Erantan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a new account that appears to have edited as 76.11.94.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), is making legal and other threats against User:Steven Walling to file securities fraud complaints,[1], ruin Steven's career[2] regarding weird claims about collusion between Wikimedia and Quora to manipulate stock prices or some other crazy talk.[3] For what it's worth, they think I'm an alter ego of Steven Walling. I'm going to remove my warnings and notice to this user for WP:DFTT / DFTK reasons. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef for making legal threats. Any administrator is free to remove or change the block without further consult with me. JodyB _talk 20:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just idle curiosity, but why would they want to do that, JodyB? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean why would the person make these threats? Steven Walling • talk 21:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Steven Walling, no I just wondered why anyone would want to change the block after legal threats made. Thanks though! (BTW you don't seem too worried that your career is on the line....! lol)_Fortuna

^{Imperatrix Mundi} 22:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah avoiding COI controversy is why I haven't edited the Quora article at all since I was hired there. Apparently that wasn't enough for this person. Steven Walling • talk 22:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now socking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock blocked, article semi'd. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Because he could retract his statement and make changes that allow him to return. It just prevents someone from waiting around if I am offline. JodyB _talk 22:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have a block on this obvious TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock, please? They have been persistently harassing me on my talk page for the last hour claiming they aren't an account of TRCG which I reverted sock contribs of and now just sent password resets for here and my Instagram account in an attempt to 'hack' me. Nate • (chatter) 04:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not TheREALCableGuy, I've never used that account name before and never created any accounts here! Plus what makes you think I'm gonna hack you. Stop telling lies about him and me now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5E4:A50:A1F7:C870:8659:603F (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because you need to hop new IP's when the one mentioned above is blocked for 12 hours...right. Anyways...was blocked for twelve hours, as seen above, a new IPV6 responded this way, and this can probably be closed since the worst issue, their spamming of my talk page, is done for a couple days at least thanks to RFP. Nate • (chatter) 16:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, I'm not him. I'm not TheREALCableGuy, I'm just a fan of him who misses him! You're delusional. What is wrong with you? And that IP was not spamming you, he/she was telling you off! 2602:306:C5E4:A50:24C4:3350:69E0:D300 (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User Orlik8 Made a legal threat here Weegeerunner (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indef'ed by User:Orangemike. DMacks (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

verdy p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please review the user Verdy P and the way he responds to users on Wikipedia, as can be seen on his Talk page. I originally inquired why a page title was changed, in addition to some of its content. He did provide a valid reason for the former, but had no valid points for why he changed the content and made it more incorrect. I tried to explain this to him, but he instead chose to insist that he is correct, despite being proven wrong with facts, and continued to respond with arrogance, and then rudeness. As you can see in his latest reply on the issue, he proceeds to use inflammatory words and declares that he will delete any further replies from me, which he did.

I don't think this is the attitude that regular Wikipedia editors should be displaying; it also should not be tolerated because he can easily just continue with these questionable edits and dismiss everyone who tries to correct him.70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@70.51.38.110: You must notify users when you start a discussion about them on this noticeboard. I have taken care of that for you. Ivanvector (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. His response was heavy handed and haughty KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 16:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify—which response was heavy handed and haughty? Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've said repeatedly to him that I had already replied to the answer, but he insists in discussing about things I'm not interested. I have said him to stop this discussion and discuss it somewhere else.

He continues... I've just stoped this discussion going nowhere, my talk page is not the appropriate place for that. What can I do? verdy_p (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not interested in the subject, and yet you keep insisting that whatever information you put into the article is valid, even with lack of proof?70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw some of the discussion (User talk:Verdy p has been on my watchlist since April 2013 when Verdy p provided some very helpful advice). The IP is completely misguided—we are volunteers and expecting people to argue indefinitely on their user talk page is very unreasonable. Verdy gave several detailed explanations (the section is now 1950 words), and the fact the IP does not like the replies does not entitle them to waste even more volunteer time at ANI. In general, if an editor thinks a page title is not correct and they not sure how to discuss that, they should ask at WP:HELPDESK. Harassing someone on their talk page is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are volunteers, it gives you the permission to respond to people with arrogance and call them names? Because that is what he had been doing in all of his replies. It seems to me that you did not read the entire discussion, nor did you try to understand the details of why the discussion had been prolonged. Verdy had made some changes to the content of an article, which were incorrect changes. Despite my many attempts to explain to him why those changes are incorrect, using facts and clear evidence, he continued to insist that I am the one who is wrong (again, with invalid arguments); so you are saying that I should simply agree to whatever he says, even when he's wrong. Sorry, but being a volunteer does not entitle you to treat others with a lack of respect; it does not make your words and assumptions the absolute truth and it certainly does not label others who try to fix your errors as harassers. Also, the argument would not have extended "indefinitely" had Verdy at least tried to carefully read my replies and humbly accept that he was mistaken; not wanting to admit his mistake was a bigger priority to him.70.51.38.110 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing the IP has done is harassment. You've unfortunately shown a lack of neutrality here (which is understandable, given that it's your friend). Furthermore, in addition to the harassment claim, you told the IP that he was "wasting time here at ANI." You seem to have exactly the same civility and superiority complex-toward IPs issues Verdy has. I hope that's only because you're heated about your friend being brought up here at ANI. --DawnDusk (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly posting to a user's talk page is a minor form of harassment. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a form of harassment when those repeated posts are replies to the user. If I had been posting a bunch of additions without any replies and simply filling up the talk page with provoking messages, then yes, that would be harassment. Don't tell me that users aren't allowed to post replies in an attempt to correct someone, claiming that such would be a form of harassment. If it's in the clause for you volunteers to have the right to be stubborn and unwilling to accept when you're wrong, then I'm sorry for the "harassment".70.51.38.110 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The moment I saw Verdy's message that included "IP accounts like yours have very low trust among Wikipedia users, they are frequently reverted," it became clear to me that we have a WP:CIVILITY issue as well as a lack of understanding of WP:IPs are human too. Verdy has certainly tipped his hand about his bad faith towards the IP that makes anyone trying to argue that he isn't being a WP:JERK and needs to take a step back here simply wrong. If the IP can produce his sources that show 1. The North American release is the only official one. and 2. It's referred to as "C: The Contra Adventure" by the game's own manual, then he's entirely in the right. However, even if he is wrong, Verdy has handled this quite poorly. Side note: other damning comments include " like you stupidely continue to do here" and "if you want trust you DO need a personal account". --DawnDusk (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to provide sources, but you're right, his talk page isn't the place to list them. I have plenty of sources that confirm what I posted; but even if I did try to provide them at the right page, as Verdy stated, he doesn't care about the game. That, I find rather contradictory for someone who claims they are correct on a matter that pertains to the game itself.70.51.38.110 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Your reading is incorrect, and Verdy is a helpful editor, not my "friend". The advice given to the IP is completely correct—anyone caring about their privacy would make an account (see MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning which is displayed to the IP every time they click edit—Verdy's advice is merely echoing that official statement, with the extra and correct observation about reactions from many editors—whether those reactions are justified or not). Please don't conflate direct language with civility. The issue of the article title is not a matter to be settled on Verdy's talk page, as Verdy explained to the IP; also see my above reference to WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but correcting him when he's wrong is a matter to be settled because otherwise, that kind of attitude will follow him with further edits he makes on Wikipedia. Please don't tell me that you would condone such conduct. That has been the biggest issue with him.70.51.38.110 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page I have all the rights to give a personal opinion even if you think it is wrong, you cannot insist on changing it. My talk page is not a WP project.

As I said, I gave my opinion, you gave yours. All stops there when I've said I don't want to invest more time in additional topics that were not even the reason of his initial question.

Everyone has the right to have an opinion and give it on his personal page. It is not needed to force people to change their mind: this is abusive against my own freedom.

When we talk on WP, it is only to try convincing others people to join some **common** project, or agree together with some changes to do in an article or community project or when there are some concerted decisions to take by reaching some form of consensus (but there's nothing to do on my talk page where no public consensus is reachable).

How would have you reacted if I had asked you a question about Lie's algebra (or some other topic you're not interested in) and each time you gave some reply or opinion, I insisted multiple times during several days trying to convince you it was really important?

How do you react when you see your mailbox filled with notifications or ads for products you've never bought and don't want to buy but the notifier still repeats its alerts several times a day? You just put the mails to garbage. Yes this is named "harassment" if, after instructed the notifier to stop sending his post on the same topic continues (and in the email world, this is generally considered as "spam". verdy_p (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have every right to express your opinion on your Talk page. What is not permitted, I hope, is putting your opinion into the article and then insisting that you are correct about it, which is exactly what you did. You do have the freedom to believe what you want; but when you choose to ignore plain facts and stick with your own opinion on something when it is evidently false, you are simply deluded. You can have an opinion on things such as preference or taste; don't tell me that facts are opinion-based, tailored to each individual. Otherwise, this entire site would be useless.

As for how I would have reacted about the Lie's Algebra topic: unlike you, I would at least admit that I know little about the subject and therefore I am likely wrong about it. What did you do? You added false information about a subject for which you admittedly know little and have little interest about. Then, you continue to insist you are correct, as if you know the facts; again, for a subject for which you admittedly know little about and care little about.

Also, don't compare apples to oranges. You're talking about soliciting advertisements and SPAM mail that are sent to individuals unprovoked. They are sent in mass quantities regardless of your actions and/or interactions with them. What I did was address why you put incorrect information into the article's content (again, as I already said, I understood why the article title had to be changed). Instead of agreeing you made a mistake, you insisted that your edits to the article were not wrong. Then you instructed me to stop responding to you and be ok with you continuing to make similar edits to other articles with opinion-based information.70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree; you're right that this conversation absolutely should not have taken place on Verdy's talkpage. That is the fault of the IP, who wouldn't know better. That being said, Verdy still handled it awfully. His first response, rather than telling the IP to go to the right page, was to engage him with a lengthy reply (which already showed him getting heated in the last sentence and didn't mention the correct venue to use). Did you honestly expect the IP not to think to reply there? It wasn't until Verdy's very last reply, where he also said he would delete any new comment the IP posted (which is totally his right to do per user talkpage policy) that he directed him to the right page. By this time, Verdy had already been extremely rude and, as others have said, heavy-handed and haughty. And no, I honestly wouldn't say I'm "conflating direct language with civility". Check out the Avoiding Incivility section of WP:CIVILITY. He was intense, unprofessional, name-called, and became condescending - those are right there in that section. Furthermore, it doesn't matter that his "advice" about creating an account was correct. It had absolutely no place in the discussion, it wasn't brought up by the IP at all, and Verdy was clearly using the fact that he was an IP to condescend to him. Second, no, it isn't true that IPs aren't to be trusted, should be discredited in discourse, or "need" accounts. Like I said, I'm quite the fan of WP:IPs are human too as well as the plenty of other WP policies about it. The bottom line is that Verdy were going to respond in the uncivil manner that he did (as well as bringing up the user's IP status as a jerky point out of nowhere multiple times), he shouldn't have engaged the IP at all. The best thing he could have done was direct him to the article's talk page right away. You're making it sound like he did and, as you said, "explained it to the IP." He didn't (until the very end, as I said). --DawnDusk (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sad to say, I might not have been able to master the patience for so much tedious explanation as Verdy p did when the IP wouldn't take no for an answer. The only problem wrt courtesy on Verdy's page that I can see is that they were a bit short with BracketBot.[5] (That's supposed to be a joke.) IP, I'm afraid you expect too much time expenditure of our volunteers. @ DawnDusk: Golly, I recommend the parable of The Mote and the Beam to you, with your attack Johnuniq's integrity here. "You've unfortunately shown a lack of neutrality here (which is understandable, given that it's your friend)", "given that he's your friend". Twice, you say it, and it's made up out of whole cloth. You're a fine one to talk about assuming bad faith. Am I to assume the IP is your friend? (To be clear, I don't suppose so for a moment.) Don't make such charges lightly, please. Bishonen | talk 10:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, Verdy is not at all out of line for his inflammatory responses. Instead, it is the fault of the IP user (me) for even having a problem with that. Because Verdy is a volunteer, right?70.51.38.110 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right. That was a mistake on my part and an indicator of my bad judgment. With that - I've said my piece. I will depart from this thread. I apologize to User:Johnuniq sincerely. DawnDusk (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I was cited many times above, I do not understand the general spirit in most of what is written above, with many people making personal judgements without even knowing me or asking me.

The fact is that I tried to help for several days the same 70.51.38.110 IP editor, I tried to explain various things, but as he had already agreed why his initial question was fully answered (why the page was renamed), he continued to post messages for several days speaking about things unrelated to his initial question, trying to convince me about somthing I'm not interested in.

I was finally upset because I had instructed him not to continue his discussion in my talk page. I gave my opinion, he gave his own but this does not matter, I don't want to continue on this game topic (I was only concerned on why the page was renamed many months ago when I was interested in having the "C:" interwiki prefix being allocated to Commons).

Several times also I instructed him to sign his posted messages, and he didn't (but he criticized me immediately when trying to answer the first time to the many topics he started initially (he did not undestand why I splitted his message in several parts, when commenting them separately (in indended paragraphs all signed separately and not mixed at all with his own words). I just wanted to act fast, my talk page is not a wikipedia article and I don't want to take too much time.

Yes finally I was a bit rude but only in one word (after repeated attempts to have him stop his discussion).

For the rest I was helpful and very patient for several days. I had stopped the discussion on my talk page (this is my right jsut like everyone else in Wikimedia that no longer wants to discuss or being notified multiple times each day about topics they are not interested in), but as he refused that, I had to be more expeditive (I don't think it was "inflammatory" given the time I had already given for several days for a topic I was not interested in). I could have not replied anything and would not have given any help to him, but he still does not want to recognize that I was helpful and does not consider the time I already gave to him only.

But I don't know which WP policy I would have violated that merits a notification or action from administrators here, just for my own talk page (which was not the appropriate place to talk about the article) after all the time I gave voluntarily. Please 70.51.38.110, next time use the article talk page, or use the standard forums. I have been helpful enough about most of your questions but if you disagree the WP forums are there to discuss them: there are plenty of WP projects you can join (but I do not participate to the WP games portals or projects).

And was it really "haughty" to explain him that IP users are frequently not given any trust in many pages for their edits? Was is haughty to suggest him to create a regular account (and explaining him why it would be a protection for him)?

And sorry but I don't understand the qualifier "handed" that was given about me above. Remember that English is not my native tongue. I did not find any appropriate definition with a context that could explain it, so I think the word was badly chosen or very informal. There has been other personal comments above that I do not consider being in line with WP policies, from people with whom I had not discussed before (in a time I can remember): how do you think they can make such personal judgements? All comments about my supposed "friendship" with people I don't know or that I have not discussed before are out of topic.

Thanks. verdy_p (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore ANI—if an editor with more than a month's experience posts something needing your response I will let you know on your talk. I hang out here and so am familiar with the fact that anyone can edit also means anything can be asserted at ANI. Trying to refute every mistaken claim is pointless—the best response here is silence to let the thread fade away. The IP will never be satisfied, and the simplest is to just revert any further comments they make on your talk—do not put any explanation in your edit summary, just remove comments with summary "remove"; the reason for that is to not give the IP something to argue about (if you put an explanation in your comment, they might think it is reasonable that they should reply). If the IP persists, I will find someone to fix the problem. The IP should take the advice given and pursue the question of the article title at the article talk page or WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again, you completely ignore the issue at hand and assume the favor is on the side of Verdy_P, Johnuniq. I repeat yet again, the issue is not with the article title, but with how Verdy refuses to accept evidence for why he is incorrect and how he responds so condescendingly. As for me never being satisfied? All Verdy had to do was swallow his pride and simply accept that he did not know all of the facts on the article at hand. One little thing seems to be asking too much from him, according to you; again, probably because both of you are volunteers on this site and you guys must look out for each other, no matter your position.70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: By interleaving replies in User:Verdy p's post,[6], as well as top-posting above Johnuniq, 70.51.38.110 has made Verdy's coherent post incomprehensible; you can't tell which bits are whose. This may work in e-mail, but is strongly deprecated on talkpages. In justice to Verdy, I've removed the IP's responses from inside Verdy's and paste them here below, moving up Johnuniq's much earlier response. I'm sorry if it's not clear which bit exactly the IP is responding to, but it was the best I could do. If you can improve on my arrangement, 70.51.38.110, with due consideration for others, then please do. Bishonen | talk 14:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Enough with claiming that you were being helpful by saying that your information is not incorrect just because you say so, even despite evidence otherwise. I don't remotely perceive how you think that is being helpful.70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were not helping me "for several days" by insisting that your edits were correct. Even in the face of evidence, you decided that you were still correct; which I find funny because you keep repeating that you're not interested in the subject.70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to changing the page title (which I accepted was justified), you changed content in the article itself, which was based on your incorrect opinion. That, I also had a problem with (which I explicitly stated); you instead kept insisting that your information is valid. You even added a false, shallow citation note to the claim you put into the article.70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but what has been haughty from you is how authoritatively you insist that I am wrong, even when what you provide as arguments is so thin.70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You instructed me several times? There's another lie from Verdy_P. He asked me once, and I signed my edits promptly since that one. 70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but using words like "stupidely" is not informal at all, right? It is not making a judgement on someone who's trying to explain something to you about a subject you admit you don't care about. Does being a "volunteer" automatically make your word and your wikipedia edits superior to all non-volunteers', regardless of their validity?70.51.38.110 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I've placed the evidence on the talk page of The Contra Adventure. It's there in plain sight. Also, don't mind my irate wording; since Verdy is not at all at fault for replying with such crass, I figure I would be allowed. Unless, of course, that's one of the special privileges of you volunteers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Contra_Adventure 70.51.38.110 (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I said I wouldn't post anymore, and although it was wrong of me to charge John with bias due to friendship, he IS being incredibly short-sighted (completely ignored the evidence that I laid, in addition to the IP's own, and instead is just dismissing this with handwaves because he disagrees). DawnDusk (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you are missing is that Verdy provided a polite and detailed response including some important technical information. Please stop and examine the following line, then click the link.

[[C: The Contra Adventure]] → C: The Contra Adventure (check the URL where this goes)

Verdy could have ignored the IP's question, but instead explained that the issue was discussed a long time ago, and that "C:" cannot now be used. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, YOU decide to ignore the point of this issue and continue to assume it pertains to the page's title; a subject which, you're right, has been discussed a long time ago and that I had already come to agree with. Here I am repeating the issue at hand for the umpteenth time (probably due to you either deliberately ignoring my replies in favor of a fellow "volunteer" that you admittedly follow in his work, thus making your own look very biased, ignorant and unintelligent; or because this is your level of reading comprehension); the issue pertains to Verdy's arrogance and stubborn, counter-productive attitude towards his page content changes. I wrote that besides the page title, he also changed content in the article and made it seem like what he wrote were facts. The latter is what I had a problem with and instead of accepting his mistake, he continued to insist that I'm the one who's wrong. Me trying to explain this to him constitutes stupidity in his book and a waste of his time. He must really feel above others when he can't even accept his own mistakes.70.51.38.110 (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't tell me that Verdy was being polite when he said things like "You should care about it.", "And I absolutely do not care at all about your preception of "quality" when you don't care about Wikipedia usages and don't want to learn.", "and other people on Wikipedia have not disputed the fact like you "stupidely" continue to do here". I didn't realize that being demanding, arrogant, condescending and vulgar fit the criteria of being polite; it must be a new policy for volunteers.

Wikipedia isn't a resource of information to which ALL readers are strictly obligated to edit or contribute, let alone create accounts for. I'm not (or at least was not) the only one who falls into the category of readers as far as Wikipedia goes. As such, we are not really familiar with editing regulations that Verdy values and stresses so much over content accuracy/validity. You may not believe it, but it actually damages Wikipedia's credibility when it becomes riddled with inaccurate information, the likes of what Verdy has added into the game's article.

I think it's phenomenal when many of you volunteers spend more time and effort in getting each other's back than understanding the issue at hand. Cringe-worthy to think that Wikipedia is maintained by people like this, but not at all surprising with respect to a significant public perception of it.70.51.38.110 (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)70.51.38.110 (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see this is going on ignored and many of these volunteers have no valid arguments to dispute my complaints. The fact that there's no progress shows how much freedom some privileged users have on this site. Hey, how's Verdy doing, what with adding inaccurate information to pages and insulting anybody who disagrees with him? Hard at work in shaping up the site, it must be.70.51.38.110 (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the first dif is "User:AlbinoFerret claims "You have not discussed one edit in the 19k characters you inserted."[7] But I did discuss sources User:AlbinoFerret deleted.[8] The response was "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[9] That is not a specific objection for excluding relevant information. User:AlbinoFerret is not here to improve this page IMO. how is deleting numerous reliable sources improving this page? QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

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

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

• This comment "WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless" by User:AlbinoFerret makes me wonder if a topic ban WP:Boomerang would be useful though. See how consensus is that WHO is one of the best medical sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bringing concerns to a noticeboard is what they are for [10]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd agree with considering a temp TBAN. I had a discussion with AF on my talk page awhile back [11] about them being too locked-in to the topic and not being able to step back. Looking at the current situation I do think it would be helpful to both AF and the topic if they had a break. The previous ANI on AF specifically said there was no consensus at the time on an action, but that is very different from saying there wasn't a behavior problem. I think AF definitely has the potential to approach things more evenly (this conversation did give me some hope), but they really need to step out of their single topic and get experience in less contentious topics since their posting history looks like a WP:SPA right now.Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QuackGuru has a long history of blocks and banns log including a past block for personal attacks and harassment. He appears to be a WP:SPA that focuses on controversial medical articles. Past short banns and blocks have done no good. I proposed an indefinite block or alternately a one-year block. He has engaged in harassment WP:HARASS again. His actions to remove some of the harassment don't go far enough, the edit summaries are still there as well as the attacks on talk pages. AlbinoFerret 13:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Ched - I too had the impression that QG was fundamentally benign for some time until I saw his mean side. For example, WP:DICK, mocking other editors: Mallexikon: "I think you clarified this very nicely.'; Quackguru: "I think I clarified this very nicely.". He's also held a grudge toward me that started after I co-signed an RfC on him (which was concurrently brought with a thread at AN). Since then it's been POKE and BATTLEGROUND (below) despite multiple olive branches attempts [17][18][19][20] (which he just deletes from his user talk).

• Wikistalking: 10 petty examples [21]
• GAME-y/KETTLE accusations: characterizing edits I made as bad when he did the same thing [22]
• Repeated, baiting, disingenuous "questions" about COI despite an explanation right in my signature line (Middle 8 (contribs • COI)) and multiple good-faith answers: (asked | answered twice); (asked); (asked | answered).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose Has been warned [23] And has acknowledged. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Disability policing" is real, and damaging, and an issue on Wikipedia: see the unsolicited comment on my talk page from an editor concerned about that exact thing. For obvious reasons, I wish someone other than me had posted about it (or that someone other than QuackGuru had made the offensive comment). I'm done commenting in this thread on the merits of a block but "disability policing" needs to be taken seriously on WP. ... P.S. Just to make my intentions clear I've changed my !vote above to "Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future". [24] --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 04:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC) added P.S. 05:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Very much the former, which I think should be obvious in light of my !vote change to: "Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future". [25]. Look just a little bit above and you might even see that I mentioned this previously. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 11:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Middle 8, I'm not sure if you've seen the conversation starting after this comment by AlbinoFerret [26], but it does appear that AlbinoFerret is trying to justify their focus on e-cigs because of their disability (or extremely misunderstanding BMK's point). I'd prefer the topic of disability never even entered the conversation and focus solely on behavior here, but this kind of justification really concerns me. This is very different from questioning whether someone actually has a disability, so are you suggesting we shouldn’t question this kind of behavior I’m describing, or moreso not do what QuackGuru did specifically? This becoming a really strange situation. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:AlbinoFerret is making a lot of comments and edits to e-cig related pages. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/AlbinoFerret&offset=&limit=500&target=AlbinoFerret See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:AlbinoFerret for previous behaviour issues. AlbinoFerret tried to hide Environmental impact section from a reliable source from the page. He eventually tried to delete some of the text.[28][29][30][31][32] AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources.[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] AlbinoFerret claims "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[41] But AlbinoFerret has not given a specific reason to exclude relevant information about safety. WP:COMPETENCE is not the issue IMO. AlbinoFerret has turned the e-cig pages into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. AlbinoFerret is not the only problematic editor at these pages. Some of the e-cig enthusiasts are not here to improve the e-cig pages. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#E-cig_editors for background information on this. Something needs to be done to prevent this from happening over and over again. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand what you're saying, Jytdog. (And it's interesting how many of the editors who contributed so tenaciously to the loss of focus in the QG RfC are suddenly so able to stay focused on AF, yet lose focus when it comes to QG. One would almost think there was systemic bias afoot.) Looking at the merits: Which diffs? Going from QG's thread-starter, the two links to ANI threads are weak [46][47] Re QG's other diffs: Just because AF removes stuff QG added is not prima facie evidence of misconduct -- far from it; I see a lot of UNDUE. AF's removing the WMA however is not good. And I see a pattern of OWN in both QG and AF, worse in QG. Is that it? Where can I find a good, concise summary of the most obvious diffs? Or maybe you or someone could just paste in the five worst ones? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 16:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jytdog, your example (of AF writing about pharma companies lobbying to have e-cigs treated as medical devices) would indeed be a compelling instance of twisting a source [48] (just as Mallexikon showed QG did with GERAC, which you were one of the only editors to grok). Except: AF explains [49] (supported with diffs) that the passage they wrote was originally sourced to a different source [50] that the passage indeed summarized accurately. (I don't care for his ABF-ing and calling your characterization "twisting" of what happened, but they wouldn't be the first to run hot under pressure on a drama board.) I'll keep looking. If there's a smoking gun -- besides fighting over including WMA, which is bad, but alone not imo worth a ban either -- I'm not seeing it. I see general TE (which is at least as bad with QG); I don't see it as over the top: is this a situation like QG where those who know AF well gnash their teeth in frustration but have so far failed to build a strong case? If not, can you help, and point me to the good evidence? It's a lot to go through. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 20:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

yeah the thing about lobbying was really frustrating. [[51] his original source] was an opinion piece and of course we prefer straight reporting over opinion pieces (he could have cited the opinion piece, attributing it, yes). but what we really got my goat was that the NYT reporting (the more reliable source) was unambiguous in emphasizing the victory of the e-cig lobbyists. so twisted. and adding the rhetorically self-righteous stuff about the COI of pharma with their lobbyists... when all lobbyists are nakedly self-interested. just... argh. on that whole thing. But of a piece with the pattern of relentless pro-e-cigarette editing. its the pattern. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well after the fact (no User Pings or talk page notices) Couple points: Make sure there's an appropriate log page to log the warnings/sanctions. Make sure there's a venue for editors to neutrally report what they percieve as violations in the sanctions without calls of ADMIN-shoping. Hasteur (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yes User:FergusM1970 linked to his twitter feed which include his efforts at meat puppetry Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not sure this will help . Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - I only recall discretionary sanctions being put in place by ArbCom, I can't recall a solo admin or the community doing it. Can someone provide a precedent where the community placed discretionary sanctions on a subject? (Not that the lack of precedent necessarily means it can't be done, but it would certainly make it easier to stand up, should this receive a consensus.) BMK (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Oppose per CFCF. BMK (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - After careful reconsideration of the issue, I am changing my !vote based primarily on the comment of Robert McClenon and some of the information provided by Bishonen. I still believe, though, that a topic ban for AlbinoFerret would be the best first step in guaranteeing that the e-cig articles are balanced and NPOV, which to me is the primary concern, more so than the "atmosphere" of the editing environment. BMK (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - if editors misbehave despite warnings, then uninvolved admins can sanction them anyway, right? -- so what does this add? Is it a way of saying "don't worry, sanction as needed, it won't be seen as controversial"? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 14:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Middle 8, for my money the big difference discretionary sanctions make is that they allow a single uninvolved admin to topic ban an editor (on their own discretion, hence "discretionary" sanctions). Much easier than schlepping the person to ANI and trying to raise consensus for a topic ban, indeed perhaps a bit too easy in this case. I'm dubious about instituting DS here. Admins should probably be more ready to block disruptive editors in the area, something they can do without DS. (Take that as a weak oppose.) Bishonen | talk 22:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

• Note. User:KimDabelsteinPetersen just declared a possible WP:COI. See User:KimDabelsteinPetersen#WP:COI statement. QuackGuru (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How on Earth would that constitute a COI with regards to this discussion? --Kim D. Petersen 01:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a possible COI to the electronic cigarettes pages according to your User:KimDabelsteinPetersen#WP:COI statement. This is relevant to this discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we restart? How is that relevant to this particular discussion? Or are you claiming that i have a COI with regards wanting discretionary sanctions? Are you sure you are thinking this through? --Kim D. Petersen 02:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. I left a message on your talk page earlier. We can continue that discussion if you want. QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Weak support partially agree with KimDabelsteinPetersen. I also think that anything is likely to be better than some of stuff that has been going on at ANI recently which doesn't reflect well on any of the involved parties. However Striking my initial weak support for an oppose in light of comments from Middle 8 and Bishonen. Was never quite sure about this, but in light of those comments I agree and don't think that this would be the best way to proceed. Whilst there are probably one or two problem editors out there that no doubt need dealing with, I'm no longer convinced that ANI does not remain the better method for doing this. I also would have thought that getting the involved parties to work together would be just as important. Which would perhaps mean article restrictions in addition to editor restrictions such as a 1RR rule for instance.Levelledout (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Notification. I started an ArbCom discussion. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground on e-cig articles. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(That request has since been declined.) HiDrNick! 12:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support E-cigarette is a battleground. It will remain so for a long time because of content disagreements and lack of discussion. The main article has been protected multiple times. When its protected very little discussion happens, and edits are stockpiled for the next round of problems. AlbinoFerret 03:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per AlbinoFerret. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Unless the tide changes, it looks as if this thread is moving towards a consensus in favor of community-imposed discretionary sanctions. I would like, however, to address the closer of this thread: please do not be tempted to think that closing this in favor of that consensus -- if that is what you find -- obviates the results of the sub-thread above concerning a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. That is, if there is a consensus in that thread for a topic ban -- and I believe there is -- it should be enacted, whether or not discretionary sanctions are approved or not in this thread. Failing to impose a topic ban if there is a consensus for one simply puts off the problem to another time, and possibly yet another repeat of this discussion. True, discretionary sactions would allow an individual admin to impose a topic ban on AlbinoFerret if the admin thought it was required, but the mere possibility of that occurring in the future should not negate a community consensus for a topic ban for AlbinoFerret here and now. BMK (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Moot, since the topic ban thread was closed first. BMK (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The difficulties with these articles are intractable at the moment and the editing environment is uncollaborative. Community-authorised discretionary sanctions will be insufficient, because of all the AGF and second chances and other handwringing that drives away editors with good judgment and maintains our high levels of Dunning-Kruger effect across the encyclopaedia, but they're probably better than nothing.—S Marshall T/C 13:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Where do editors report an editor who is causing problems when the community-imposed discretionary sanctions are enacted? QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My understanding is that any admin can impose sanctions under DS, so I suppose you can either bring it to an admin of your choice, or you can post a thread on AN/I. BMK (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe this question was asked before about sanctions in general. There might be some specific guidelines to follow. QuackGuru (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications & sanctions will be logged on a subpage of Wikipedia:General_sanctions. Since any uninvolved admin can impose sanctions, you can bring it up here or ask an admin directly. HiDrNick! 23:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This has been a battleground for months, and both sides are entirely convinced that they alone bear The Truth™. Add the toxic influence of WP:SPAs and a combination of vested financial interests, an intersection with pro-cannabis activism and outright craziness out there in the real world, and you have a perfect recipe for never-ending drama. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't see a way around this. we can move quickly to quality editing of the articles and put some of this bureaucracy behind us. JodyB _talk 00:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: The articles related to electronic cigarettes are basically a battleground. There are simply too many disputes without speedy resolution related to this topic, and disputes are not being resolved properly in this topic area. Esquivalience ^t 23:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I'm not sure whether sanctions will be established or not, but I've created a template page for you guys to get them up and running if it they are. The page is located at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Electronic cigarettes. If the sanctions are not approved, simply delete the page. Otherwise, fill the information as appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 23:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for numerous reasons mentioned above and per AlbinoFerret.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, because this will not get to the root of the problem, which is the number of relentless obvious WP:SPA e-cig manufacturer advocates (one of whom has already been banned from Wikipedia, period) who have infiltrated the articles and made them impossible to edit constructively without constant disruption. The most egregious of the lot is AlbinoFerret, whose entire edit history from September 30, 2014 to present speaks for itself. The problem is not the "toxicity of the atmosphere", or the fact that the SPAs have made it a "battleground", but rather the problem is the (paid) SPAs themselves, and the solution is weeding out and eliminating (via permanent topic-banning, indeffing, or community banning) the clearly paid advocates. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Very weak oppose per Softlavender. I do think admin attention can be good at the article, but I don't think discretionary sanctions will address the core problem here. Sanctions are good for addressing acute misbehavior that's readily identifiable such as incivility, edit warring, etc. I would be concerned sanctions just end up banning whoever slips up slightly first without addressing the real problem. What's going on here is more systemic WP:TENDENTIOUS and advocacy-like behavior that isn't readily identifiable by outside editors without taking a close look at each user's overall behavior in discussions and cannot easily be summarized in a few diffs. That being said, I am overall neutral on community discretionary sanctions, but just with the caveat that the underlying issues will likely not be addressed by the sanctions, but hopefully stem the tide at best. If the sanctions are intended as an actual solution, I think that would become a distraction. Short of an WP:RfCU type look at certain users here (I don't think ANI is structured enough for that), ArbCom seems to be the only other option to really sort things out at that level at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone on long enough. This is something at least, so I'm changing to weak support. My above caveat on needing to really look at long-term behavior still needs to be considered though as an admin is going to really need to scrutinize a lot of prior posts to establish problems in the history of the articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reflected on this a it more. The core problem of advocacy or just POV issues isn't going to to be solved admin oversight, but either the community looking closely at individual editor behavior or ArbCom doing it. Direct admin attention seems to work for acute issues which aren't the main problem here, but not the tougher to pin down behaviors. Since that appears to be the primary problem here, I don't see discretionary sanctions justifiable or addressing the real issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The editors at this article are not the problem. It is the subject itself that is controversial. Having discretionary sanctions in this article would not be effective because a significant number of single purpose accounts edit at this article. Applying sanctions on an article where highly experienced Wikipedians edit as single purpose accounts is not effective in controlling controversy because the editors using them are not invested in protecting the reputations associated with those accounts or in using them long-term to build an online identity. It can be right to use WP:SPAs, and I am not critiquing the use of WP:SPAs or suggesting that anything inappropriate, like socking, is even happening here. I am only suggesting that the Wikipedia community gives a bit more weight and protection to established users with established accounts with varied history of participation, as opposed to limited use accounts managed by talented editors. Sanctions is a tool for controlling established accounts, and not for SPAs. Its use here would empower SPAs and disempower established accounts, which is not a desirable outcome in this space. Taking no action to control the e-cigarettes space is an acceptable response to the controversy. The controversy can persist in this space as it has been for months. Blue Raspberry (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm not sure I'm understanding the logic of those who write that the behavior in the topic area is bad, or that the subject area is controversial and generates SPAs, but then vote to oppose discretionary sanctions which would give admins the tools necessary to deal with bad behavior (from anyone) and to reign in the e-cig advocates. This is especially odd to me because if community-imposed discretionary sanctions are not implemented here, it's more than likely that someone will request an ArbCom case, which will be opened this time because the community has failed to act, and the result of that will almost certainly be, among other actions, ArbCom-imposed discretionary sanctions. So, in the end, the probability of there being discretionary sanctions for the e-cigarette topic area seems pretty high, in my opinion. BMK (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll clarify, but based on where I've seen discretionary sanctions work, it seems to be when specific diffs can be pointed out as problematic. I don't think a single admin overseeing the articles would be suited for the specific behavior problems discussed here though that require a close look at long-term behavior. Looking over the definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS, how do you think an admin would identify tendentious or advocacy-like behavior compared to easier things to identify like incivility? To me, that doesn't really seem like a judgement call for an admin can easily make (I could be convinced otherwise), but rather for a comprehensive case about the editor to be examined either here or by ArbCom. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, an effective AN/I thread in a non-DS topic which will convince an admin to close it with sanctions to the subject party takes a lot of time and the input of a lot of people. An ArbCom case takes even more time, although the number of participants is typically smaller. Both of these methodologies are generally inefficient at taming a wild subject area -- in fact, ArbCom results can engender more hassles, although they tend to shift to the Arbitration Enforcement area. With discretionary sanctions in place, however, admins can more easily put a stop to misbehavior with non-draconian blocks and bans leading (if necessary) to harsher sanctions. It empowers every admin to use their best judgement under the circumstances, which means that more gets done, and gets done faster. If, as everyone seems to agree (but for different reasons) the e-cigarette subject area needs to be brought under control, discretionary sanctions are an extremely efficient tool to get that done. BMK (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Inasmuch as the Arbitration Committee has deferred to the community, at least for now, it seems this is the only reasonable way to deal with the probems. JodyB _talk 02:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've already voted to support in your previous post. Why are you voting again? -A1candidate 09:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, my oversight. I've stricken it above. JodyB _talk 10:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -A1candidate 23:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: And while we're discussing if sanctions should be enforced, QuackGuru is antagonizing a new group of editors at an unrelated topic area. -A1candidate 23:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to this discussion. Start a new thread if you'd like. BMK (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is relevant because it is evidence of the complete futility of these proposed sanctions. Feel free to disagree, but don't remove or modify my comments. -A1candidate 01:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not relevant because this thread is about providing admins the tools to deal with any editor who misbehaves in this topic area, and not about the current misbehavior (if it is that) of any specific editor. If you've still got a thing about getting QG blocked or sanctioned or whatever, even after the effort failed just above, and you think his current behavior warrants it, then start another thread, but don't try to hijack this one. BMK (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question If this passes, do people have an opinion on how long the sanctions should last? Presumably the topic should become less controversial with time as new and reliable studies come out, but I have no idea what that timeframe is. I think "indefinite" is kind of a default for this kind of stuff, but I thought it would be good to at least ask what people think about an expiration date. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC) pinging User:HiDrNick 16:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say six months would be the absolute minimum, but that a year would be more likely to be helpful in waiting for the research to catch up to the questions. BMK (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This may not be necessary to have proposed sanctions. This was an overreaction to the above threads IMO. We can try one month if there is consensus for the sanctions. I think three months would be the most. QuackGuru (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• A year is the default in most cases, and given the duration of the dispute already I say we go with that. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So far there is no broad consensus for the community-imposed sanctions. As a compromise we can try the DS for a month. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure where you're getting that conclusion from. Right now, just on pure count, I see 14 supports and 8 opposes, which is 64% (63.63). In any case, if there is no consensus for community-based sanctions, as you contend, then there will be no community-based sanctions, not for a month, not for any amount of time. BMK (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I oppose this without a sunset clause. (Note also that admins effectively have the ability to take these types of actions without DS.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC).
  

• True, but most admins are loathe to hand out topic bans etc. without the support of discretionary sanctions either from the community or from ArbCom. (Incidentally, 1 year of DS is a "sunset clause", so why isn't your vote "support - 1 year"?) BMK (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the opposing position seems to be based on the fact that sanctions probably won't fix anything but the worst I can see them doing is not being used. They certainly won't make it worse. SPACKlick (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Community authorized discretionary sanctions will allow any uninvolved administrator to topic ban an editor who is disrupting the e-cig article(s) without first seeking consensus here at ANI. More accurately, if this passes it shows that there already is consensus at ANI for such a topic ban. And of course if an admin misuses DS we have procedures in place for dealing with that. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment based on Bluerasberry's comment and Doc James' oppose, I wonder if the best alternative might be to full protect the article for a good long while, processing new edits through consensus on the talk page. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic cigarette is already fully protected until March 30, but there's also Safety of electronic cigarettes and Legal status of electronic cigarettes to consider. Certainly these could be fully protected as well, but that puts the onus on admins to judge whether every suggested edit has consensus behind it. Surely it's better to allow free editing of these articles, and let admins sort out who is being disruptive from who is being helpful in their editing? BMK (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Involved editor) I would support long-term protection of at least the main article and possibly forks as an alternative to discretionary sanctions. We have recently had issues with a user managing to get full-protection removed, almost immediately making large-scale changes including 16 other edits in 2 hours. Then when protection was re-applied, immediately trying to have it removed again (in fact they successfully managed to get the expiry date moved forward to March 30th this time despite opposition from two other editors including myself). Such desperation to have protection removed clearly demonstrates an intention to do something that can't be done with protection instated, most likely grossly violate WP:CONSENSUS. So yes, I think there's a clear requirement for long-term full-protection. At the very least very close long-term monitoring by admins against consensus and edit-warring violations is required but that would not be as straightforward as protection.Levelledout (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection is, generally speaking, a step to be avoided if at all possible, since it's inherently contrary to the Wikipedia ethos of free editing. It also essentially freezes the articles into their current states, as getting a consensus to add or subtract something through the protection is going to be very hard to do, and admins should not accept any suggested edit which does not have a talk page consensus behind it.

Again, I'm not sure why opponents of discretionary sanctions are trotting out other possible solutions when it hasn't been settled whether this one will be put into effect or not. Tallying !votes once more, I see 16 supports and 9 opposes, which means that 64% of the respondents here are in favor of community-imposed discretionary sanctions. That's not a landslide by any means, but it is a healthy supermajority in favor. BMK (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose discretionary sanctions. Too often cudgel for the maintenance of House Point of View... It takes two to tango and I expect the anti-e-cig advocates are every bit as tendentious as the routed pro-e-cig peeps... Carrite (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And what about the third possible group, those editors who wish to keep the article neutral and supported by reliable sources in line with MEDRS? What do they do when the pros and the antis are duking it out, making it nest to impossible to edit the articles effectively? BMK (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As written and how written (without any explicit sunset provision). Writing an explicit sunset provision only tells disruptive elements how long they have to wait before they can start being disruptive again. The language that this proposal was cribbed from was specifically designed to not have a sunset provision (i.e. indefinite in the same sense that we have indefinite blocks) because either the sanctions will fall into disuse and forgotten or a WikiHistorian will see that we still have the sanctions on the books and a simple consensus vote to revoke them can be accomplished at a later date when it's clear that the authorization has outlived it's purpose. As it stands right now the e-cig field is far too disruptive in its current state to explicitly state when the sunset will take place. I'd rather have positive action to deprecate the sanctions than positive action necessary to maintain them. Hasteur (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Vaguely worded. Elohim55 (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet of a blocked user. Mike V • Talk 17:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You are, of course, free to !vote whatever way you wish, for whatever reason you wish, but this:

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

  is in no respect "vaguely worded." BMK (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with or without sunset, but my preference would be without, with a later discussion to determine if they have served their purpose or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 12:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Admins have enough tools to handle issues already; sanctions seem to promote additional drama more often. ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Multi purpose Support/Oppose/Neutral This !vote may be !added to whichever !tally gets this borefest off this page the soonest. By the time we've finished adding DS to anything anybody finds remotely controversial at all we may as well just make it global and have done with it. So I guess that's "oppose" really. When all you have is a hammer, hey, get a bigger hammer. Begoon ^talk 17:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The only thing that discretionary sanctions do is give more power and discretion to administrators, ability to topic ban, and prevent their actions from being reversed. The topic bans can be issued sparingly by the community. Admins can already block disruptive editors and given the psychological effect of topic bans, I'd prefer that they be given only in community consensus. Admins already have the tools to deal with the disruption in the topic area. If admins can't block disruptive editors without discretionary sanctions, what's the point in the first place? Tutelary (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose strongly From going through the endless discussion it appears to me that there are corporate interests editing the various e-sig pages, paid employees of companies attempting to subvert Wikipedia's WP:NPV guidelines strictly for financial reasons. Imposing sanctions against legitimate editors who are attempting to curb what looks to me to be industry-paid editors are doing to various e-sig articles would be caving in to corporate interests who are pushing their money-driven agenda, and violating a serious Wikipedia guideline. Damotclese (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I restored this accidentally deleted comment which was originally posted by User:Damotclese. I deleted the archived discussion since it was unarchived. QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Per Robert McClenon. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• To those who oppose can you lay out the downsides of allowing admins more flexibility? While there has been at least one paid editing issue there are NPOV issues on both sides, competence issues on both sides, IDHT, WP:CAUTIOUS and WP:DONTLIKEIT issues on both sides. Stopping some editors from making the page incomprehensible, repetitive and biased in either direction could allow the page to be balanced and the writing improved by those editors who can do so.

Corporate interest in e-cigs isn't one sided. Traditional NRT companies have put out some shockingly bad science anti-ecig just as much as e-cig companies have spun pro-ecig results from dubious data. If I were the dictator of wikipedia I would burn all the articles to the ground and put two editors and an admin in a locked sandbox (for preference probably Doc James, KDP and S Marshall) and have them start again from the ground up. SPACKlick (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doing my rounds on huggle when I came across an edit to User:Doruk Babalık which redirected it to User:Sapiocrat. I am not sure if this is a legitimate alternative account, one of the most blatantly obvious sock accounts I have ever seen or something else entirely. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be deleted under CSD U2 because User:Doruk Babalık doesn't exist. Epic Genius (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what any of those words mean, but my Wikipedia signature links my name to User:Sapiocrat, and displays my name. Another user tried to link to my name in response, and used my displayed name, which did not resolve to User:Sapiocrat, so I added a redirect. If this was not okay, feel free to remove it. I would appreciate some advice on how to correctly form my wikipedia signature though, so that every user who wishes to link to me can do so easily. Doruk Babalık 14:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it's simply an alternative name for your account? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sapiocrat, it may be better if you just created an alternate account named User:Doruk Babalık. Epic Genius (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Genius Okay, thank you. Still getting the hang of all this. Apologies. Should I do so after the page User:Doruk Babalık gets deleted? I gather I won't get mentions of notifications that way though. I'll just change my signature. Doruk Babalık 14:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove the CSD request now, if you can create the account. Epic Genius (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, let it get deleted. Just changed my signature to display only my nickname. Sorry for all this trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapiocrat (talk • contribs) 15:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it WP:G7 and WP:U2 based on the above statement. -- GB fan 15:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User talk:Sapiocrat- just to let you know (sorry if you knew already) but under your 'preferences' page, you can change your signature with Wiki-markup whilst keeping your original username- so you can still have both if you want? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to report this. Shivanshsinghrajpoot (talk · contribs) has been disrupting articles on Indian rail (mostly by adding unsourced material in all caps, see here and here for examples), despite being told not to by Widr, Mjroots and Anthony Bradbury. The user has also made zero talkpage edits as well, although English is apparently not their native language. The user's edits, while likely done in good faith, are highly disruptive and are a chore to clean up after. It would be appreciated if someone could take a look at this user, and help sort things out. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 14:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said on my talk page, this is looking like a competence issue. I'd like to try and work with this editor as Indian railway stations are a valid topic, but if he ain't going to co-operate then there's not much we can do other than an indef block. Mjroots (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the account was blocked by Anthony Bradbury. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 00:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Block was based on a misunderstanding and has been lifted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please take a look at this block of mine (of User:Magog the Ogre) for personal attacks (see User talk:Magog the Ogre#Comment at AE. I've revision deleted the attack as it seemed quite egregious (so admins only sorry, [57]). The main reason I'm asking for a review is that it's a long term user and I want to make sure others agree on the seriousness (including if someone thinks it might have been a good faith joke/metaphor etc.). If there is agreement that either the block or revdel isn't appropriate please feel free to lift/remove. (I might not be available for a few hours, but I'll try to check in). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I was equally aghast when I first saw the comment in question. The circumstances (long-term user and admin, clean block log) seem to favor a redact + warning, but the (IMO) comment itself is severely insidious enough that my own kneejerk reaction would'e also been RevDel + block. Unless it's a really shitty metaphor that went waaaay over my head, I think the block is absolutely appropriate, and so will be the unblock-request-with-apologies I'm hoping we'll be able to accept soon. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per Fut.Perf's enlightening comment, I did indeed miss the reference entirely -- I wasn't familiar with this apparently common analogy for a loaded question. I still think it's kind of a shitty way to make one's point, but y'know, to each their own arguments. Apologies to Magog for jumping to conclusions but I'm actually glad to be wrong in this case. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? What's the problem here? The "have you stopped beating your wife yet" part? People, come oooon. That's not "a really shitty metaphor"; it's obviously the well-known standard example of a loaded question, clearly being used rhetorically/sarcastically. It is plainly obvious that Magog wasn't literally accusing Zero of beating his wife; he was merely charging him with using implicit presuppositions in a misleading way in his own statement. Come on, people, everybody can see this. I've seen this precise sentence used dozens and dozens of times used in exactly this rhetorical way in Wikipedian discussions for just this purpose [58]. Completely harmless statement; very bad block. Please unblock immediately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you FPAS for confirming the content of rev-deleted diff, we have also got a redirect called, Do you still beat your wife. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks Future Prefect, I've unblocked, never heard it used like that before. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among native English speakers, that's pretty much the only way it's used, nowadays at least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from the guy who may or may not have finished beating his wife: Future Perfect is correct about the meaning of the expression and I understood it that way. I thought that Magog's reply was unnecessarily rude, but I can take some rudeness and would have argued against the block if I'd seen it before it was undone. I might hold the record for surviving in the Middle East part of Wikipedia (over 13 years, almost 11 as admin), from which you can infer that I don't have a thin skin.Zero^talk 09:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that at least three, and possibly four, pieces of the logo are missing, including on this very page. I haven't been able to identify the culprits, but must insist that they be community banned (if they aren't too good of content contributors to ban, of course). Any help or advice with this matter would be appreciated. It makes the site look bad to be unable to recover the missing pieces. Pakaran 10:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have them. I borrowed them a while back and forgot to return them. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty bold to confess that here, Skame. That's like wearing red and standing in front of the bull wiggling your bottom. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oh, I fully intend on returning them as soon as I find out where the cat has hidden them. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: This is such a stupid editing dispute one would think this was an April Fools prank. I am a long-time anonymous editor who has recently created this account due to a new work situation. Recently, I made what seems to be the egregious mistake (in John's eyes) of copy-editing the Marquette, Michigan article to remove a particularly ludicrous statement ("Summers are warm, with the warmest months, July and August, each averaging 66.6 °F" - 66.6F being in no way what the average person would consider "warm"). John responded with a blind reversion and subsequent inappropriate templating (note that my edit, changing "warm" to "warmer", was correcting unsourced information, and given that the preceding paragraph details the winter climate, saying "warmER" can probably slide without a citation without running too far afoul of WP:SYNTH). I undid his reversion, and left a curtly worded talk message of my own. He then jumped to a Warning: Edit Warring twinkle-spam. His most recent contribution to my Talk page (after re-reverting my edit, this time under the auspices of bad grammar) is bordering on the incoherent. Frankly, at this point I'm at a loss for what to do, as he is clearly not even reading the article - I suspect all he sees is "red userpage newbie", and I am in no state to work with him on this increasingly-idiotic dispute. If the residents of AN/I deem "66.6F" to be "warm", then so be it. Otherwise, can someone please tell him to back off, and refrain from gunking up my Talk page with inappropriate nonsense templates? Thanks, Darla Vise-Eye (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me, Darla Vise-Eye, that this is a routine content dispute unworthy of any administrative action. As for your assertion that it is "ludricrous" to call an average temperature of 66.6 °F as "warm", I have to disagree with you. If that's the average, it will be a bit hotter during the day and a bit cooler at night. That's not hot weather and that's not cold weather, so "warm" seems just right to me. So why call it "ludricous"? Or is this an April Fool's joke? If so, it isn't very funny. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, if you are not a newbie, bite does not apply. you have made no effort at discussion, and your initial message to me was a personal attack, not the first from the look of your talk page. this is not the place for a content dispute, but substituting warmer is poor grammar. summer is warmer than winter by definition. and as Cullen pointed out, yes average temps in the 60s is quite warm. I'm more than happy to stay off your talk page as long as you don't continue to make poor edits on articles I follow. if you do, I will template you. and if you continue with all the snark you've been spewing, I'm pretty sure you'll find your way back here again. it's worth noting that the OP only has one edit so far that was not reverted. John from Idegon (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it's worth noting that the OP only has one edit so far that was not reverted. - It's worth noting that User:John from Idegon can't tell the difference between the "current" tag and a revert. The only edit of mine that has been reverted is the one detailed above. Furthermore: Go fuck yourself, John. Someone please ban me indef - I can put up with people like John making mistakes (the very fact that he's reverted me for three completely different reasons shows he's taking a shotgun approach to an article he WP:OWNs), and I can put up with people like John being snarky, but I can't deal with both. Now I'm remembering why my own edits tapered off - no surprise Wikipedia's editing traffic has been on the decline for months, what a toxic, insufferable culture. Of course all my edits have been reverted, John - you're the one who reverted them. And lmao, 66F is not at all warm. The year-round average temperature of the entire planet, including barely-inhabited shitholes like Antarctica and Greenland, is 58F. Considering the places actually inhabited by humanity, 66F is not a warm summertime temperature by any means, you brain-addled cretin. This isn't at all about content - this is about editors like John creating an absolutely frustrating and insufferably toxic editing culture because they'd rather spam a random Twinkle template than actually discuss whatever their issue is. Darla Vise-Eye (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Darla Vise-Eye's self-proposed indef ban, per WP:NOTHERE and WP:NPA. This is ridiculous. For what it's worth, ASHRAE defines acceptable indoor temperatures as 68-74°F winter, 73-79°F summer ([68]). Ivanvector (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• When I was young, the lady next door called 60ºF "tee-shirt weather", and it wasn't just because of her personal preference: everyone started wearing light clothing. We all have our own ideas of how different temperatures feel... but that's all a matter of a content dispute. This is a clear WP:BOOMERANG situation; thread should be closed, OP should be warned or temporarily blocked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Mendaliv, that's because you lived in a cold climate and were acclimated to it. In a tropical environment like Hawaii, you become acclimated to the heat. As a result, 60ºF is heavy parka, gloves, wool hat, and scarf weather for us. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]