WP:Boomerang would be useful though. See how consensus is that WHO is one of the best medical sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bringing concerns to a noticeboard is what they are for [4]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Block for QuackGuru

Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret

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.[21][22][23][24][25] AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] AlbinoFerret claims "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[34] 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]

• 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]

• Oppose The editors who want AF banned mostly seem to be involved in a content dispute with him, and some of them look to be pushing their own point of view pretty hard. I had a look at everyone's block logs and QuackGuru seems to be a serious problem editor. Instead of being turned into a witch hunt against AF I think this should return to the question of what needs to be done about QuackGuru and those who support him.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @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]
    • @BMK: WP:DBAD — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfiniteBratwurst (talk • contribs) 11:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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]
        • I didn't cite anything. I idly wondered if there was a WP:DICK, because you're being one, and guess what I found? Now maybe you could stop with the childish sneering and personal attacks, and try saying something constructive.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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]
              • I can't wait to see you prove that.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • 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 [35] -- 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]

• 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 [39][40] 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 [41] (just as Mallexikon showed QG did with GERAC, which you were one of the only editors to grok). Except: AF explains [42] (supported with diffs) that the passage they wrote was originally sourced to a different source [43] 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. [[44] 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]

• 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:

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

Thanks, I wanted to try to keep it as condensed as possible, but I normally don't tinker with tables here, so I didn't think of that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder why you left Cloudjpk's data out? They have 112 edits (80.576% of mainspace edits) to e-cig articles and 176 edits (100% of talk space edits) to those articles talks. In total 83.965% of Cloudjpk's edits have been to e-cigarette articles. Significantly more than even AlbinoFerret. SPACKlick (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit count cool was acting really wonky when I tried to search Cloudjpk's history. It essentially said the user had no edits whatsoever yesterday, which I knew was incorrect. Today it looks like it is working now. No idea what causes that, but I've heard to tool can act funny sometimes. I've updated the info on my post and made the minor change to BMK's table as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved in the articles, but not to the extent the raw numbers show. On average it takes 4 or more edits on a comment for me to get it right. I seldom make a perfect edit or comment and leave. Any view of the histories will show this. I think that numbers only tell part of the story. AlbinoFerret 22:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not "involved" in the articles, you are ***INVOLVED*** with the articles. Articles on e-cigarettes make up the first (Electronic cigarette - 466 edits, 55.47% of your total article edits), second (Safety of electronic cigarettes - 82 edits, 9.7%} and fifth (Legal status of electronic cigarettes - 23 edits, 2.7%) in the list of articles you've edited most, making up a total of 67.97% of your article edits. The list of article talk pages you've edited has Talk:Electronic cigarette as #1, with 1641 edits, 69.35% of your talk page edits, Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes as #2 (293, 12.38%), Talk:Legal status of electronic cigarettes as #5 (72, 3.04%), for a total of 85.08% of your talk page edits (that includes 7 other edits on the subject in archives.)

These numbers -- 67.07% of article edits and 85.08% of article talk page edits -- most certainly live in SPA territory. It's clear what subject you're here to edit, and crystal what your position is on it. That's the "obvious advocacy" that several very experienced editors have commented on, and that's why a topic ban is appropriate. BMK (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your label as a SPA. I tend to post more to articles I'm interested in, nothing strange there. Your raw numbers tell nothing and I disagree with the spin. I would also like to point out that slightly over half of my editing is on talk pages. Discussing and trying to make the articles better. If you take into account the number of edits I make to a specific edit or comment, it isnt that large. You seem to have some attraction to this section, and seem to post an awful lot here. AlbinoFerret 01:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My calculations show that AlbinoFerret has made over 2890 edits on the topic of e-cigs to talk pages (or noticeboards) since 30 September 2014—over 17 talk-page edits per day for 164 days. That is beyond enthusiasm and is unhealthy for other editors, particularly in a contentious topic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those were to the same comment or edit? How many editors you are comparing me to are disabled and sit at their computer because they cant easily leave the house? AlbinoFerret 01:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: If QuackGuru cannot, and should not, bring up your physical status in his arguments, then you, also, should not cite it as a mitigating factor -- not that it makes any difference, really. Presumably you have the same difficulties while editing an article or talk page on e-cigarettes as you do when editing an article or talk page on some other subject, so the percentages I cited above, which are not "raw numbers" -- 67.07% of article edits and 85.08% of article talk page edits on the subject of electronic cigarettes -- have nothing whatsoever to do with your physical state. Please don't bring up that red herring again. BMK (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats wrong, QuackGuru made harassing statements about my disability. But its a fact of life, one you obviously dont want discussed because it shows that your numbers have no basis for comparison. What you have are large numbers and innuendo. Please point me to the policy or guideline that speaks on the number of posts one is allowed to make.

They are raw numbers because they dont take into account the number of edits I make to the same comment or edit. Your comments are bordering very close on harassment if not going over the line by trying to say that my physical status has no bearing on my editing here. It is something you cant possibly have knowledge of.

Number of posts do not equal advocacy. AlbinoFerret 02:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not understand percentages? Unless you edit e-cig articles differently than you edit all other articles, the numbers are not raw, they're relative to your overall output. BMK (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ignored this, I will ask a second time. Please point me to the policy or guideline that speaks on the number of posts one is allowed to make. Number of posts do not equal advocacy WP:ADVOCACY neither do percentages. AlbinoFerret 12:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, percentages are a good measure of advocacy (and SPA) by showing that an editor is focusing too much on one topic. Using a percentage would account for your tendency to make copy edits and simply show what area you edit the most relative to your total contributions here. There's really no arguing with those numbers. Physical disability should be playing no role in this specific conversation because it should not be making you focus so much on one topic like this. It's one thing to have a lot of time available (which we've discussed on my talk page), but it's that your time is concentrated into one area that is the problem people have repeatedly brought up here. Maybe you're not seeing that, but BMK is actually being pretty well reasoned above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I am editing an article that is interesting to me, and that some people want me to edit other articles more. Where might I find the policy or guideline that says you must edit x number of articles? I dont think editing articles that dont intrest me is something that should be forced. When I find a subject I find interesting, I edit the article. But I think you are misapplying advocacy. Advocacy isnt posting to much to one article. AlbinoFerret 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a break, AlbinoFerret. A lot of my edits consist of correcting my own typos or copy editing my own comments to make my thoughts clearer. That is common. But any objective uninvolved editor can look at the totality of my edits, and they will conclude that I am a generalist editor. Then, they can look at the totality of your edits, and they will see with crystal clarity that you are here to advance a certain point of view about e-cigarettes. Please do not try to deny what is obvious to any intelligent objective person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they show I post a lot. I have been editing Bitcoin for a month and have made 216 edits to the page and talk page. About 7 a day, when I am interested in a topic, I post and discuss it and try and improve the article. I am not here to advance a specific point of view on e-cigarettes, and the number of posts doesnt prove that. (added afterwards - This no intelligent person is starting to sound like No True Scotsman argument) AlbinoFerret 02:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not interested in marginal topics like e-cigarettes and bitcoins, so I don't feel like reading this megillah. Can you show me a link where QuackGuru harassed you about your stated handicap? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, its easly found under his topic with plenty of discussion on the topic, but you can find it here. AlbinoFerret 03:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bugs: See the section above this. My synopsis: QuackGuru make a remark that he absolutely shouldn't have, was roundly criticized for it by editors from all sides, and got warned by an admin who told him if he did it again he'd be blocked. The End.

Oh, wait a minute... the e-cig and fringe science advocates seized on it as a sideshow to distract everyone from the proposed topic ban against AlbinoFerret, inserted a new section calling for QuackGuru to be blocked above the topic-ban section, out of chronological order (so innocent editors would come across it first) and have been trying their best ever since to whip up a frenzy to block QG, not only because he is one of the stalwart editors preventing fringe science from infecting WP, but because it helps keep people from focusing on the topic ban necessary to prevent AlbinoFerret from continuing his advocacy for e-cigarettes. Up there (the section above) is a sideshow, down here is the real deal. BMK (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru's comment was rude and condescending, and shouldn't have been said. But it's possible he's thinking back on some users we've had who claimed to be handicapped (ItsLassieTime comes to mind) and it was one of that prolific sockpuppeteer's many lies. So it's not unreasonable to have suspicions like that. But it's best to keep those suspicions to oneself until or if an appropriate time arises. However, disabled users shouldn't expect any special treatment, and in fact they probably ought not even bring up the subject. "TMI". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's better for people to keep unsavory information like that in the closet.^[sarcasm] Or, wild idea, we could afford people with disabilities reasonable accommodations (as is done in many civilized places to varying degrees) and not be dicks to them, including not engaging in "disability policing". --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about keeping "unsavory" information "in the closet". It's about not using one's handicap as an excuse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, AlbinoFerret didn't bring up his disability in such a way as to suggest he should be excused for anything. If I recall correctly, QC did bring up AFs disability, and did it in a manner that was intended to discredit AF, distract, and wave a red herring like a giant flag at a sporting event. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that, that's just an example or scenario that can happen and it's why users ought not be bragging/complaining about their handicaps. QG seems to have seen something in Ferret's comments that suggested he might not actually be handicapped, and the memories of abusive users like ItsLassieTime may have overwhelmed QG's good sense at that point. There are better ways to explore that question than QG did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what happened when it happened. QG did it to discredit AF. What's more, AF has never "bragged" about having a disability. It doesn't matter what QG saw/thought/or had a memory of. His comments were beyond the pale and WAY out of line. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, AF has been mentioning their disability in what appears to be justification for the editing habits not too far above. [49]. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a reminder, this section is about imposing a topic ban on AlbinoFerrett due to his obvious advocacy in the 67.07% of his article edits and 85.08% of article talk page edits on the subject of electronic cigarettes. BMK (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ignored this above, I will ask a third time. Please point me to the policy or guideline that speaks on the number of posts one is allowed to make. Number of posts do not equal advocacy WP:ADVOCACY neither do percentages. But since you like percentages, the edits above that QuackGuru posted to try and show a problem account for only 0.02% of my edits to e-cigarette articles.. Those edits were reasoned, discussed, and not the product of advocacy. AlbinoFerret 17:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban. Even assuming that AlbinoFerret's conduct is not advocacy, the edits linked above and conduct in this discussion suggest that some distance from this topic may have a healing effect on someone with a lot of energy and dedication to give to editing Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban as a clear example of persistent advocacy. Moral support for whoever has to read all the way to the end of this whole huge mess of a thread. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban, for a month at minimum, for advocacy and so that AlbinoFerret can move on from this and contribute to the project. All the time we are wasting arguing here is time that we are not spending helping Wikipedia expand. Based on his actions and the personal attacks made over this, I don't think that AlbinoFerret can contribute in a neutral way to the E-cigarettes article, for now at least. Iwilsonp (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (involved editor) Originally i intended not to comment, because the pile-up of involved editors was already bad. But now it seems that i have to: By !voting to topicbanning AF, on the premises presented, we are creating an environment where editors will not dare to disagree with editors like QG, no matter how wellfounded the arguments to disagree are, or how little QG actually responds to good faith objections on the talk-page. We are also sending the signal that: Do not dare to only edit areas that you are interested in, because you will get banned. Do remember that being an SPA is not against policy, being interested in a topic is also not against policy..... Because no matter how we slice and dice it, the main argument here is not that AF is breaking our editing policies, or his POV, but instead that he is not conforming to some editors view of how multifacetted you must be to pass the bar. This is not the encyclopedia that anyone can edit anymore ... it is the encyclopedia for people who conform to certain characteristics. --Kim D. Petersen 11:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nor do I. I see one editor being threatened with a ban for doing stuff that isn't even against the rules, while another gets (yet another) slap on the wrist for serious breaches just because some admins agree with him. If anyone deserves a block here it's QuackGuru, who has a long record of bad behavior and shows no willingness to change.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've only been here since December. How do you know anything about someone's alleged "long history" of anything? Unless you used to edit under a different ID? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason as I know about things that happened before I was born: Because I can read. It's not hard.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have no more than 100 edits in your two-plus months here, many of which appear to be advocating for e-cigarettes, I assume the rest of your time here has been to try to figure out how to get rid of a user who stands in your way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assume what you like. I don't care.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as an affirmative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you like. It's not like it matters to anyone except you.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep telling yourself that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some kind of point or do you just enjoy wasting electrons?--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

You might check this out There is a bug in the visual editor. One of the reasons I stopped using it was because it was so buggy on my Linux distribution. If you look at the history instead of doing a date to date search, each of those edits comes up with the "Visual editor" tag on the edit comments. There is nothing between those tags, its basically a tag and another closing tag with no text. This is a AGF problem, nothing between the tags, and it the result of a bug in the editor, but right away jumping to negative motives. AlbinoFerret 19:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something interesting. If we accept for the moment, for the sake of argument, the premise that "involved" editors, from both camps, are too prejudiced to cast a !vote in a neutral fashion, then we should look more closely at the opinions of the presumably uninvolved editors, the ones who have no or very few edits to the e-cig talk page.

As our data source we can Use Kingofaces43 list above, and add to it the four !votes which have been posted since: Mendaliv (0 edits), Opabinia regalis (0), Iwilsonp (0) and Kim D. Petersen (780). We throw out all the high-numbered editors, which leaves us with thisL

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

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

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

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

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

KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret

Community authorized discretionary sanctions for Electronic cigarette articles

Proposed: The community authorizes discretionary sections for all articles related to electronic cigarettes, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working within this topic if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to: page banning, topic banning, semi-protection, pending changes protection, or blocking any editor so warned. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.

• Support as proposer, and thanks for Hasteur for the verbage. This dispute has devolved, and would benefit from some extra attention to get it sorted out. DS should expedite this process, and, in my mind, is sorely needed. HiDrNick! 20:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does Hasteur support this too? I would think so, given that he edited it for you, but I would like to check. Iwilsonp (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. Sorry, I should have been more clear. I just cribbed his wording from the Gamergate community sanctions. I didn't intend to imply his endorsement. HiDrNick! 21:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as this is not the solution to the ongoing deletion of reliable sources. Admins don't need this to topic ban an editor anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as proposed, as E-cigs are in any case a contentious enough subject that this kind of dispute is liable to flare up between another few editors (not just QuackGuru and AlbinoFerret) in the future, and this would let an admin deal with it without this sort of mess all over ANI. Iwilsonp (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Although I suspect it will end up at WP:RFAR before it's over. — Ched :  ?  22:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unfortunately this is unlikely to lead to anything substantial. There are a number of WP:SPA or near-SPA accounts involved and this would only limit the time needed to address issues, but the problem would still remain. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The proposed discretionary sanctions could be avoided with an immediate block of QuackGuru for multiple counts of disruptive behavior in the above sections. If discretionary sanctions are authorized, it is likely that QG will look for a new topic area to disrupt and antagonize a new group of editors before being brought back to this noticeboard, as has happened countless times in the past. -A1candidate 22:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We have proof of meat puppetry among these articles. We know that the e-cig manufacturers are unhappy with the medical community's position on the known and unknown health effects and safety of e-cig. One advocacy group has contacted my university to attack me personally. We need to make sure that we uphold high quality sources. Not sure if this will make that easier or harder since some involved are using throw away accounts / SPA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have proof that AlbinoFerret, or any of QG's perceived opponents, have engaged in meat puppetry? Most probably not. -A1candidate 22:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - I only recall discretionary sanctions being put in place by ArbCom, I can't recall a solo admin or the community doing it. Can someone provide a precedent where the community placed discretionary sanctions on a subject? (Not that the lack of precedent necessarily means it can't be done, but it would certainly make it easier to stand up, should this receive a consensus.) BMK (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Oppose per CFCF. BMK (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This seems like a fair and even-handed way of preventing egregious misbehavior at the article. The really good thing is that it will deal with all the culprits.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - if editors misbehave despite warnings, then uninvolved admins can sanction them anyway, right? -- so what does this add? Is it a way of saying "don't worry, sanction as needed, it won't be seen as controversial"? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 14:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. For example, without discretionary sanctions (DS), administrators lack the authority to topic ban editors, and may only block editors in a limited set of circumstances outlined in the blocking policy. Once DS are authorized, administrators are given much more latitude to enforce community norms around a particular topic. Furthermore, sanctions placed under DS cannot be undone without a clear community consensus (or a motion of the Arbitration Committee), while ordinary blocks can be lifted by any involved administrator. I think that about sums it up. HiDrNick! 14:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - There have been too many threads about electronic cigarette, and community discretionary sanctions will work as well as ArbCom discretionary sanctions to get a few contentious editors off the article. If the community doesn't do this, the ArbCom eventually will, because this will eventually go to the ArbCom if the community doesn't impose general sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Robert McClenon's arguments above. I still think that ANI is a fine place to bring clear, well-formed cases for anything related to these articles, but these sanctions should help calm things down. Good thinking! Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it can only improve the environment. All too often things are reremoved or readded without discussion, and discussions are being ignored or answered with non-arguments. And i'm not talking about a particular "side" in this. If the article is to be improved, then it will require editors to cooperate, and seek consensus, instead of acting on their own, and a strong oversight may just force editors to do so. May end up in some blocks/bans - but if that is what it takes, then that is the way forward. --Kim D. Petersen 02:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering based artcles that he routinely watches. This is behaviour that was previously addressed by a Request for comment in 2012.

Since that time, Wtshymanski has continued to systematically revert any and all edits made by IP address editors. Many are vandalism (no problem), but many are good faith edits. There are far too many examples to document here, so I have restricted examples to just those from the past three weeks.

17th Feb

IP edit: [50]

Wtshymanski revert: [51]

This was a good faith and basically correct edit. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds of being 'ungrammatical and out of place'. It could easily have been made gramatical and was exactly where it needed to be.

18th Feb

IP edit: [52]

Wtshymanski revert: [53]

This was a good faith edit and technically correct. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds that the output is not light despite infra-red often being described as "infra-red light" as indeed it is throughout the rest of the article. Further: infra-red light emitting diodes are described as precisely that - "light emitting diodes". The revert actually made the article worse because it no longer told the reader what the 900 nm output is (could be an electrical signal for example).

25th Feb

IP edit: [54]

Wtshymanski revert: [55]

The article was PRODed by Wtshymnski. The IP editor challenged the PROD by deleting it as he is perfectly entitled to do. WTS simply reverted the deletion doubtless because he believes that IP address editors should not be allowed to challenge PRODs even though they are. (The WP:PROD procedure clearly states that a PROD is aborted if the tag is deleted and it must not be rePRODed.)

25th Feb

IP edit: [56]

Wtshymanski revert: [57]

The IP editor's edit must be assumed by the WP:AGF policy to be a good faith edit, there being no evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, WTS has, characteristically not assumed the required good faith by reverting the edit as 'vandalism', and has done so by copy-pasting back an old version of the article (intermediate edits preventing a stright 'undo'). In his haste to revert yet another IP address editor, WTS also pasted back a spelling mistake and a 'coauthors' parameter to a CS1 template which is deprecated. Thus WTS corrected one error but reintroduced two.

2nd Mar

IP edit: [58]

Wtshymanski revert: [59]

Again a potentially good faith edit from an IP address editor . Once again, WTS makes no pretence at assuming that the edit is good faith and it is dismissed as vandalism. Another editor, Andy Dingley independently made the same point on Wtshymanski's talk page. Nothing can be inferred from the editing history as the IP address resolves to a college in India so it is anybody's guess how many real users are behind it.

It is known that Wikipedia is always wanting to recruit productive editors for the project. Inevitably, many potential editors will start as IP address editors before creating an account - provided they find the environment welcoming. Wtshymanski has long held the view that IP address editors should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia and has said so (see RfC referenced above for more). This may be Wtshymanski's view but it is known that it is not the view of the project and Wtshymanski has no right to impose his view in the face of the project's

IP address editors can be productive and offer quality editing to the project. Deliberate wholesale reverting such edits does not provide the welcoming environment, that such editors need if they are to be encouraged to staty.

As evidence: a quick scan produces this IP address's contributions [60]. This editor has made good quality contributions on UK parliamentary procedure; seems to understand the subject and the contributions have been well referenced. I suspect this may be an experienced editor, but if it is, I have not been able to link the address with any other or an account. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with DieSwartzPunkt The diffs shown, show the removals called vandalism and they're not, further when he's challenged by a non-ip user, he's been letting the edits stand. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18 Feb IP edit was absolutely correct and Wtshymanski revert is an error, because what it emits is light (everything that involves photon is light). Some part of the entire light band is visible, but other invisible parts are also called.

I agree with DieSwartzPunkt's observation for all other instances too. – nafSadh did say 17:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the point in this ANI post? Is this an "incident"? Maybe. What administrator action is desired here though?

Once upon a time we had WP:WQA and WP:RFC/U. Neither of them were likely to be effective (WP:Requests_for_comment/Wtshymanski wasn't), but at least they were an attempt by WP to have a means of resolving such issues. Admins won't act over such issues - it would involve making value judgements about other editors and that never happens. Even when it's not a popular editor who can rally their clique of supporters.

WP needs to restore WQA, RFC/U or something else in that line. This ANI post won't achieve that much though. Wtshymanski will, as always, back off for just long enough to dodge the bullet (see the RFCU closing comments) and then will be back, just the same as before. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not proven The accusation is:

"Wtshymanski is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering-based articles that he routinely watches." (typo and punctuation corrected)

and, doubling down, just in case we might have thought the meaning was open to interpretation:

"Wtshymanski has continued to systematically revert any and all edits made by IP address editors." (emphasis was in the original)

But a quick perusal of the history of each of the pages diff'd above will show many edits by IPs that were not reverted by Wtshymanski. Therefore the claim of "any" is specious. Some were let stand, some were reverted by others, "others" not excepting Andy Dingly and DieSwartzPunkt. There are also many edits by IPs that were reverted by W. with completely defensible reasons and edit summaries.

Perhaps W. is too quick to assume that IPs' edits are wrong. (From my own experience, given the number of IPs' edits I've corrected that were wrong, this would not be an unreasonable bias on W.'s part.) I believe AD and DSP are similarly too eager to find fault with W.'s edits, and this patently absurd accusation of "any and all" is a result. Jeh (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"many edits by IPs that were not reverted by Wtshymanski."

So because he didn't get all of them, his behaviour over the ones that he did revert should be discounted?

This isn't about Wtshymanski reverting anon edits. It's about his assumption that for any anon edit he reverts (frequently a justified revert) he assumes that it's deliberate vandalism, and he assumes this because of who made it, not the quality of the edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This isn't about Wtshymanski reverting anon edits." That's odd, because that's exactly what you DSP said it was about. If it's really about his over-use of the vandalism charge, then you DSP should have said that from the beginning. And then every one of your DSP's your diffs needs to show an edit summary by W. with a demonstrably unjust accusation of vandalism, or they don't support your position. If it turns out that a clear majority of W's edits to IPs' edits do not include an unjust accusation of vandalism, your case gets rather weak. Jeh (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeh, I know that you're just about the only friend Wtshymanski has round here, so it's not surprising that you've rushed to defend him. However please actually read this post first. I didn't raise this. I haven't posted any diffs, so I don't know which diffs you're complaining about. Mind, it would have to be very blinkered to not see the problem with what he's doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct you are. I missed the correct attribution among all the rest of the periodic Wtshymanski pile-on. I have edited my above accordingly. But as for your "I don't know which diffs" claim, there is only one set associated with the complaint. So I think that if you were to hazard a guess as to which diffs in this talk page section I'm referring to, you'd either be correct, or you'd have to pretend to be a complete idiot. And we all know you are not that, so please drop the "I don't know what you're referring to" act. You're smarter than that, and I'd thank you to assume that I'm smart enough to not buy it. Jeh (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that Wtshymanski had allowed some IP edits to stand, but failed to provide any diffs. In the short discussion that I had on this at Wtshymanski's talk page, he made the same claim. He then obliged with a single diff that supported that position. But he had to go all the way back to 2007 to find it. There are examples of IP edits being allowed to stand, but as they are obvious corrections of errors, reverting them would be vandalism in itself (though as in case four above, that is not always an obstacle). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. You took that "2007" bit seriously?

So. "There are examples of IP edits being allowed to stand." Your words. Doesn't that rather contradict your accusation? Do I have to quote it yet again, to remind you of what it was? Do you understand what it takes to disprove a universal claim? It takes one counterexample. One.

The first diff above is from DC motor. From the first page of 50 edits, working from the bottom (I am not counting IP edits that were clearly vandalism, either reverted by W. or otherwise):

[61] IP made stylistic wording changes to picture caption. W. did not revert.

[62] vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else.

[63] IP wikilinked Hybrid car. W. did not revert.

[64] IP made minor grammar correction. W. did not revert.

[65] vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else.

[66] minor word correction by IP. Nobody reverted.

[67] vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else.

[68] vandalism by IP. Rv by Wtshymanski.

[69] IP added redlinks. Rv by Andy Dingley.

[70] vandalism by IP (added blank lines). Rv by someone else.

[71] vandalism by IP. Rv by ClueBot.

[72] vandalism by same IP as above. Rv by ClueBot.

[73] vandalism by IP. rv by someone else.

[74] vandalism by IP. rv by ClueBot.

[75] vandalism by same IP as above. Rv by someone else.

[76] IP removed a blank line (non-rendering edit). Not reverted that I could find.

[77] Wtshymanski edit. Unrelated to previous IP edits.

[78] vandalism by IP (blanking). Fixed by ClueBot.

[79] IP added an ungrammatic sentence: "It has very high starting resistance so that it would use in that kind of equipments which needs a very high starting torque." Wtshymanski reverted with comment "out of place unclear and ungrammatical" (this is the rv DSP complained about).

[80] minor grammatical correction by IP. Wording improved by me.

Counts:

19 edits by IPs total (I am counting successive edits by the same IP, with none intervening, as just one).

11 of these were vandalism. Of those, ONE was reverted by Wtshymanski.

6 were good edits. Of those, W. reverted NONE. Two of them were significant changes to content.

1 was a good faith but erroneous edit, reverted by Andy Dingley.

1 was what I would call "legitimately problematic". Wtshymanski reverted it. Yes, it could have been improved.

It seems clear to me that W., far from reverting "any and all" edits by IPs as you accused, was far more selective. He in fact reverted only one of 11 IPs' vandalism edits, one problematic edit, and none of six good edits. I would say that the evidence from this article, one of those you complained about, refutes your accusation rather soundly. The evidence does not even support a claim of "W. erroneously reverts most IP edits", with or without an accusation of vandalism. (I would also say that it shows there is ample reason to view IP edits with a particularly skeptical eye.)

But you are the one making the claim, so you are the one who should be providing complete summaries of recent diffs. Not just a few cherry-picked examples. Jeh (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is non-evidence. 12 edits were reverted by others. That proves nothing except that someone beat Wtshymanski to the punch in each case. Even Wtshymanski presumably sleeps and works from time to time. As already stated, Wtshymanski usually does not revert an edit, if it leaves the article wrong (6 edits). And the last 'legitimately problematic' one, is similar to case 1 of this complaint. 'It could have been improved'. Yes, and Wtshymanski is as capable of improving it as anyone else, but if the edit had been left, someone would have improved it.

I have not 'cherry-picked' evidence as you claim. I have listed every IP address revert since 17th Feb. If I had provided a 'complete' list of sumaries as you suggest, this ANI would still be being compiled. But this was stated in the original complaint. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, I provided the diffs you asked for, and you moved the goalposts. But then you want to stick by the original complaint? The original complaint was:

"Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering based artcles that he routinely watches. "

That has been disproven (with great ease, just as most generalizations can be). You listed "every IP address revert since 17 Feb"? And you found a grand total of five? W. has made 'prox 700 edits since 17 Feb. So less than 1% of W's edits in the last three weeks were reverts of IP edits that you think were unjustly described as vandalism? You're going to have to find much more compelling evidence than that.

"If I had provided a 'complete' list of sumaries as you suggest, this ANI would still be being compiled." So you can find a few examples out of several hundred edits, not mention that they're picked out of seven hundred edits, and you think that makes your case? This has all the earmarks of a witch-hunt. Makes me wonder if the evidence in W.'s other ANI, etc., cases, at least the ones brought by DSP, AD, and GM was as tenuous? Jeh (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "problematic edit" by the IP (severe grammar problem) was the one you listed. Yes, it could have been improved. The fact remains that W.'s revert of the IP's edit left the article better than it had been after the IP. So we have a justified edit by W., and your complaint is that he should have done more. Got it. Jeh (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, above you asked (?) what the point is. I think you or someone should ask for something specific. I looked at W's block log and this seems to be an annual affair (that somehow skipped last spring). The first block for this in 2012 was a day; the block for this in 2013 was a week. There is a clear pattern of the same behavior continuing, which is a violation of AGF and is DISRUPTIVE. So you should propose a longer time-limited block (say 2 months?) or perhaps an indef. It would probably take community consensus for either, and this is indeed the place to propose that and get consensus for it. But in the block proposal you should make a good, concise, ANI-ready statement of the case, if you want it to succeed. That is my advice anyway. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have better things to do than to read and memorise Wtshymanski's block log. If he has been formally warned not to behave just like he's doing here, and he's been blocked for doing it previously, then I'd agree that it might be useful for an admin to follow that precedent and act accordingly. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You questioned whether this was an incident. With the demise of the RfC/U system, the only avenue now available to address user's behavioural issues is here at ANI (and the defunct RfC/U procedure says so). If nothing happens as a result of this, then I can only assume that the admins are granting open season on reverting other editors' posts. That may not be there intent, but it will certainly be the message. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would only ask that the admins look at the pattern of behavior here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Wtshymanski hammering his personal knowledge into articles again
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User Wtshymanski refusing to follow the merge procedure when merging articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Unilateral redirects without merging as stated in edit summaries - User:Wtshymanski
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive683#Request for admin attention re: proposed deletion of multiple electronics components articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive690#Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive138#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Floydian .28Result: Stale.29
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Power factor
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive257#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:85.255.233.193 (Result: Protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive172#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: declined, semi-protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive149#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:24.177.120.74 (Result: page protected)
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive103#Wtshymanski and the transistor AfDs
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 7#Talk:PSR_B1919.2B21.23Merge

Please note that some incidents that would no doubt have ended up as blocks ended up instead as page protection because Wtshymanski's latest opponent (typically a new user) behaved worse, so the block log does not tell the whole story.

Also note that when Wtshymanski faces the possibility of sanctions, he typically does not defend himself but instead stops editing for a while. The old "he hasn't edited since X, so nothing to do here" trick works every time -- his RFC/U was closed with "Considering that Wtshymanski has not edited since 16 May 2012, no immediate administrative action appears required". Please don't fall for it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy's post above underlines a very major problem. The administrators are (unwittingly) exacerbating the problem. A running feature in the long history of these behavioral disputes and complaints is that whenever the administrators decline to take any action, Wtshymanski regards it as an endorsement of his attitude and behavior towards other Wikipedia users. I have lost count of the number of times, that some editor has criticised Wtshymanski on his talk page only for Wtshymanski to respond that his attitude has already been taken to ANI (or wherever) with no action and therefore it is acceptable [to the admins]. This was covered as long ago as the 2012 RfC/U. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Found it!

[In response to a complaint on his talk page] "... and yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest." - Wtshymanski

• again, DieSwartzPunkt and Andy Dingley you have presented a bunch of evidence, which is great. But just coming here and making a complaint about a pattern of behavior generally leads no where here; the discussion will just go on and on and will eventually peter out as everyone gets exhausted. If you want something done you should make a concrete proposal for action Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's DieSwartzPunkt who posted this, not me. I have no expectations of ANI ever acting usefully, so wouldn't have wasted the ink. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well there is self-fulfilling prophecy if i ever saw one. OK I will do it, just so I don't have to watch this follow the sad pattern. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for what action is required? Wtshymanski's battleground attitude to other editors (both registered and anonymous) has been going on for several years. Guy Macon's very comprehensive listing above is testament to that. What is required is some action to force Wtshymanski to co-operate with other editors in the manner that Wikipedia intend. This means either a series of escallating blocks until he falls into line (though this has not worked so far). Alternatively, I would suggest the proposal that was made at the 2012 RfC/U, where a set of rigourously enforced sanctions be applied against Wtshymanski. There was a good list discussed here which would be a good starting point. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Since I neither reproposed the option 2 nor added a vote of support for it, what exactly is your problem? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2: revert restriction

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from reverting an edit without a content based edit summary. In addition, they are prohibited from referencing the original editors lack of registration status in the summary.

• Support addresses the specific concern without unduly interfering with editing of the encyclopedia. NE Ent 23:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. As I indicated with the examples I gave in User talk:Wtshymanski#rv V ?, it can be very difficult to figure out who was reverted and why from Wtshymanski's edit summaries. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's a completely valid concern, and goes with the "content-based edit summary" requirement, but I don't see how it's related to "can't refer to anon status". Will the WP default edit summary for reverting an IP edit be changed for Wtshymanski? Or will he be required to remove it? That would seem to me to make it even harder to figure out who was reverted. Jeh (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is (often but not always) removing the standard "Undid revision X by Y" (which does not refer to a users registration status, although you can infer it if it list an IP) now, and instead using edit summaries such as "rv anon v" that do refer to a users registration status. Leaving in the default edit summary would not violate this proposed restriction. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. First, this proposal is not matched by a specific complaint that the proposal will address. (Which btw is why the following lengthy screed is here under my vote, instead of in the "discussion after complaint" section where it belongs.) DSP's original complaint was that W. reverts "any and all" IP edits; that is obviously false. Subsequent discussion was all over the place, but I don't see any specific complaints that are complementary to this proposal.

I suppose we can infer that the goalposts have now been moved the complaint has been changed to "W. frequently does not provide content-based edit summaries, and refers to IP edits disparagingly in edit summaries." But no evidence has been presented to support those complaints. A report of an "incident" here is supposed to be supported by diffs that are clear illustrations of the problem behavior. The only clear evidence here is DieSwartzPunkt (talk · contribs)'s five diffs, but those were originally compiled to support the "W. reverts any and all IP edits" complaint, not this. But those are all we have. So, taking them in order:

• 17 Feb: Edit summary of W.'s revert was content-based ("out of place unclear and ungrammatical") and did not mention "lack of registration status" outside of WP's default summary for a revert of an IP edit. (Re the quality of the revert, though that does not seem to be anything being addressed by this proposal: I would note that "high starting resistance" does not sound like a positive attribute for any electric motor under any circumstances. Granted that W. could have reworded instead of reverting, W's revert nevertheless left the article better than the IP's edit did.) Score: Zero support for the supposed complaint.
• 18 Feb: This is the "not visible so it's not light" revert. I agree that W.'s revert was a mistake, but the edit summary was content-based ("IR not visible") and only used the WP default wording for a revert of an IP edit. Score: Zero support for the supposed complaint.
• 25 Feb: This is the "restored deleted PROD" case. In this case W. did write "rv anon". But the WP default summary text was also present, and it also shows that the edit being reverted was by an IP. Score: one for "edit summary not content-based" but I cannot see that this unduly refers to an "anon" editor, not when WP's default message does the same.
• 25 Feb: This is the "unijunction transistor" case. W.'s edit summary is "rv anon v". Granted that this is not "content-based", but how much do we have to "content-base" a summary to defend a rv v?

DSP writes "The IP editor's edit must be assumed by the WP:AGF policy to be a good faith edit, there being no evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, WTS has, characteristically not assumed the required good faith by reverting the edit as 'vandalism'".

But the "no evidence to the contrary" part of that assertion is absurd. Changing "unijunction" to "junction" in one place in an article titled "Unijunction transistor", and which has the word "unijunction" all over it, is pretty tough to assume to be an honest mistake. It is, rather, sadly typical of IP drive-by petty vandalism. If the IP thought the correct word was "junction" then ie should have made the change everywhere. Hence "rv v" is justified, and no further "content-based summary" is required. Score: No support for either supposed complaint. You may not agree with my conclusion, but I don't think you can say that I have no case at all. At worst, it's arguable.

n.b.: I have adopted the pronoun "ie" as a parallel to "he" or "she", to be used to refer to IPs of unknown gender.

• 02 Mar: This is the "two phase electric power" edit. Edit summary: rv v with WP standard rv of IP text. The IP changed "90" to "180". On first glance this too could be seen to be an honest mistake, since the very common split phase power used in the US has a 180 degree phase difference. But this edit was in the "this article about" section of a SeeAlso, contrasting the 90-degree "two phase electric power" with split phase power. Moreover, there's a nice diagram in the lede, which clearly shows a 90 degree phase shift; and 90 degrees is also mentioned in the lede text. The IP didn't change any of that. Further, the IP's edit history shows a clear pattern of petty changes, nearly all of which were reverted. DSP says that the IP locates to a college in India, so there might be several different people using it and no conclusion can be drawn. I would agree if there was a pattern of mostly good edits. But not here. If the IP is being used by a group of people, then it's a group of people who collectively are vandals. I would also argue that expecting an editor to do a geolocate on an IP is an unreasonable length to expect anyone to go to. It looks more to me like a desperate quest for a reason to AGF, despite evidence to the contrary. No, "rv v" is appropriate and sufficient. Score: No support for supposed complaint.

So in my opinion, only one of those diffs clearly supports the complaint that I'm assuming this proposal addresses, with one or at most two more arguable.

But even if all of them supported the complaint, do not, by themselves, demonstrate a general pattern of problem edit summaries by W. They show five edits, for which DSP apparently had to scour W.'s edit history for the last three weeks, a period during which W. made over 700 edits. Proposers need to provide evidence showing that these are more than isolated cases.

Furthermore, I really wonder how many other editors' history would stand up to this level of nitpicking? I also wonder how many of W's past AN/I and other cases were made on equally flimsy grounds?

Lastly, regarding "prohibited from referencing the original editors lack of registration status" part: When you revert an IP edit, WP automatically supplies a default summary of "Undid revision (number) by (IP address)". Are we going to require that W. change that? If not, how does the word "anon" call any undue or disparaging attention to the anonymous nature of the edit being reverted? If you do, do you really want to require W.'s reverts to not reflect the IP of the edit being reverted? That would only make it more difficult to figure out who was reverted and why, a result Guy Macon (talk · contribs) could be expected to object to, based on his statements above. Jeh (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have to agree that the proposal above is too broad given the context. I am about to support the proposal, but with a scope restriction. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeh - so your thesis here is that Wtshymanski's categorisation of these reverted edits as "vandalism" was correct?

Both of these edits (unijunction transistor and two phase power) were (to agree with Wtshymanski) ignorant and careless. They were obviously contradicted by the articles themselves, so any "careful" editor, not even a subject expert, should have had cause to question them. However a vast number of our IP editors on electrical topics are Indian college students with the confident ignorance of undergrads worldwide and an oddly (but obvious) Indian fixation on somewhat obsolescent electrical topics (I don't know what their biomedical students are learning, but their electrical engineers are taught about what the West tends to regard as museum pieces). I would lay money that these edits came from either an Indian technical college, or a bulk ISP such as BSNL. Look at synchronous motor and the perennial factor-of-two numerical errors introduced over "poles" and "pole pairs". We are waist-deep in this garbage and as someone who reverts far more poor edits to electrical topics than even Wtshymanski, I'm sick of it.

However ignorance and piss-poor teaching still isn't vandalism. Per AGF, none of us are allowed to treat it as such. As WP editors we are required to display infinite patience with clueless edits against basic common sense. Wtshymanski is no longer doing this. To be honest, I can't blame him for it. We should forgive it. However we shouldn't (as you're doing here) construct convoluted excuses for why it's "correct" to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"so your thesis here is that Wtshymanski's categorisation of these reverted edits as "vandalism" was correct?" Yes. I said so. I don't think I was at all unclear. Personally I am often a little more hesitant to use the "v" in an edit summary for an IP's first edit and first mistake (e.g. the "unijunction" edit). But with the pattern seen in the history of the IP of the "two phase electric power" edit? That seems very clear to me.

Your thesis is that I'm supposed to AGF even when an edit is of a pattern very commonly used by petty vandals, even when it's from an IP with multiple previous similar edits. I think that, and your requirement of "infinite patience", is absurd. That is an absolute, a universal, and I see no support for such in WP:AGF. Please note that WP:AGF begins with a disclaimer: "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." A requirement of "infinite patience" is not at all "common sense", particularly not when the encyclopedia is being damaged repeatedly from the same IP.

I don't think I used "convoluted excuses" either. I think that was done by the apologist who noted that the IP locates to a school and therefore the IP's history of other erroneous edits is irrelevant. How is that idea consistent with WP's use of schoolblocks? Hey, in our effort to bend over backwards while touching our toes to AGF, why don't we just always assume that even if an IP goes to a private home, different family members might be using it, therefore an IP's history is always irrelevant? r-i-g-h-t.

Assuming I agree with your position here (I don't, particularly the "infinite patience" part): How do you reconcile "I can't blame him for it - we should forgive it" with your support for DSP's "reworded" proposal below?

Even if we accept that both of those edits were not v., there still is no evidence for a pattern of problematic edits. DSP says he went back three weeks in W's history and found two AGF failures. Oh my ghod, the sky will fall. Again, I ask: How many other editors' histories would stand up against this level of nitpicking? I think DSP is just a little too eager to bring ANI cases against W. Jeh (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"with the pattern seen in the history of the IP"

What "pattern"? They've made a dozen edits in total. This year they've made the two phase edit and a self-reverted. Neither of these are vandalism and there is no pattern of vandalism from them. Even Checkuser regards IP data as stale after three months, but you're seeing a pattern of confirmed vandalism from it.

Do you believe in some form of demonic possession? Do you think this router has become inherently evil, and so any editor connecting via it is now forced to turn into some sort of vandal?!

Your failure to accept AGF as applying to IPs is as bad as Wtshymanski's. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah? Feel free to bring an ANI case if you think you can make it stick. Jeh (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More constructively: If incorrect use of the "vandalism" charge by W. is what you're really concerned about, why not make a Proposal 3: "Wtshymanski is forbidden from using 'v.', 'vand.', 'vandalism', or other similar accusations of vandalism in edit summaries"? Now, as I said, even if I accept those two IP edits as not-vandalism, there is still a failure to make a case that these are anything but isolated incidents. And I think that, although a few incidents of of AGFFailure could be worthy of a warning from an admin, any long-term restriction on editing behavior needs far more proof. But at least this is a nice clean proposal with clear boundaries for what is and isn't being proposed. If you do this, be sure to make the new proposal separate from the others, unlike what DSP did. Jeh (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with reword : The scope is too broad as it apparently attempting to address issues not raised here as Jeh observes. My support would be for a sanction worded, "A prohibition on reverting any edit from an IP address editor. This includes any that are vandalism". The latter because Wtshymanski labels good faith edits as vandalism. Any genuine vandalism will get swept up by others in the usual way. To be enforced by escallating blocks if breached. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : One, I call a procedure violation. This is not a "support with reword"; in particular, this is not a "reword". It is a different proposal completely. You need to make a new proposal for this. (Should the closing admin assume that the previous "support"s apply to your new proposal? Why? They're for a different proposal, one that still allows W. to revert IP edits, among other differences.)

Two, I guess now the "problem" has morphed into "Wtshymanski's reverts of IPs' edits are bad, and Wtshymanski labels good faith edits as vandalism". Let's see: Out of the five diffs you posted, only two showed W. accusing of "vandalism". Re the article content, those were completely justified reverts. And in each case there is completely sufficient reason to not AGF.

That leaves two actual problem reverts by W.: One was a revert against policy (restore PROD after IP deleted it). In talk page discussion W. made clear that he was surprised that IPs were allowed to block PRODs. The first time I ran into that, I was surprised too. The other was the "IR not visible so it isn't 'light'" revert, which is a factual error on W's part, not related to reverting of an IP nor to any accusations of vandalism.

But even if we accept those, that is still only two problem edits in three weeks. You haven't shown that such problems only occur when W. reverts IPs, you haven't shown any unjustifiable charges of vandalism, and you haven't shown that any problems that are demonstrated by these edits are anything but isolated incidents.

And your attempt to cast it as a "reword", attempting to roll "support"s for the original proposal 2 into "support"s for this, is particularly egregious. Jeh (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - but don't these "restrictions" apply to every editor anyway? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What are you supporting? The original Proposal 2, or DSP's so-called "reword"? Jeh (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In concept. Decent edit summaries are a "best practice," not something that's generally enforced; this would make them enforceable. That's why it's not an unreasonable measure. NE Ent 10:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the reworded (and it is re-worded) restriction. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 11:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but take to ArbCom - User:Wtshymanski is seem to not understand WP:IPHUMAN, which concerns a lot of new users who decide to make some edits logged out before making an account. However, I don't think ANI is the place for this, consider taking this to WP:ARBCOM. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the reworded restriction. This kind of wholesale reversion is the worst kind of WP:BITEy behavior. @NE Ent and Guy Macon: could you two please weigh in and indicate if you support the reworded restriction as well, or exclusively what was originally proposed? HiDrNick! 20:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What "wholesale reversion"? Five reported reverts in three weeks? Only two of them factually invalid? Jeh (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the original (not reworded) proposal. I wanted to stay completely uninvolved, but the user convinced me at their talk page that the topic ban is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I nee no proposal for a "topic ban". What "topics" is W. to be banned from editing? Jeh (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of action it continues...

8th Mar

IP edit: [81]

Wtshymanski revert: [82]

This was a challenge of provided information by asking for a supporting reference. The IP editor did not use the correct {{citation needed}} template - most likely due to inexperience as this is the IP editor's first edit. Wtshymanski just mechanically reverted the IP edit as usual. He could easily have been helpful and inserted the correct template, but driving away IP address editors is more important than being helpful. New and inexperienced editors often need to be assisted to become good editors. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. A proposal with only one oppose !vote, and that one from someone who appears to be OK with siding with Wtshymanski in a content dispute where there are zero citations supporting Wtshymanski and where the chairman of that IEEE 1159.1 Power Quality Measurements wrote a paper specifically to correct Wtshymanski‎'s claim.[83] This should be interesting. I will make some popcorn. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? I didn't side with anybody in that content dispute. I watched it, but I didn't express an opinion either way. Recently, I just asked a question, a considerable amount of time after the dispute at the article page (unless it's still going on; I haven't looked for a while). But either way, the question was just for my information, not meant to "side" with anyone—if I'd wanted to do that I'd have done it at the article talk page. And anyway, what does that have to do with anything here? Does the fact that I was unclear on how PF is calculated and what negative values would mean make my arguments here less valid? Come on, Guy, you're better than that. Jeh (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. You spent the entire thread attempting to rubbish everyone else's observations on the matter and attempting to justify what Wtshymanski was doing. You even tried to claim that Wtshymanski's actions in some cases were due to his ignorance of the subject in question. Like when you tried to claim that Wtshymanski might have believed that Infra-red light wasn't light. Wtshymanski is sufficiently familiar with the technology to know that 'LED' stands for "Light Emitting Diode" and that 'infra-red light is as much light as any other variety. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, DSP, posting carelessly is completely within your rights. But when you do so, you should keep in mind that everything I posted is right here for everyone to see. When it is so ridiculously easy to show that you're off base, I really have to wonder what your motivation is.

There is no support here for a blanket charge of my attempting to "justify what W. was doing". (You have a real problem with speaking in generalities; do you realize that? Do you understand what the problem is with making such claims?) I pointed out that in a couple of the whopping total of five diffs you'd provided, W's. reverts were justified. I pointed out that the five diffs you posted did not support your accusations, that the behavior they did show would not be countered by the various proposals, and that the proposals did not match up with the accusations. Nor did I try "to claim that W. might have believed that Infra-red light wasn't light." I wrote "I agree that W.'s revert was a mistake". I later wrote, referring to the same edit, "which is a factual error on W's part". Get your facts right.

I even suggested a proposal that actually would fit the complaint - W. would be forbidden from referring to "vandalism" in edit summaries. Did you miss that?

You may be thinking of my comment re. the revert of the IP's deletion of a PROD. I was thinking of this comment by W.: [84] Now, maybe I am naive for interpreting that as honest unawareness of the rules—I don't think so, since W. rarely lifts a finger to answer critics; I can't imagine him lying to do so, that would be too much trouble—but it wasn't something I just dreamed up. Jeh (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeh, with all due respect, I believe that the record shows that I have been bending over backwards to give Wtshymanski the benefit of the doubt, convince him to engage in a serious discussion about his behavior, and to recommend the minimum level of sanctions that I think will reduce the ongoing disruption to the engineering articles. My perception of your approach is that your are a staunch defender of Wtshymanski, that whenever anyone posts a criticism that is flawed in any way you dissect it analyze it in great detail (which is good), but when a criticism hits home (my response Wtshymanski's continued snarky comments about how right he is about negative power factor despite the reams of citations showing him that he is wrong, for example), you go silent and move on to your next talking point. In my opinion, you are an advocate, not someone who tries to support Wtshymanski when he is right (as he often is) and criticize him when he is wrong. Nothing wrong with that, of course. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I am glad you posted that. I was working on a lengthy reply to the thread over at W.'s talk page when he blanked it (as he is wont to do). Now I have another place, a better place, to put it. But I have real work to do today, so I'll get back to this later. For a short answer, though: I see many things wrong with W.'s behavior; it is just that there are so many people eager to bring AN/I cases against him that it seems superfluous for me to mention them. Meanwhile, it is puzzling to me that you read me as an "advocate" when I don't think I've done much if anything beyond calling for hewing to the standard you called for. Jeh (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make good point, and looking back at my comment I see that I was too harsh and aggressive. We are clearly both here to improve the encyclopedia, and I apologize for my tone. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jeh (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still no action and the problem continues

13th Mar

1st IP edit: [85]: 2nd IP edit: [86]

Wtshymanski revert: [87]

This was a case of two for the price of one. Wtshymanski got to revert two good faith edits from two different IP editors at the same time. The first IP added a co-creator of BASIC to the article. A definitely good faith addition because it was entirely correct. The second IP linked the added name to the Wikipedia article (so also good faith). Wtshymanski, in less than an hour, reverted both edits. He was more interested in reverting the IP edits than whether what they had added was correct. Had Wtshymanski, followed the added link to the Wikipedia article, he whould have discovered than not only that Mary Kenneth Keller indeed had co-created BASIC but that it was reliably and verifiably referenced. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put a fairly strong warning and I feel that the next revert should result in a block. Since I am not involved (in fact, did not hear about this user until today), I will have no hesitation to block them myself, but of course any uninvolved administrator can do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now someone objected me at the talk page, got me involved in the discussion, and I can not be considered as uninvolved any more.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Info on Sister Mary Kenneth Keller (PDF). --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Some action at last. I have taken the liberty of copying the reference from the Mary Kenneth Keller article to the BASIC article so it is unreferenced no longer. It should not have been necessary for someone else to do this, as Wtshymanski could easily have been helpful to the newbie IP editors and done the same. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found yet another reversion of a good faith edit that was perfectly valid. But since the edit was made before the warning was posted to Wtshymanski's talk page, I shall demonstrate some good faith and let it go. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have admin eyes on the issue, so I think it is time for me to stop commenting and let this either be closed or time out and be archived. I still think that some admin should look at the totality of Wtshymanski's behavior (ANI was touted as the replacement for RFC/U, after all) instead of playing Whac-A-Mole as a slow but steady stream of ANI complaints are filed. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:06, 14 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.

• 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:

• [88] David adds content, removed due to sourcing issues by Jytdog.
• [89] David reverts content back in " please do not undo without presenting your reason on the talk page. "not accurate" is not a reason"
• [90] Reverted by Jytdog asking, "per WP:BRD please do not edit war, but rather open a discussion on the Talk page."
• [91] 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."
• [92] I reverted David's 3rd revert asking him to justify his new addition on the talk page at this point.
• [93] 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 [94] 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.[95][96]

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:
• [97] <---Bullying?
• [98] <---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.

• [99] <---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..... [100]. How is that revert not an abuse of the guideline to control article content?
• [101] <--- 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) [102] 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. [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108]

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 [109]. 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, [110] 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.[111] 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]