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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollie231213 23:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollie231213 23:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ollie231213 23:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollie231213 12:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See earlier ANI thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheNorlo

This user has referred to me as an Idiot here and a moron here. And than refers to me as a troll here. This makes it clear that he and User:FergusM1970 are referring to me [29].

This user is a WP:SPA who only edits material regarding electronic cigarettes [30]. They were previously warned about edit warring here and were at ANI for incivility here [31] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to User:AlbinoFerret.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&curid=42877829&diff=637458479&oldid=637418234 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "remove pure health related claims from a page on regulation". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=637569001&oldid=637568901 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "the specific adverse effects are medical claims and not legal in nature". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=637681446&oldid=637668408 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638529647&oldid=638526634 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=next&oldid=638536969 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=next&oldid=638606344 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638827743&oldid=638815324 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638907061&oldid=638608587 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=prev&oldid=639381769 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? Most of the paragraph is not found in any other article. So why is it being deleted when the text has nothing to do with legal status; it's just shoehorning in health claims.? Isn't the Safety of electronic cigarettes page about health claims? This is what User:AlbinoFerret deleted from another page where he stated the text does not belong.[32][33] If User:AlbinoFerret believed the text he deleted the Safety of electronic cigarettes page belongs in another article then why is he not moving it to another article? These are the facts. User:TheNorlo is a saint compared to User:AlbinoFerret. User:AlbinoFerret wrote "There was no finding of a problem with my edits even after a month." How about now? QuackGuru (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Why are you posting the details of your content dispute with AlbinoFerret at ANI? In a section about the conduct of TheNorlo?Levelledout (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] This is a behavior problem claiming the text is not relevant to the Safety of electronic cigarettes page when it was deleted the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page. User:AlbinoFerret claimed in his post above "There was no finding of a problem with my edits even after a month." I was responding to his comment. I provided evidence his edits are a problem. QuackGuru (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] An editor deleting text from an article because for instance they didn't think it was relevant and you disagreeing with them is definitely not a behaviour problem, it is the definition of a content dispute.Levelledout (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] User:AlbinoFerret claimed it was not relevant for the Safety of electronic cigarettes page but then he deleted a lot of the same text from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page. The text is relevant but he claims it should go in another article. But he did not add the text to another article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for proving all of this is a content dispute. You have taken summaries from other daughter pages of Electronic cigarette and placed them on Safety of electronic cigarette. Thats the process of creating a WP:POVFORK. If the information is relevant, it should be on the daughter page with its topic. You just dont seem to get it. The material is off topic for that page. AlbinoFerret 11:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] You deleted this. The emerging phenomenon of e-cigarettes has raised concerns among the health community, pharmaceutical industry, health regulators and state governments.[17] A 2014 review stated that e-cigarette regulation should be given consideration because of the "reported" adverse health effects.[27] For example, they found that "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that e-cigarettes contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals, such as nitrosamines and diethylene glycol, which have potentially harmful effects on humans."[27] Additionally, a WHO report in 2009 cautioned that the "safety of e-cigarettes is not confirmed, and e-cigarettes are not an appropriate tool for smoking cessation therapy."[27] "In a nutshell, the WHO report shows that e-cigarettes and similar devices pose threats to public health," said Douglas Bettcher, director of WHO's prevention of noncommunicable diseases.[41] In several countries advertising for e-cigarettes has been monetarily restricted until safety and efficacy clinical trials are conclusive.[35] Almost all of the text is specifically about safety. You have not made a reasonable argument to delete the text about safety. Rather than delete it you could of tweaked the text. QuackGuru (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed topic ban for TheNorlo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This comment you made on Dec 22nd at 13:49 is inappropriate [34]. You were encouraging the harassment of another editor. And this was after your apology here on Dec 22nd at 07:39. Also to that "apology" you later added the comment "I still think that you might be a troll". So not really an apology. This was also not appropriate [35]. You appear to be too personally invested in e-cigs and I think it would be best for both you and Wikipedia to edit in another topic area for a while. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose for what its worth. Some here claim that I edit in a POV manner but no one has presented any evidence of this. show me an actual edit that I have made on the article that shows a clear bias on my part. I dare you. I am the only one here that have admitted to be biased on the subject but I edit consciously so that I am as neutral as possible in the edit that matters I.e. the edits that ends up in the article. Again, show me where my bias as transpired on the article. As for the insults Doc James, I should not have done that, I should of said that your arguments were stupid, I should not have said that you were stupid, that was a mistake. You were saying that an ecig is only an ecig when its full of liquid and that it seased to be an ecig when its empty and therefor ecigs are drugs, that my friend is a stupid argument, espescially for a man as educated as yourself, as others have pointed out. TheNorlo (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. When User:TheNorlo was not logged in back in May he wrote "This is (Redacted) ridiculous! And they have the balls to keep removing the POV sign! There is no (Redacted) concensus!"[36] Rather than stopping this kind about behavior he has continued with similar behavior problems based on the evidence given by User:Formerly 98. He can't edit from a neutral point of view. For example, he wants to propose to drastically shorten the lede for the e-cigs article. The lede isn't especially long to begin with and the lede is readability for the general reader. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Zad68
• Wnt
• CFCF
• Cloudpk
• Yobol

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

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

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

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

User:FergusM1970

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

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

They have a long block log [37] and have had previous unblock request declined due to incivility [38]

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

Sorry what? Outing myself? As what, me?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was organized per WP:MEDMOS for a good 18 months [39]. Yes you managed to get a number of people to join this RfC through your hard recruitment. This user has since been blocked User:CheesyAppleFlake and it was closed as no consensus. Since than our WP:SPA pertaining to e-cigs have expanded in number. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paid advocacy by FergusM1970

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

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

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

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

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

My antennae go up at anyone editing Derwick Associates. [40] As an editor quite familiar with Venezuelan politics and the entire suite of POV Venezuelan articles, it always appeared highly likely that something was amiss when a non-Spanish-speaking editor engages an obscure Venezuelan lawsuit affecting a couple of high-profile people. Why Fergus was editing that article never made sense to me, and he most certainly removed reliable sources, as I pointed out in the earlier e-cig thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full disclosure

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

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

And you adjust companies articles such as Derwick Associates removing content they may not like [41]

You appear to even be willing to edit war for pay [42], [43], [44] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I assume you are paid to help people try to keep their articles [45]?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You thought it was a mess, so on your very first day of editing there, you first removed numerous reliable sources and next tried to have the article deleted. You then went on to use a government source to add original research and POV.[46] And then, only nine days after you "found it through 'random article'", you are expressing knowledge of a Venezuelan blogger and accusing another editor of socking. [47] Curious that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Also note this diff here where Doc warned me for edit warring when I'd made a single revert. This took place one minute after he'd made his own third revert[48][49][50], repeatedly restoring his preferred version in place of one resulting from an edit request while the article was locked; the article was locked again three minutes later. This looked like an attempt at intimidation.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Community ban discussion of FergusM1970

This individual has accused me of copyright violations, but after I have asked him where. He has simply ignored my questions. [57] He basically called me a liar [58] and has had a very rude tone with me in general. [59]

Ater I repeatedly asked him where my alleged copyvio's were he stated my userspace. [60]. I am sure that he knows that userspace isn't for copyright as he has fixed references on my userspace. He puts forth the claim that I am upset that articles I wrote had delete votes. [61] I have authored over 40 articles, and if someone votes to delete it, I don't take it to heart. What I find bothersome as per WP:HOUND is that this user has been going through wikipedia, editing a good number of articles that I am at, my userspace articles, and AFD's. [62] .

This is not his first issue of disruptive editing. [63] and warning to those who report him. [64] I asked that he stop following me on pages, insulting me, and editing my userpages. [65] CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will wait for an admin. I simply ask that he stops following me around. CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since no other admin has commented I will give my opinion. I think that CrazyAces has taken offense at what is legitimate criticism. I think that Mr. 86.2.216.5 may be in the right but despite that should be the bigger person and avoid CA as much as is reasonable to do. If neither of you object I would like to close this discussion. If not then I will take that to be an indication that administrative action is desired. Chillum 10:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I object to CrazyAces489 characterization of following him around, let alone on many pages. He managed to come up with 5 pages we had in common, two of which were drafts listed at DRV which I frequent and have done so for a long time, if he wants to avoid DRV then that's fine, but I'm certainly not going to feel bound to ignore stuff listed there due to the authorship, nor making tweaks to obvious minor problems with the articles like citation style. The other two are not articles, but deletion discussions related to the DRV, so same there. I'll also note his main gripe of me editing his userspace is somewhat peculiar, since as I noted I've been gradually chipping away at the cites for two months without a word or problem. It's only now that I point something out he's all in a flap about it, I'll contrast that to other similar things from DRV like Honour (film) which in part is back in main space due to the effort I put in, the original author of that is flapping around shouting the odds. That all said, as I said many paragraphs ago and this could easily have stopped then, but has just continued to be poked at "If it helps I will voluntarily agree not to bother trying to fix the articles in your userspace." And with that it's Christmas and I'll be away for a few days, so have fun --86.2.216.5 (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His "help" has come with relatively rude comments to me on "AFD's." I am again asking an admin to speak to him about these comments to me. I wold prefer he NOT follow me around Wikipedia. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it is not likely this is going to get an admin response. I see nothing wrong with the IPs actions, CA needs to take criticism better. This IP has been working in the AfD areas for several weeks now and if you edit there you are likely to see this IP. Since no admin actionable behavior is happening here I suggest you two work it out of your talk pages, learn to work together or just ignore each other. Chillum 16:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I request some assistance again with respect to Vejvančický. On 13th December I had written here requesting suggestions on how to handle user Vejvančický who was repeatedly attacking me and refusing to back off despite my request. Jehochman suggested to Vejvančický to not refer to me again on Wikipedia, except to request arbitration, or to make peace. Vejvančický confirmed on his talk page that he would follow Jehochman's suggestion. Unfortunately, the very next edit that Vejvančický made after that, which was today on the talk page of an article in reply to some IP,[66], Vejvančický again has made a personal attack mentioning my name and various references of mine to again (and again) allege his allusion that the article was created (ostensibly by me) to show the subject in bad light. To the IP, Vejvančický chats up about starting an arbitration request (!!) and that these links alluding to me should be pasted on the talk page of the article for editors not familiar with the situation. I request help for some kind of a closure on this. If Vejvančický wants to file an arbitration request, he's welcome to do that. But he should, in my opinion, at least follow some decorum in the meanwhile. Any guidance to handle this will be welcome... Wifione ^Message 11:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retire. That would be the honourable thing to do. Your activity was seen for what it was a long time ago. Andreas JN466 18:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to spend time now reading the very long backstory here. The advice I gave was for that editor to ignore you, or to go provide his claims at Arbitration. If he ignored my advice, my intention was to file arbitration myself to get the issue resolved one way or the other. Since I'm too busy to do that today, I suggest you go file Arbitration and get these issues cleared up once and for all. Jehochman ^Talk 00:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wifione, your comment above, "Vejvančický confirmed on his talk page that he would follow Jehochman's suggestion" is misleading. Vejvančický actually said, "Hello Jehochman. I'll follow your suggestion ad (1)"

The "(1)" he agreed to was Jehochman's first suggestion: "(1) if you want to file a request for arbitration to desysop or ban him". He agreed to none of Jehochman's other suggestions in that conversation.

You are an obviously biased editor. Your biased editing of articles about that business and its owner and their competitors is sufficient to have you desysopped and banned from Wikipedia.

You appear to be an employee or contractor of the company: you (most likely, given the circumstances and nature of the edit, or someone else) editing from that company's network made a maintenance edit to your user page.[67] But proving a financial connection beyond doubt will be difficult. Fortunately, that won't be necessary. The blatant tendentiousness of your editing alone disqualifies you from participating here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen, Anthony, thanks for commenting. I've read your viewpoints and disagree with your views completely. I do realise the genesis of your opinions lies on another website where you've been judiciously prompted to provide this analysis. Given this connection both of you have outside our project, I don't think any reply of mine might suffice for you, although I would be more than eager to provide them to you in case you might wish. At the same time, I should thank you for taking the time out to comment (honestly, I suspect I would have died in embarrassment if no one from your group had commented). Wifione ^Message 18:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, thanks for your reply. Would take up the matter procedurally from hereon in case Vej continues his personal attacks. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 18:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Wifione closed this discussion with the comment, "Closing discussion and following this up procedurally." Well, I've re-opened it procedurally, in order to respond to this shill.)

I don't do anyone's bidding here. You do. For that, you'll be banned. I saw this mentioned on Wikipediocracy and was stunned that you weren't banned the last time this arose. Resign, or drag your client through a humiliating spectacle. I don't care which you choose. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Andrew. It's not about anyone's bidding, but your off-Wiki coordination leading unto these comments and personal attacks from you, Jayen and the others belonging to your group that are quite obvious from your off-Wiki discussions with others. Like I said above, although it might be useless for me to reiterate it given your antecedents, let me again put forward that your attacks and outing attempts are extremely misdirected. Having said that, I'll again close this discussion with the slim hope that you and your off-Wiki group would see some sense in not running down a very ludicrous path. Again, although it might seem out of character, in return to your comments above let me wish you and your off-Wiki group a merry Christmas. It's not meant to prove anything or to slight you all... just plain old wishes the plain old way. Take care and wishes for the season. Wifione ^Message 15:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone Wifione's second hatting of this section. Per WP:INVOLVED, I really don't think it's a good look for an admin to make repeated attempts to close a discussion about their own behaviour because it isn't going the way they'd like it to. It doesn't matter who started the discussion, an involved editor has no place closing it. When you bring an issue to WP:ANI, the behaviour of all parties will be examined. I'm sure that's written down somewhere, and I'm sure an admin such as Wifi should know that. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 15:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest topic ban for Wifione from all Chaudhuri related articles, broadly construed. Would solve most of the problems fairly quickly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea, and the minimum we should do really, but it doesn't address the amount of sheer deflection this guy has done, whilst an admin, to continue the POV pushing, the disappearance for months while good faith editors waited for a response at his editor review, or the arrogant disregard towards concerns. Hell, even Jimbo said he hoped the guy would just slink off quietly. Begoon ^talk

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

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

It resumed. See User:Nyn T ( Rapper ). I've blocked both accounts indefinitely now. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been my position for some time that an account in the name of a brand-name, such as a performer's stage name, is a species of advertisement for the "personal brand" they are attempting to build. Every such account I've ever seen has been used to publicize their career, either on the userpage or by creating a promotional "article" or both. I routinely block such accounts as spamusernames, and leave the usual message urging them to open new accounts without the spammy name, and to respect our rules on COI, promotion and autobiography. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There has been a content dispute regarding Mr. IP's addition of awards information for Renault car models [68] to the main article and lead.

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

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

• Incivility: accusations against vrac, Urbanoc, Warren Whyte, Mr.choppers of vandalism [69], sock puppetry, dishonesty, bias, "malevolence", bad faith (see RFC for details). Calling three of us "gangsters" and saying we should be banned from Wikipedia here [70]
• Threatening to disparage Wikipedia in the press (Mr. IP claims to be a journalist) here [71]
• Threatening to engage in sockpuppetry here [72], although I suspect Mr. IP already has this sock engaged in the debate: 193.252.173.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (another IP from France who displays strikingly similar linguistic quirks to Mr. IP).
• Canvassing for the RFC here [73] and here [74]

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

• Addendum: This is interesting, Mr. IP appears to be engaged in a cross-wiki crusade against Volkswagen, see this entry [75] on the Renault article talkpage on fr.wikipedia in September. Note the last line where Mr. IP says there is a "Volkswagate sur[on] Wikipedia", just like they said there was a "Volkswagate scandal on Wikipedia" here [76] on the en Renault talk page.Vrac (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I write on Wikipedia for several years on Wikipedia and I've never created any dispute. But since October, I am harrassed by Urbanoc, Vrac, Warren Whyte etc. Yet, all my contributions are fair and with some sources.

On the contrary of a dispute, before Vrac created a dispute here to kick me and my fair contributions away, I wrote here Portal_talk:Cars#Non-equal_treatment_of_articles_-_Vandalization : for me there is no dispute, I talk about CONSISTENCY : same rules and same structure of sections for ALL the automotive brands. That is why I cite the Volkswagen article as an example. I have no preference for any brands, I just ask that the same rules and content can be added in ALL the brands articles, with the same section order etc. I even removed a spam link from the VW article and my action has been validated [[77]]. So I do protect Volkswagen. Notice that Mr.Choppers (a friend of Vrac and Urbanoc, that I contacted to make a mediation and hopefully make stop their harassment against me, but they continued) admitted himself As for VW, there are simply a LOT of VW fans in the US as it is the only European brand with youth appeal to have been here for a long time. So a lot of VW fanboys write in English as a result, meaning lots of text added to the VW articles. And... many photos too, and for VW, height more current models photos are allowed than for Renault... Notice that saying that VW has a lot of fanboys in the US is a VW fanboy statement itself. The truth is that VW sells a little in the US (-11% in 2014, in a +8% growing market) and is not popular among young people. That is what statistics reveal.

When Vrac writes about me "linguistic quirks", it is incivility and a personal attack. I heard some racists saying the same words about an Indian man someday. Vrac also accuses another person of being a sock-puppet or something like that, so he can do what he accuses me to do, but that I did not. As to me, I just mentioned that pseudonyms are more anonymous than a precise IP addr.. It is a real possibility that one person uses several pseudonyms, not an incivility.

About : CONSISTENCY : same rules and same structure of sections for ALL the automotive brands and harassment of Renault and a few other brands :

• Urbanoc does not apply the same "rules" between Renault and VW for example. Here Urbanoc removed a photo of the Megane current model in the Renault article, stating that the photos are too numerous [78] whereas there were only 4 photos of the current models in the Renault article, but there are 3 DOZENS of photos of the current models in the VW article and in the case of VW, and Urbanoc and his friends do not remove even one photo. 8 times more photos in the VW article is not too much, but 8 times less photos in the Renault article is too much : it is inconsistent and unequal. Urbanoc even explained here [[79]] that there is a rule (?) "two images of relevant current products would be enough". Where is written this "rule" ? And why Urbanoc does not ask that his "rule" to be respected in the VW article where there are 3 dozens of photos of the current models not only four ? Such unequal treatments are not acceptable. Yet, I obeyed Urbanoc and I did not add a photo of the Megane current model. So, no I don't create any dispute.
• Here Urbanoc removes the photo of Renault Captur that is the most sold in Europe, but keeps the second SUV [80]]... Not logical... Yet there is enough space to put 2 photos.
• Here Urbanoc removes AGAIN a Renault model (that's why the word harassment is justified and proved) from a list, because he says that it is too long, but why 20 models can be cited and not Renault ? [[81]]. Why does he have the power to "decide" arbitrarily and alone when a list is "too long", and why removing Renault and not one of the others ? Notice that someone put Ford and Opel first in the list, but after these 2 brands the list is in alphabetical order... But Urbanoc did not correct that, he only removed Renault.
• Here Urbanoc wrote the typical anti-Renault rhetoric : "proved unsuccessful" or "uncompetitive" and Renault is bad, because "100 years ago it built some tanks", exactly what he added here : [[82]]. Notice that his source is unverifiable (a book that nobody could find) and on the contrary there are some historical facts that the Renault plane engine won some races and beat some speed records, so how could it be "proved unsuccessful" ?
• Here Vrac [83] removed from the Renault "is known for its role in motor sport, and its success over the years in rallying and Formula 1." Why ? It is a true information. Removing that without any discussion is to vandalize the article, isn't it ? Else what is the definition here of vandalize ? Renault introduced the turbo for the first time in F1, and won 12 engine manufacturer title and 11 drivers titles. It is fair to mention : Renault "is known for its role in motor sport, and its success over the years in rallying and Formula 1." and Vrac should have not erasing that. Notice that this sentence was in the article for a long time and that I did not add it.

I will write more proofs about the unequal treatment of the brands on Wikipedia later. I am fair, my contributions are true and sourced. I am not uncivil. And there is a real problem of unequal treatment of brands on Wikipedia. The positive informations are regularly removed from the Renault article by Urbanoc, Vrac etc. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice evening.

Frankly, the kind of edits I made in Renault and Renault-related articles is clearly visible through my edit history, so anyone can judge if I'm editing "against" Renault. The IP editor actitude has always been beligerant and he has made a lot of wild accusations he has still to prove. Urbanoc (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Native, I took a look at some of the articles you linked to. This edit from the IP range at Oggy and the Cockroaches is vandalism. We would never have that many companies listed in the network parameter for instance, and the content is a resubmission of this At Cubeez are eight consecutive edits that have zero net result followed by another two pointless edits at Fetch the Vet for a total of 10 "test" edits. Most of the IP range's edits at Henry's World were reverted, like this unsupported cat and these obviously disruptive category changes. At Mucha Lucha we find an unsourced network addition, unsourced company, a bizarre addition after the bcdb template at the bottom, but if that's not convincing as vandalism, this edit a few hours later at Dragon Tales again floods the company parameter. There was this useless edit at Zoboomafoo. I have yet to see anything of value come out of this range. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• RGloucester has the habit of claiming to be unbiased and non-partisan in various disputes, when his actions show quite clearly that this is not the case. He also regularly misinterprets Wikirules and policies, as in his attempt to close an RfC on Talk:Cultural Marxism despite being an involved editor, and then to overturn an uninvolved editor's subsequent close. [84] This behavior did indeed lead me to take a look at his contributions, to see if there were other instances of his misapplication of Wikipedia principles, which lead me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Carnation murders. As I remarked there, I took a look at the article and the sources, read the comments from other editors, and then posted a comment based on that evidence, a comment which differed from RGloucestor's view, which caused him to accuse me of vindictivemess, with the threat to "take action" against me.

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

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

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

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

  Oh I was not aware that policy mandates you to open an AfD straight after a merge discussion ended with no consensus, when you are fully aware that it will achieve nothing besides make a point. You are hoping that by complaining about the matter loud enough, you will be able to change the result to your liking, yet try to shroud this under a cloak of neutrality and a pretence of not caring about the result. [85]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I've made it abundantly clear that I thought RGloucester's conduct in regards to Cultural Marxism was dishonest. BMK, I am sure you have done the same. However continually mentioning it will not elicit a positive response, as you can see. It is up to RGloucester to see faults within his conduct. I suggest that you avoid mentioning it in the future. —Dark 01:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dark Falls: Yes, I stand corrected and will alter my behavior accordingly. BMK (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest RGloucester (Richard III's) sole purpose of late has been disruption and personal attacks with insults and condescension wherever I have encountered him. I'll list half a dozen diffs tues afternoon NYC time. μηδείς (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More hounding, eh? Not surprising. My purpose is never "disruption". You may not agree with opinion, personality, or methods, but that doesn't mean that I'm trying to "disrupt" anything. RGloucester — ☎ 17:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

In order to keep bludgeoning the process, he started to accuse me of personal attacks and copy pasted the same discussions two times in two different sections.[86][87]

One user hatted his conversation, and was told to whether change or remove the same copy pasted text. He has reverted that move at least three times.[88] [89][90] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@EdJohnston: Yes, a few weeks ago he was reminded of DS. I agree with above comments that there is issue with nationalistic editing and competence with English. On Battle of Chawinda, he is trying to prove that the battle resulted in Pakistan victory, by labeling words such as "blood bath" as "victory".[91] On Talk:Siachen conflict, he had discarded a reliable source published by Stanford University as an "Indian source which may also be subject to bias".[92] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Nawabmalhi

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

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

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

You have copied and pasted the same WP:SYNTH over and over, when each of my reply was differently written. You actually want "evidence" for your source misrepresentation? Here it is,[93] no where these sources[94][95] state that there was any "Major Pakistani victory" or even victory for that matter. Obviously you are not going to consider it at all, and continue to misrepresent sources, cast aspersions and edit war. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

They must be same because they reject your WP:SYNTH and misrepresentation? Yet you are copying and pasting the same thing. You are still doing it and even here[96] now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Nawabmalhi you are actually wrong because I have edited before RFC, see this from 2 December [97] VandVictory (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 Cavalry is just a cavalry regiment that fought another regiment, but that is not about the whole battle or both nations. "Blood bath" does not mean victory or defeat either, neither he says that it made "Indians go to UN". Obviously you are misrepresenting sources. I didn't referred results as stalemate, and some other editors did [98][99] as globalsecurity[100] states that. "Inconclusive"[101] is supported by a reliable source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban on Nawabmalhi and TheSawTooth

They cannot understand English,(WP:CIR) they have rapidly removed the issue tags[102][103][104][105][106] from the article without ever replacing with a reliable reference or solving the issue. Repetitive and repulsive argument as seen above can be seen in these diffs where Nawabmalhi makes counter allegations.[107] TheSawTooth has made an emotional response with some false accusations and incorrect acknowledgement of arbitration enforcement proceedings, he seeks for a topic ban on other user,[108] while forgetting that he was blocked 2 days ago for pretending to be an admin on the same page.[109] Their continued misjudgement of these references[110] [111][112] for promoting a 'Major' victory of Pakistan, is nationalistic and disruptive. An indefinite topic ban from the military pages about India and Pakistan would be the best choice. VandVictory (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose You have already topic banned TopGun. It is not fair to ban every one who disagrees. It is WP:BATTLEGROUND thinking. VandVictory revised the page 17 times deleting tags he should not talk of others editwar. I have not broken any rule. I do not wish to discuss or edit this page more due to these users they are acting so aggressive. Admin should read my argument and close discussion after 30days time. It does not need topic ban. Same users who give statement on TopGun case [113] have come here to ban us. Involved users can not ban other users. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• My note I was misunderstood when I was blocked. I did not misrepresent to be admin every one knows I am not admin. I was talking of admin action of Nyttend. I have not edited chawinda after I got unblock because I know this topic is under disruption. I should not be ban without breaking any rule. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose:
  • I have not made any edits to Chawinda for two days now seems like an attempt o discredit support side
  • I have already shown that I have not editwarred in any form and have given a detailed explanation above. Nor have I attempted bludgeoning the process but infact VandVictory and OccultZone have by stating nonsensical statements such as 'A calvary does not represent a country' not understanding that it was the small Pakistani 25th Cavalry that stopped the Indian 1st division(Bassically all the Indian Units) etc.
  • The proposer, VandVictory, is the only one on the page who has been blatantly edit warring from Dec 17 along with an IP address see page history he seems to be either a sock Puppet or POV pusher contacted by OccultZone as he has no association with the Battle of Chawinda and Indo-Pak 1965 war.
  • The only time I minutely came close to edit warring was when VandVictory kept adding a Collapse with the title: Misrepresenting the source which was blatantly misrepresenting with what I was saying and was tampering with what I wrote. And I thought, that editor at best could only do such thing and did not even know was before I came to the ANI.
  • Although these editor accuse me of repetitive arguements, they do it themselves, I had already answered all their allegations above and for a while they kept silent but now they have after a little while they raise same allegations again. All they're doing muckraking and doing personal attacks(OccultZone has stopped) but VandVictory is on a role
  • I am not even making any edits on the talkpage recently, and realistically neither will these 3, I think, they want a topic ban for me and now for TheSawTooth as well as, so they can discount the support side and freely Bludgeon article and successfully and wrongfully force the RFC to a Stalemate viewpoint.
  • This is a clear case of muckraking(see above) and canvassing (OccultZone was even advise not to go to the ANI) by them atlease 3 random Users ,who for some reason happen to be Indian and POV pushers with no prior conection to article, show up to the article Talk page. I just cannot see this as coincidental, through any form of logic.
  • If anything is still unclear please refer to the Nawabmalhi section where I answered these False allegations with more detail and is more comprehensive in general--Thank YouNawabmalhi (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Evident that they are unable to restrain themselves. After reading the statement of NawabMalhi and Thesawtooth, I would say that they are blaming others to hide their disruptive behavior. They are desperate to oppose own topic ban, while making the situation worse for the rest of the editors. Problematic language skills that are combined with POV-pushing and edit warring is still going to discourage editors from contributing on as many pages where they are contributing. Noteswork (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Out of interest you say there are "a bunch of accounts" and that "this is the first of many", but you link to an AN/I about one paid editor. Who are the others?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In case you missed it, my suggestion was scanning the main sites a couple of times a day and flagging any jobs that violate WP TOCs. Elance, and probably Freelancer, will delist them.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean tagging an article with something like "The editing of this article has been listed at whateverlance so good editors be on the lookout and have your pikes at the ready"? – JBarta (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a template for that yet? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whipping up yet another template is the easy part. But without some automated system, some poor sop is gonna have to manually scope out these sites and place the tags, then someone else is gonna have to remove them, blah blah blah. More problems than it's worth in my opinion. However, if someone wants to come up with some sort of automated tool that regularly scans certain websites looking for this sort of thing and place tags automatically and remove them automatically when "the danger has passed", that would certainly be fine by me. But keep in mind, the minute someone invents a lock, someone else figures out how to pick it. The end result of all this will be just as many paid editors... but they'll be harder to detect. Maybe a more practical approach would be to welcome paid editors and allow them to operate in the open. Editors have all sorts of motivations to edit here.... money is simply one of them... and not necessarily an evil one in my opinion. And if it's any consolation, the percentage of paid editors probably always has been and always will be very very very small. – JBarta (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if the specific article target isn't determinable from those other sites, then the my above post is useless. It's very possible my inexperience with these freelancer sites is showing through... I should probably talk less and read more. – JBarta (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right, nine times out of ten it's impossible to identify the specific article from what's publicly displayed. The only way to tell would be from the post-hiring discussions and you're never going to be able to see that. The client name also won't likely give you any clues. However if you flag the article using the Report Violation link it will most likely be delisted.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

So I guess FergusM1970 is blocked now. I assume he's blocked from talk as well. Fine timing. Oh well. Sayonara dude, and best of luck... – JBarta (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FergusM1970 is unblocked at the moment. What I've seen is that the talk page include Template:Paid article for clarification. This isn't policy though so that may be something to consider. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another suggestion: An article may have a mix of paid and unpaid edits, and usually unpaid ones are going to dominate. If a stigma is going to attach to paid edits - and personally I don't think it always should - marking the article seems harsh. Better to do it at the level of edits. Currently you have a check box for "Minor edit". Add another one for "Paid edit". Obviously it depends on compliance, but with the exception of doing what I suggested and screening the main freelancing sites, what doesn't? That way someone can patrol the work of good-faith paid editors.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe they could get paid to patrol them, right? Might be a nice little earner. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally if that happens I'll be the first to apply, but plenty editors spend time patrolling edits anyway. This would just involve them giving a bit more priority to those marked as paid. Then they could give the editors (who after all are good-faith ones, seeing as they're doing it openly) some help on complying with N, NPOV or whatever.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, shucks. I nearly fell for that! Darn it. Martinevans123 (talk)

Fair one. If you mean what I think you do it would be more accurate to say there's a reasonable chance they're good faith; obviously bad-faith ones could use that as a fig leaf. In that case it would be down to the editor to decide on the merits of the edit itself. If a paid editor had fixed bad grammar, obviously no problem. But if they'd just deleted all reference to a controversy it would need investigating.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or was I seeing a level of meaning you didn't actually intend?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even intend this level of meaning. D'oh! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any paradox written by a mathematician tends to baffle the shit out of me.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read that three times and still have no idea what it means. Luckily, "baffled" is a condition I've become comfortable with over the years. – JBarta (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I think "baffled" is my ground state of existence, especially where maths is concerned.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not something that is going to be decided in this venue. Admins. don't have the power to dictate such policy, and despite numerous RfC pages, Jimbo's talk archives, and various other discussions - nothing can be or will be done here. If everyone is done venting, perhaps seeking a new well structured RfC (or series of them) would be a better expenditure of time. I'd suggest closing this thread since it's not an admin incident that can be resolved on this page. — Ched :  ?  03:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes a RfC is needed. Would be useful to have some better guidance around when paid editing is blockable. Should really have posted at WP:AN rather than WP:ANI. I will look at putting something together in the new year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user keeps changing infobox image of articles without discussing the matter on talk page first. When I asked him to start a discussion first he completely ignored my request saying that I'm vandalizing his edits. I really don't know how to keep this editor in line. He doesn't even explain his edits using edit summary. I notified him multiple times to use edit summary but he blanked his talk page. I have a feeling that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Diffs 1 2 3 4 5--Chamith (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to respond to ChamithN's comment by saying that I really do care about helping Wikipedia reach high standards. I also believe that users should work together to help Wikipedia but ChamithN hasn't ever asked me politely to stop fixing the page to its correct format. and he is now trying to block me from editing, some tantrum. I know he left a comment wanting to band me, but this is me saying I care about Wikipedia and I want it to be as great as possible. I'm not asking you to band ChamithN, but please block me because of listening to his foolish comments about my style of editing. Thank You, JoyUnity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyunity (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone else changed the image - see the history of File:Meghan_Trainor_iHeart_1.jpg. They replaced the large high-res image with a very tiny crop. A crop might make some sense but such a reduction in size does not, so I've reverted it. Squinge (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At first I was being polite and I even posted a message on your talk page explaining how to use edit summary, but you completely ignored and kept changing Wikipedia's content as you please. You didn't even provide a single edit summary. And yes you are right users should work together to improve Wikipedia that's why posted tons of messages on your talk page requesting to use edit summary.--Chamith (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I think this can be solved on the talk page. As an apparently new user, Joyunity probably will make mistakes. We should try to calmly and politely steer Joyunity toward the right direction. Accusing new users of not being here to build an encyclopedia after a minor content dispute isn't really going to help. From what I can tell, nobody has ever posted to the talk page. @Joyunity: you've received a bit of feedback on your talk page about discussing edits, using an edit summary, and signing your posts. It would be helpful if you did those things. It's fine to be bold, but discussing changes on the talk page and using edit summaries are important parts of collaboration. I suggest you read our simplified sets of rules. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you NinjaRobotPirate. I think Joyunity made those mistakes because he is new to Wikipedia. As you've provided a good explanation to him I hope he wouldn't continue making the same mistakes repeatedly. So Joyunity, make sure to provide an edit summary from now on and please discuss on the talk page of the specific article before changing something like infobox image.-Chamith (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kapoork: has been edit warring at Kanika Kapoor to insert unsourced biographical details, and has responded with a personal attack when being reverted. Explanations and friendly warnings have been given, and on their own I don't think those edits are cause for action yet. But I think editing under a user name that implies this is Ms Kapoor herself is problematic, especially editing in this way, as it could bring disrepute on Ms Kapoor. (Brought here as there are several different policy issues involved). Squinge (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article nominated for deletion at AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's no reason for taking it to AfD. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks almost certain to be kept now after having been expanded with multiple sources, but I think the behaviour (and user name) of @Kapoork: still needs to be addressed as I originally asked - they are still adding their own unsourced claims (while removing sourced material). Are they allowed a to use a username that suggests they are the subject of the article without verifying who they are, and should they be stopped from adding unsourced material? Squinge (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm getting further attacks for reverting their unsourced changes. Squinge (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and please see my latest warning/request at User_talk:Kapoork#Kanika_Kapoor Squinge (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And their latest at my Talk suggests they're not actually Kanika Kapoor herself, so I don't think that username should be allowed for someone editing that article. Squinge (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for AfD in this situation was ham-fisted. We need to avoid this sort of thing and educate rather than alienate new editors. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can an administrator please look at the histories of Priscilla Chan Zuckerberg, Dr. Priscilla Chan, and Priscilla Chan (Zuckerberg) and figure out the page histories. I think there has been some cut-and-paste moves that will require an administrator to merge histories and/or rename. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that everything should be fixed now. With the exception of the fact that the article almost certainly does not meet our notability criteria and it seems a tad sexist to use someone's husband's last name as their disambiguator when they have not themselves chosen to adopt it. NW (Talk) 18:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. It seems like that page was created only to represent her as Mark Zuckerberg's wife. In my opinion that article is totally redundant.--Chamith (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that she is not yet personally notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, but my personal opinion is that she may well be soon, as a philanthropist perhaps, and it is plausible that people will increasingly search for information about her, given her family's massive wealth and influence. She is a talented, appealing young woman with the resources to make a difference. The skills of an administrator talented with disambiguation, merging several deleted articles, and evaluating emerging celebrity notability would be very useful here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just an update - I have left the a message on both Martin Hogbin's talk page [114] to clarify and asked FF-UK on his talk page [115] to clarify. If both agree, we should be able to move forward.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

1: it is not just MH but also an IP editor who reflects and supports MH's opinions. This editor is exclusively editing on the nationality issue, starting (as far as I can tell) on 30th October, so far he/she has sequentially used seven different BT WiFi hot spots, each for a few days at a time with no overlap. These IPs are 109.152.250.125; 86.145.98.85; 109.152.249.9; 86.180.32.141; 109.152.248.204; 86.129.126.155 and 86.180.33.175. In total they account for 154 edits.

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

!votes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose – infoboxes are a blunt instrument, attempting to fit what can be complex situations into over-simplified boxes. The dispute is over such a case: the prime meaning of Nationality is the legal relationship between a person and a country. In English, the same word is used in the sense of an ethnic group. Maxwell was a British subject in the legal definition of the time. While we don't know his own opinion, other sources identify him with Scottish national identity. Given the complexities, the current infoboxes are misleading and it's reasonable for them be left blank until the community agrees on improvements to the infoboxes. The proposed topic ban would stop such progress towards clarity, and give support to those unable or unwilling to provide verification of contentious article content. . dave souza, talk 11:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed and agreed voluntary binding restriction

I'd proposed a voluntary binding editing restriction for the sole purposes of deescalating the dispute, allowing fresh input, and so that the article talk page is not overwhelmed further about this infobox dispute. Both Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs) and FF-UK (talk · contribs) accepted a voluntary binding restriction whereby they shall:

• Not edit in relation to "nationality" or "citizenship" in the article James Clerk Maxwell (in particular, the infobox contained in the article); and
• Not discuss "nationality" or "citizenship" further in connection with the same article anywhere on Talk:James Clerk Maxwell.

The restriction should be:

• broadly construed - so that it applies to concepts such as "national identity" in connection with the article;
• enforcible - which is why we call it binding; and
• for an indefinite duration. A more suitable venue or method of discussion (such as article RfC to be commenced on another page) is to be agreed towards coming to a clear consensus on the issue, and at the conclusion of the discussion, the restriction will be lifted again (but we don't know how long that will be). Even though parties (and others) may be frustrated from the number of times this has gone on, this will be a final effort to resolve this issue and should provide sufficient clarity for those not involved to come to a view on conduct issues which may arise thereafter.

In order for this restriction to be binding, the community will need to formally endorse the restriction so there will be no hesitation by uninvolved administrators in enforcing this if there are breaches. Once we have that, it can be logged, both users notified, and this ANI can be closed for now. Can we please have input from the community, especially uninvolved users? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as proposer. This covers the parts both users accepted MH: "I would be happy to agree to cease this discusssion forthwith intil a suitable venue for achieving consensus is agreed." MH: "I am happy not to edit the Nationality field to 'British' until there is a clear consensus on what to do next...." FF: "I am happy to agree to accept a voluntary binding restriction on the article itself, as Martin Hogbin has done...I will not be initiating any new talk activity...." Of course, it should be understood that any other users (be it throw away IP addresses or established editors) who disrupt the talk page or the article over this infobox dispute are gambling with their site-wide editing privilleges. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DRN suggested we come here to resolve this dispute, please see the case filed there for information on the issue Here. Would just like the discussion to be closed before a breadth of new articles is created by the same user. We may need to pursue WP:Bundle, depending on the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calibre(unit), and creating all these new articles will only complicate the matter, requests to the editor to discontinue creation of these types of articles have gone ignored. Involved editors include Shevonsilva, Johnuniq, and PamD. War wizard90 (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To get an idea of the issue, see here (permalink). The close at DRN suggested WP:BUNDLE, that is, nominate all the pages for deletion in a single request. I would like a lower-tension discussion of the issues first where the inclusionist/deletionist model need not be considered. It is disappointing that another twenty articles have been created in the last 24 hours, and a discussion here might strongly suggest that further articles should not be created until the fate of the existing articles is decided. The difficulty is that the source is not sufficiently reliable to be relied on for obscure information which is not verifiable in other sources. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (after e/c): Shevonsilva (talk · contribs) is creating a large number of stubs for units of measurement, sourced to one single book in which some other editors have little faith. These include many obscure and obsolete measures, some not included in the Oxford English Dictionary. The structure of each article is that the unit is "defined" in terms of other units, unlinked, some of which are themselves of complicated and variable definition, and then a "Conversions" section which gives conversions to other imperial and metric units to a smetimes implausible number of decimal places. As a recent example, see Sarpler (before later edits by other editors). The definition is "26/9 Wey", converted to "330.21524536 kg", while Wey (unit) shows a complex situation. The same editor has added content to existing articles in an unhelpful way - see addition to "Hogshead" (presumably "Madeira" was intended?).

S/he does not comply with normal talk page convention of signing at end of comment, despite requests - is this a WP:CIR issue if they cannot understand the convention and its usefulness? (See confusing comments added at an AfD).

This mass of dic-def stubs is not improving the encyclopedia, and the editor is unwilling to pause and discuss them. PamD 23:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would also note that WP is not supposed to be an adventitious collection of trivia. Looking at these stubs, it doesn't strike me that they meet the notability criteria for inclusion. WP does not need to include reams of information sourced to a single text; at a minimum, even granting that these units are notable for our purposes, we'd want to cite several independent sources. Even if the one source is not dubious, it's not best practice to cite information from it that appears nowhere else. Moreover, one book's assertions about tens of (ambiguous) archaic units and their (supposed) values does not make material for tens of encyclopedia articles.

However, the book itself seems to be a reputable academic publication, so perhaps the information would be more at home in another article, such as this one. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author is talented ("Manager of Recycling"), but does not appear to have credentials that would make the book sufficiently reliable to introduce novel facts about units. Shevonsilva has hinted that there is more in the book, but so far it appears that each article is based solely on an entry in a table that might say, for example, that 1 wrap is 240 feet—there is no indication of where or when the unit was used, and no underlying source. I guess we will just have to make a group AfD, but this ANI discussion needs to persuade Shevonsilva to stop creating stubs until a consensus is established. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken – I was just assuming that Springer wouldn't publish total crackpottery (I don't think it would), but of course that doesn't imply that the book is correct. Taking a closer look at it, there are a few odd assertions, such as the cubic imperial units being the "chief" measures of volume in the UK, together with a table that has cubic rods and register tons, the latter of which I'd never even heard of, and there are plenty of grammatical and typographical errors. Seems Springer needs to do a better job of copy-editing and fact-checking their publications. Archon 2488 (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have just encountered this editor's contributions. At least some are simply junk: quires is an ungrammatical duplicate of quire. Shevon Silva's native language does not appear to be English, but I wonder about this Cardarelli, who first edited some book with MJ Shields, then had a later version of the same book translated by MJ Shields. Entries like Dash (unit) ‎(Total text: "Dash was a US unit of capacity used in food recipes.") do not fill me with confidence that the author has a clue what he is talking about. A dash of rum improves lots of things, but this does not make it a unit in any coherent sense. And as for Springer (assuming this is the right one!) "In 2014, it was revealed that Springer had published 16 fake papers in its journals that had been computer-generated using SCIgen. Springer subsequently removed all the papers from these journals. IEEE had also done the same thing by removing more than 100 fake papers from its conference proceedings." Amazon offers this "encyclopedia" for 153 pounds. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Propose block of Shevonsilva (talk · contribs) until the user agrees to stop making edits based on the problematic source before a consensus is formed. In the last few hours, the user has created eleven more junk articles (Bale (unit) + Breakfast cup + Bundle (unit) + Coffee measure + Coffee spoon (unit) + Dash (unit) + Quires + Salt spoon (unit) + Teacupful + Water glassful + Wine glassful). Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I have struck my block proposal as it is not needed now that Black Kite has warned Shevonsilva to stop creating articles until a consensus forms concerning the pages created so far. I intend to examine the pages in a day or two and will nominate those I think are unhelpful for deletion in a single WP:AFD. That is apparently the best way to get a discussion on what should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I have investigated several of these cases that have come to AFD and find that they all seem grounded in some genuine usage of the unit in question. For example, the dash is criticised above but that unit already appears in our existing coverage of cooking weights and measures - see pinch (cooking), for example. The work in question has a reputable publisher and, while that doesn't make it perfect, it seems more authoritative than the nay-sayers who don't seem to research the topics thoroughly themselves or consider alternatives to deletion per WP:BEFORE and WP:BITE. This just seems to be a matter of ordinary content creation and our editing policy is quite explicit - that we should encourage half-baked contributions so that something might be made of them. Andrew D. (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you opposing the block? The indentation of your comment does not make this totally clear. In any case, the issue is not really that someone has made one or two poorly worded articles on notable topics which might reasonably be improved with effort from others; it's that someone who is perhaps simply not competent is creating a large number of poor-quality stubs of questionable notability, based on one reference. Far from being a nay-sayer, I was initially perhaps too kind to the book – on closer inspection it seems to have serious problems, as Johnuniq and Imaginatiorium have pointed out. It's also possible that the editor in question is simply not here with the goal of improving WP, because for some reason they seem hell-bent on making as many articles as possible based on the content of one book, to the point of seeming like a SPA.

But as I said above, even if all these facts check out, it doesn't follow that it's appropriate for each little factoid to have its own stub article. There's no reason why such information couldn't be amalgamated into a single article, which would likely be more useful and accessible to readers. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I oppose a block of this editor as this would be quite contrary to our principles of WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:BOLD and WP:IMPERFECT. The topics in question might well benefit from further development and editing but this is normal for new work. The devil is in the details in such cases. For example, Archon 2488 says above that he has never heard of register tons and seems to condemn the Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures because of this. This seems quite mistaken because register tons are quite well-documented here and elsewhere and he may read more about the concept at pages such as gross register tonnage and ton#Units of volume. This example further demonstrates that source in question is reasonably respectable and is more authoritative than its critics. Andrew D. (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: what I was criticising was the assertion that units like "register tons" (and cubic rods, etc) were normal units of capacity in the UK. I've lived in the UK my whole life and I've never heard of a "register ton". I'm sure the unit exists (or existed), but it's obscure, at least nowadays. I would never claim to be an expert on any system of units except perhaps SI, and I am not claiming to be more authoritative than the author of this book.

The book has a number of odd statements like that, as well as being written in less-than-perfect English. But regardless, my original point still stands: I don't see why lots of arcane obsolete units each need their own article, when each of these articles consists of a dictionary-like entry combined with a dubious conversion into metric units. It's poor-quality material which doesn't obviously add anything to the encyclopedia. Far better to find out which of those units can be reliably traced to reliable, primary historical sources, and put their definitions in an article on old measurement units, rather than scattering them all over the place in a plethora of stubs that nobody is going to read. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have lived most of my life in the UK too and instantly recognise the register ton as a unit in shipping. It's quite familar and not at all obscure in my opinion but I was also surprised that editors had difficulty recognising the usage of calibre too. The cubic rod is more antiquated but it is easy to find 19th century sources which show that it was commonly used in quantity surveying contexts, e.g. The Arithmetician's Guide; House of Lords Session Paper. As editors seem to have trouble with these measures then this seems all the more reason that Wikipedia should cover them. Blocking the editor who has gone to the trouble of helping to fill in these gaps seems quite wrong. Andrew D. (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If we are going to import Cardarelli's labours into Wikipedia en masse (should we really be comfortable with the wholesale appropriation of such an exceptional work?), we should at least get his name right. Every reference I've checked is of the same form: "Cardarelli, François Cradarelli (2003). Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures. London: Springer. p. nn. ISBN 978-1-4471-1122-1." (my emphasis). @Shevonsilva: please could you correct those references? NebY (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Shevon Silva

@Johnuniq: @PamD: @War wizard90: I have repeatedly explained to refer the full source to Johnuniq. He did refer only a sample chapter of the book and based on that he asked me for references where all the references and bibligrophy list was available in the end of the book, and I have provided him on-line references too to provide the reliability of the article. He ignored any of my suggestions and continue to challenge the source without proper grounds as I could provide many other sources too.

• Without trying (being unable to do so only by accessing sample chapters) to access reference list and bibliography list provided in the end of the book, Johnuniq is incorrectly stating the fact that secondary sources are not available. (I have already provided some on-line sources too traditionally)

• Again little faith issue is a personnel idea of User PamD. He has to access secondary sources provided by the book. He believed every unit must be included in the Oxford English Dictionary which is not the case for many units as Oxford English Dictionary is a dictionary for English words and it does not cover all the English words and foreign words.In the article Sarpler, it is clearly mentioned sarpler was a UK weight for wool, and in the article way, it is clearly mentioned the unit was also used as weight for wool and it was exactly equals to 252 pounds which can be exactly converted to "330.21524536 kg".With regarding article Hogshead, I have corrected the error in the word Madeira. This addition is helpful as it is defined another additional usage of hogshead.

I will comply with the talk page conventions in future.

I have already discussed these dic-def issues in my talk page and in some relevant talk pages in relevant articles. I explained I have started the articles and additionally I have given unit conversions and some additional informations too. In future, other authors can improve the newly created pages by including further sources. This will be a contribution for Wikipedia.

Johnuniq must buy the book and go through the whole book including the reference list and the bibliography list.

Pam must understand Oxford English Dictionary is not the only source available for words.

War wizard90 must understand to suggest a way to increase the articles rather than deleting new articles without understanding the future contribution that can be provided.Shevon Silva 01:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four days ago I asked here what the book says about two example units, such as how and when the units were used, and what references for the units were given. There was no response, but elsewhere you provided two links (nuclearglossary.com for "wrap" and ceramicsandminerals.com for "Rod (Br volume)"). However, they are just websites about something else, which also list every claim about units that their authors could find—they are not sufficiently reliable to verify novel information. When modern sources aggregate facts, there is a danger that they simply echo each other. What is needed is a reference to a scholarly source with footnotes, or at least a reference to pre-1920s writing that mentions the units (how would anyone now know how many feet there are in a wrap unless a contemporary account is available?). What is needed is a commitment to stop creating new articles until the issue has been thoroughly discussed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Now I provided a response. And, you mentioned those units were not mentioned elsewhere. I provided some on-line references to prove the fact that these units were mentioned other places too. For reliable references, please visit bibliography list in the book. I never mentioned these units were used in pre-1920s. I mentioned these units were/have been used. For further references, please pursue the bibliography list of the book. Shevonsilva (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand your reply. My comment (just above, starting "Four days ago") contains the two "on-line references" so I do not know why you mentioned them, and I explained why the websites are not reliable sources. From your replies I infer that you have not seen anything about rod or wrap apart from the conversion factors—there is no indication of when or where those meanings applied, nor the context. There are no known references verifying the information apart from a one-line entry in a table providing a conversion factor. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: I was trying to provide the fact that these units are mentioned in other places as you told me that these units are not mentioned in anywhere else. You are doubting a reliable source. For your knowledge, I will provide some other articles where "François Cardarelli. Encyclopedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures" is used as a reference.

• Obsolete_Polish_units_of_measurement

• German_obsolete_units_of_measurement

• Pound_(mass)

• Unit_of_length — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shevonsilva (talk • contribs) 16:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before criticizing any book, the book must be thoroughly investigated and all the references in the bibliography list must be thoroughly pursued. Shevonsilva (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be exactly converted to any value in kilograms, because to do so would be anachronistic. The avoirdupois pound today is precisely defined by the kilogram because of an agreement which dates from the 1950s (and going back slightly further, the imperial and US customary units had been variously defined in terms of metric units since the 19th century). But you cannot retroactively apply this to a unit which existed before the metric system did; at most, you can give an approximate equivalent. The measurement technologies that existed centuries ago could not have defined a standard to that level of precision, so it is misleading and meaningless to convert it to 11 significant figures.

It's not anyone's responsibility to buy the book in order to check your sources.

I don't think PamD was arguing that the OED is the ultimate authority on units, but rather that it would be an example of what notability might mean. Generally, for something to be the subject of an article rather than information included in another article, it must be notable in its own right, which includes being well-documented in several independent reputable sources.

It's not the main goal of WP to increase the number of articles for the sake of doing so; the objective is to provide a large quantity of high-quality relevant information, and making a new stub for every obscure fact under the sun will not accomplish that. You cannot create lots of stubs and expect that other people will eventually turn them into something useful. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Archon 2488:

I never mentioned the conversion was applied before 1950s. These units were still used until very recently according the source provided (i.e. after 1950s). In that case, it is permitted to translate to an exact value as these units were used until recently and they were defined exactly based on pounds or yards.

Before arguing about the validity of a book, user must thoroughly check the sources provided in the book.

With regarding notability, again please refer the bibliography list provided by the book.

one goal of WP is to provide extensive information. I am initiating that.

Shevonsilva (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I have warned Shevensilva to stop creating these articles until a consensus forms on what to do with them. I hope blocking will not be necessary. Black Kite (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: What to do with them is to improve the article if it is necessary. I am too trying to provide more extensive information on the article and provide references to other articles too.Shevonsilva (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi&diff=prev&oldid=639442726 Funny, but not helpful. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted by Cluebot. If vandalism continues, ideal palce to report it is WP:AIV. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am not involved in this dispute, but have observed it in passing.

A new editor has recently appeared CarlThompson (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) whose sole editing contribution is to repeatedly add material promoting his company's product at PCSO-524.

[116] Original insertion.

[117] Removed as advertising.

[118] Restored by CarlThompson. Note the edit summary clearly betrays the conflict of interest as he admits that the 'facts' are approved by his company's scientific panel.

[119] Removed again as 'snake oil ad'.

[120] CarlThompson asks on remover's talk page why he keeps removing his promotional material.

[121] CarlThompson is directed to the Wikipedia policy on Conflict of interest.

[122] CarlThompson ignores the policy and restores the promotional material.

[123] CarlThompson is directed once again to the policy on Conflict of interest, this time on his own talk page.

[124] CarlThompson once again restores the material ignoring Conflict of interest policy.

[125] A new editor removes the material though does not specify why in the edit summary.

[126] Restored by CarlThompson again.

[127] Removed by a third contributor as promotional.

[128] This third editor leaves yet another note on CarlThompson's talk page.

This account is very clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but exists solely to add promotional material for his company's product in contravention of Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy (single purpose account). It is also clear that if he works for the company who makes the product and the material being added is 'approved' by that company than he is most likely being paid to add the disputed material. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the account has not been active since I (the "third editor" mentioned above) reverted him and left a detailed warning on his talk page. I suggest waiting to see how CarlThompson responds before taking administrative action. He has a choice to comply with my suggestions (to use talk pages, stop edit warring, and publicly disclose his COI), or not. No action is required if he makes the right choices. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See blokmessage on nl.wp for details. It seems the puppeteer (singular) is active here resulting in Hans Ormel and HowNutsAreTheDutch (see comments on tp). The account also adds references to the work of Ormel and his coworkers crosswiki.^{[129], [130], [131], [132](coauthor),[133], [134]} This seems to be a clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE to me. Can someone take appropriate action?

• 384400km (talk · contribs)
• JadeAnise (talk · contribs)
• Eudaimonic2100 (talk · contribs)
• Psychopomp2000 (talk · contribs)
• LotjeCat (talk · contribs)

Kleuske (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC) P.S. These may not be the only socks active. Kleuske (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleuske: If you open a case at WP:SPI, a checkuser can confirm if these are socks, and can also find other related accounts if these are related. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Kleuske (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Off-topic, borderline WP:DFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If his edits had been against Muslims instead of Jews, he would have been banned immediately and all his edits would be oversighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.232.89.186 (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Yes, because WP is part of the vast pro-Muslim conspiracy, except of course when it's part of the vast pro-Jewish conspiracy [135]. EEng (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Even pro-Jewish edits not criticizing Muslims are oversighted: [136], [137] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.40.216.222 (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] I signed up to be part of the vast pro-Jesus conspiracy, am I in the wrong place?--v/r - TP 18:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Even if this were generally true, it would be because WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a religious battleground. I don't want edits to be "pro-Jewish" or "anti-Jewish"; I want them to be factual and useful. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DonaldKronos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Donald Kronos's Google plus page

DonaldKronos was blocked for edit warring at Evolution (report here), and has begun recruiting on his Google plus page. Kronos initially responded to reversion by calling it vandalism (continuing even after being asked to stop), and has since gone on accuse others of "CENSORSHIP", "HIDING THE TRUTH" (with a rant about religion that probably goes against AGF), and "HIDING WHAT EVOLUTION IS" (even though his edit made things less focused). He thinks that undoing his work is "an attack against humanity". With posts like this, it's clear that he has little-to-no capacity to assume good faith.

He claims he was blocked "FOR TRYING TO WORK WITH PEOPLE" and that he was never given the chance to explain his edits, which is a patent lie. He was told repeatedly to use the talk page, and warned about edit warring. He has regularly asked for explanations that have been repeatedly explained at both Talk:Evolution and on his talk page.

I think we're looking at a case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW. He clearly sees Wikipedia as a platform for his writing, not for collaboration. He believes that he's "trying to defend humanity" (source) with his tantrums.

And if anyone wants to try to make this a content dispute, his edits were reverted by multiple editors for being off-topic and not being a summary of the rest of the article. Heck, even his own fans are arguing against his edits.

I welcome the possibility of improvement from any inexperienced editor, but it's not our hopes that determine whether that happens. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User:98.247.126.245 here in good faith wants to refer to Talk:Evolution#Inappropriate_discussion as well. I don't think the discussion needs to be copied. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about WP:OUTING but what is required right now? We can't stop him from his off-wiki conduct. He's current blocked here. If you believe User:TheProfessor is a WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT puppet, report it at WP:SPI if you'd like but that editor has been here since 2011 so otherwise you need to assume good faith . I'll review his user talk page and see if removing talk page access is required. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe TheProfessor is a sock or meatpuppet (which is why I never mentioned him), but DonaldKronos's Google plus post does call for help on Wikipedia, his block is only going to last about another day and a half, and the off-site recruiting is part of a larger problem with DonaldKronos. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the other editor did at the talk page so I wanted to clarify that. It wasn't directed at you, my apologies for any confusion. I asked User:EdJohnston to review it rather than me just increase it at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he gets it or not, at the very least, I think the discussion on his talk page has calmed down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Having read most of what DonaldKronos has written on his talk page, this is a clear case of WP:CIR. Any expectation the behavior will change and he'll become a useful contributor is just wishful thinking. My view is cut him loose and who cares what he writes on his Google+ page. Next. – JBarta (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean block him completely now? His block is only for three days. I'm pretty certain a WP:NOTHERE block will follow instantly after that if his behavior hasn't changed by then but I'm still in line with waiting it out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mean just indefinitely block him now. – JBarta (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis, Missouri" has been the wording for the Missouri footnote for almost a month now. That wording was changed and then I reverted that bold edit noting "We don't need to include rogue counties! Unlike Kansas, Missourian counties aren't 'within their right' to issue." Dralwik reverted me and said "I like this vaguer wording more." Since there was no consensus for the "vaguer" wording, I reverted the footnote back to its original wording per WP:STATUSQUO. Dralwik reverted the statusquo and said "Let's see if you violate 3RR". I definitely don't want to violate the 3RR rule, but I feel like per WP:STATUSQUO the original wording should be re-added until there is consensus for the other wording. WP:STATUSQUO says "If there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus, not to have one's own way" and I feel like they went against this by reverting me because they "like" the other wording. They claim that there is consensus for the footnote due to the Color change proposal for Missouri. However, please note that their rough draft proposal for the wording was "Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis, Missouri" which is what the footnote has said for almost a month; but then they reverted against that wording twice! I'd like to see the template go back to the statusquo until there is a consensus for the other wording. Prcc27 (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. Just discuss it at the talk page. Why should the statusquo overrule the consensus forming at the talk page? And besides you also reverted User:Shereth's version so again, go to the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ricky81682: That's the point, there is no consensus for changing the wording so the template should reflect the statusquo. WP:STATUSQUO says "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." Consensus may be "forming" but it isn't established. While the edit is being disputed the map should go back to the status quo. Once again, their rough draft proposal for the footnote had the status quo wording "Same-sex marriage legal in St. Louis, Missouri" but it wasn't until after everyone indicated they supported the coloring proposal for Missouri that Dralwik expressed they supported Shereth's wording and reverted me when I reverted the bold edit and then again when I reverted back to the status quo. Prcc27 (talk) 06:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shereth's edit was a bold edit since the status quo version was up there for about a month and they changed it. So per WP:BRD the reverted bold edit should have stayed reverted while we're discussing and while we're working on consensus! Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is this in the right noticeboard or does it belong in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DRN is probably more appropriate. Remember that BRD and STATUSQUO are essays not policies. They have never been elevated as such and so that's why there isn't likely to be much of an concern about what the current version should be. At this stage, move towards finding a consensus which hopefully is a middle ground that all parties can agree upon. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh okay thanks, I will probably take my concerns to the DRN and I will keep working towards a consensus on the footnote wording. Prcc27 (talk) 11:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone block the IPs listed at Chutti TV (SPI's here) as well as protect the article, (I know this doesn't belong here but since it's Xmas & half the place's deserted action will hopefully happen alot quicker here), Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 14:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I semi-protected; there's little point in blocking IPs now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure exactly what happened to the request I posted a few days ago. This diff shows it was removed, but it is not clear to me who deleted it. Did an admin close it? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually removed with this diff, when a bot automatically archived it to here. Hopefully someone else can explain the bot's archiving rules because I'm not totally sure how it decides what to archive, but it seems to be some period of inactivity. Sam Walton (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the thread was archived because editors/admins didn't see much of value in the report. I agree, for this case. Now, the user has been blocked for edit warring before but that was a while ago. In this case a report at WP:ANEW would have been the better place, though a patrolling admin there might have noted that you reverted their initial edit twice, and that you might be the edit warrior there. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]